It is not my business

It is not my business 

My walk home (2017), Lunapic Vincent van Gogh version

University of Wales, Trinity Saint David (2009), PhD Viva for Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010).

Paraphrased:

External Reviewer: 'What do you have to say to those people that are suffering under the problem of evil, and yet do not believe in Jesus Christ and are not are chosen by God under your Reformed system?'

Me: 'As a human being that suffers under the problem of evil, I can relate to human suffering. But, it is not my business which person God chooses in Jesus Christ, and which person God does not, in regard to everlasting life. (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 1-10)'.'That is between the person and God.' 

---

Now of course, as a biblical Christian, I do witness and evangelize, but my Viva point stands.  

From PhD text 

Within Reformed theology, regeneration is viewed as an initial one time act of the Holy Spirit in a person,[1] and a person is therefore understood to be converted and therefore able to freely believe.[2] My view is that it is indeed God’s choice alone to regenerate and therefore he alone is active in regeneration,[3] but simultaneously as a person is regenerated they believe in Christ. Therefore although I view God as the initiator of regeneration I reason that logically, in order to avoid any suggestion of force or coercion,[4] as God regenerates the saved person, he or she simultaneously believes.[5] There is ‘no compulsion of the will in regeneration.’ states Shedd.[6] Calvin reasons that a person is not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel.[7] I would view conversion as taking place simultaneously with regeneration in a person, although again I state that God alone via the Holy Spirit causes the regeneration process.[8] This means as God chooses to regenerate a person he simultaneously persuades one to freely believe.[9] Murray states that regeneration is logically antecedent to any conscious response,[10] and I reason that God’s choice to commit the act of regeneration must be antecedent due to the corrupt and sinful nature of persons.[11]  The work of salvation was confined to God’s part in the calling.[12] This does not prohibit God from causing a compatibilistic human choice within conversion at the moment that God’s initial eternal choice to regenerate[13] becomes a divine act of regeneration.[14] As persons were regenerated they would hear the call of salvation, repent and believe in Christ.[15] I would view conversion as an aspect of regeneration, which is the beginning of the Christian experience.[16] Regeneration was to encompass the entire divine plan of recreation from the initial change in persons to the ultimate culmination of a new heaven and new earth.[17]

 ________________________________________

[1] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172). Erickson (1994: 249).

[2] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172). 

[3] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172). I agree with Murray on this point.

[4] Compatibilism allows for limited but significant human freedom. Kierkegaard suggests that Christianity is a religion of freedom and Christians are convinced to voluntarily give up all contrary to Christ. Kierkegaard (1847-1848)(1955)(1966: 186). The term convinced is a good one and I reason this is a work of the Holy Spirit.

[5] This is my compatibilist theory which is in line with that of Feinberg and which will be discussed later in this Chapter.

[6] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 136-137 Volume 2). 

[7] Calvin (1543)(1996: 68). 

[8] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).

[9] This allows for a limited but significant human freedom within the salvation process that is not incompatibilism. Salvation remains alone a work of God. Weber writes that God with his freedom effects both human freedom and human bondage as he reaches out to a saved person through the Word of God.  Weber (1955)(1981: 245). This would be a work of the Spirit.

[10] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).

[11] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 168-169).

[12] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

[13] As God is eternal this choice could be viewed as such. Humans of course are not eternal.

[14] Persons have via the Holy Spirit been molded and transformed in order to freely believe. Thiessen, an incompatibilist, states that in regeneration the human is passive and is active in conversion. Thiessen (1956: 367).  I agree concerning regeneration, and I can agree in regard to conversion, only if by active the human being is convinced freely via the Holy Spirit and is not assumed to have incompatibilist free will.

[15] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

[16] Franke notes that the Scripture explains that the Holy Spirit continued to guide the earliest Christians.  Franke (2005: 132). The Spirit continues to work in regenerated/converted believers that embrace the gospel.

[17] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

---

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?  Grand Rapids, Zondervan.  

FRANCE, R.T. (2001) Matthew, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. 

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847-1848)(1955)(1966)  On Authority and Revelation, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, Incorporated. 

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1848-1849)(1961)  Christian Discourses & The Lilies of the Field and The Birds of the Air & Three Discourses at The Communion on Fridays, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Oxford University Press.  

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2:  Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

MURRAY, RUSSELL NORMAN (2003) The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives, Bangor, The University of Bangor, Wales. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,  Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.  

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,  Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.   

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

In Three Minutes: No Commentaries Needed?

@fineartamerica Twitter.

