Adding Extension For Context

Venice: trekearth.com

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

The author's example (125).

Mayflower passengers (Class A).

Founders of Plymouth (Class B).

These are two very different defining concepts. (125). However, every one of the members of Class A was also a member of Class B. (125).

The two classes are mutually inclusive as they have the same membership. (125).

Langer states that Class A and Class B differ in intensions, but they are identical by their extensions. (125). The extension of Class A is the extension of Class B. The two classes, A and B, define the same class. (125).

Intension is the pure meaning. (125).

Extension is the exemplifications of concepts. (125).

Extension allows the reader to observe how classes relate to each other, in common membership. (125-126). If one is left with intension as concept for class alone, it becomes very difficult to systematize such concepts. (126). Without an extension for context, one would see no common connection between Class A and Class B in Langer's example.

Quote

(a) : (a ε B) ⊃ (a ε A) and A includes B and B includes A. (127).

:  (Equal (s) )
ε  (Epsilon and means is)
⊃ (Is the same as)
⊨  (Entails)

Class A equals Class A is Class B and is the same as Class A is Class A and includes Class B and Class B includes Class A.

a ⊃ b (Class a is the same as Class b)

a ⊨ b (Class a entails Class b).

Simply put by Langer.

A=B (127).

a ⊃ b : a ⊨ b : a = b : a ε b

Class A is the same as Class B equals Class A entails Class B equals Class A equals Class B equals Class A is Class B.

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

Reddit: Interesting theory

Useless & Disposable?

Today

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

Irrelevant Humour

'The fallacy of irrelevant humour is committed when jocular material irrelevant to the subject under review is introduced in order to divert attention away from the argument.' (234).

Quote:

'My opponent's position reminds me of a story...' (234).

The author notes that this will have nothing to do with the argument. (234).

Humour is used to direct an audience away from the actual argument being discussed. (234).

For example, the state is placing a person on trial for taking a religious stance, perceived against the best interests of the government and its citizens.

The prosecutor spends significant time with humour, at the expense of the defendant, mocking the religious practices of the person on trial. This is an attempt to persuade the crowd to view the person on trial as a religious weirdo, an extremist, with a worldview not in agreement with the state and its citizens. A religion, supposedly, not in agreement with the law of the land.

Therefore, the defendant on trial, through humour, is portrayed as useless and disposable, as is the religion and its followers. This is separate and apart from the evidence the state presents in the court case.

Pirie explains that heckling is an effective form of this fallacy. (235). If a crowd supports the humour and distracting intent of the heckler this largely eliminates a more serious intellectual level of argument. In my example, the prosecutor could emotionally move the crowd and be further aided by a heckler. A heckler could even potentially be a 'plant' of the state.

This approach avoids a serious intellectual, theological and philosophical discussion in regard to the validity of the defendant's religious worldview and if these religious views are actually opposed to the best interests of the state and its citizens. Do these religious views actually oppose the law of the land?

Irrelevant Humour, is a fallacy of intellectual avoidance. Uncomfortable arguments can be avoided by fallaciously using humour to dismiss the other side as useless and disposable.

Yesterday

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

Hebrews 6: Very non-exhaustive

Cleaning up archives, I found this Facebook Graffiti attempt at art from 2009

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Admittedly, a very complex subject, with varying interpretations over the centuries, but Hughes summarizes Hebrews 6.

This was my Hebrews commentary text at Columbia Bible College.

Hughes explains in regard to Hebrews 6:

It is a irremediable (no remedy) state for those persons, who have publicly confessed a Christian faith, in baptism and then in the future reject the gospel. (221). This expressed in verses 4-6, in particular. (221). These people have renounced their baptism and the gospel. These are not genuine branches of Jesus Christ. (221). In other words, these people never were regenerated Christian believers.

Those truly redeemed through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, will not fall away into apostasy. (221).

Hughes opines that being enlightened (v4) may be a connection to Christian baptism. The idea of having 'tasted the heavenly gift' is a description of the eucharist. (208). 'Enlightenment' may be interpreted as the equivalent of catechetical instruction. (208). But these are not universal interpretations, admits Hughes. (208). Despite, these spiritual interactions with the biblical, triune, God, Hughes reasons that the apostasy is real and not hypothetical. (212).

I reason this is likely an accurate interpretation as those in Jesus Christ may, at certain points not be in a proper state of repentance, but this never leads to a public or private apostasy. The impossibility of repentance here according to Hughes, is absolutely real in this context. (213).

Hughes, is correct in stating that God's work, through the Holy Spirit, cannot and will not fail in achieving salvific purpose. (221). The mystery of divine election is that Jesus Christ will never have died in vain for anyone. (221). This view is in agreement with Reformed theology.

Those who reject Jesus Christ after partaking in the gospel, reject the crucifixion of Christ in atonement and his resurrection. These people are within the ranks of those that crucified Jesus Christ. (221).

Interestingly:

1 Corinthians 3: 14-15 New American Standard Bible

14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

These verses are often interpreted in context as being in regard to believers and in particular Church leaders. Fee states that there are biblical warnings 'against those who would take the church lightly and and destroy it by worldly wisdom and division.' (146).

Hebrew 6: 7-8

7 For ground that drinks the rain which often [e]falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close [f]to being cursed, and [g]it ends up being burned.

This is often interpreted as being non-believing, apostates, as noted from Hughes' view.

katakahsetai  (1 Corinthians 3: 14: Marshall 489)

This is defined as ‘will be consumed’. This is burned up work that is considered loss.