Erickson is useful here. The Bible in context and other good sources need to be used. In other words, commentaries and tools are required for contextual understanding and modern, reasonable interpretations. A key concept presented is not to review biblical texts in isolation! This is a significant danger with bible studies that do not use tools.

Imagine sermons prepared without the use of tools. A ridiculous guessing game at many points by the preacher.

Baptist, Millard J. Erickson (1994) comments that doctrines need not be maintained precisely with the same form of expression that they were in Biblical times. Erickson (1994: 37). Erickson also points out that not all other sources of knowledge and truth need to be excluded from Christian teaching. Erickson’s point that God’s word, although an unchanging message must be interpreted for each era. Erickson (1994: 37).  

This in no way allows for an overhaul of major, traditional Christian doctrines from traditional and Reformed perspectives, but with the use of practical and empirical approaches there would be opportunities to understand Christian theology in modern terms. He explains that systematic theology draws upon the entire Bible and does not exegete texts in isolation. Erickson (1994: 21). It attempts to analyze and understand Scriptural teachings in a harmonized way. 

Erickson makes it clear that Biblical doctrines may not necessarily be maintained precisely with the same form of expression as they were in Biblical times, and notes philosophical truth can be found from other sources. Erickson (1994: 37). Biblical doctrines do not theologically change, but how they are expressed in a cultural context, may.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

Ignoratio elenchi: Arguing the wrong thing

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Ignoratio elenchi

An ancient fallacy identified by Aristotle. (128). When one attempts to argue something, but instead succeeds in arguing something else. (128).

Philosophy Lander

Cited

'Ignoratio elenchi is a name used for arguments whose premisses (premises, my correction) have no direct relation on the claim at issue. In this sense of the term, almost any fallacy could be considered an instance of ignoratio elenchi .

In general, the ignoratio elenchi occurs when an argument purporting to establish a specific conclusion is directed, instead, to proving a different conclusion. This version is often termed the red herring fallacy—an irrelevant subject is interjected into the conversation to divert attention away from the main issue.'
---

Example of the Ignoratio elenchi fallacy:

The thesis that one attempts to prove via argument becomes not relevant. (128). It is a fallacy of irrelevant thesis. (128).

My example of this fallacy:

Premise 1: Montreal is a very European city, by Canadian standards.

Premise 2: Montreal has significant sport, art and culture.

Conclusion: The National Hockey League should bring back the Montreal Maroons franchise.

The premises are being used fallaciously. These would better work within an argument for Montreal as a tourist destination.

To support the return of the Montreal Maroons, reasonable premises would be such that Montreal is a large hockey market, a large television market, a traditional hockey market, a market that already has a billion dollar club present and can support another.

Hypothetically:

Montreal has a new suitable arena being build (not the case at present and so this lack is a premise against).
---

The arguer wants to demonstrate that although a man in question may have done one thing, he did not do another. (129).

Pirie provides the example (paraphrased): 'Well, John, that is not the point is it? What we have done is to...'(130).

The first point from John will be negated, while the point of the arguer will be pursued.

'Well, John, the point is not that Jesus Christ is second person of the Trinity and his atoning work and resurrection, the point is that many people in this secularized, scientific Western world today, do not have any concern for Christianity or religion!'

But in reality, the primary point that John is making is that the work of Christ is God's Biblical answer to and for any everlasting life for humanity. The existence of secular thinking and science does not disprove Biblical theology. Science is a different academic discipline than is Religious Studies and different data is used to create premises and conclusions. In attempts to find truth.

The arguer does not like John's premises because they will lead to a conclusion the arguer disagrees with and so he attempts to twist John's argumentation into a more favourable conclusion.

LinkedIn

What is true for nothing is false for anything

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Universe class

'Suppose in a given universe of discourse, we form a class A such that "x ε A" holds for all values of x, i.e. such that  (x) : x ε A." (123).

This means x is equal to A.

ε is epsilon from the Greek alphabet meaning is, a. The ε symbol, according to Langer is specifically meant as a symbol for is, a, in contrast with any symbol for is.

Langer, noting earlier in her text, mentions 'nt' which is documented as houses north of. (123).

nt = north of

˜ = not

(x) : ˜ (x nt x) (123).

x is not north of x.

(v): ˜ (v nt v)

Vancouver is not north of Vancouver. Something is not north of itself.

Langer states this is a universe class. (123). Any statement about everything concerns a universe class. (123). Every statement about nothing is also a universe class. (124). Langer writes that what is 'true for nothing is false for anything.' (124).

My example:

It is not true that the finite is infinite.

It is false that anything finite is infinite.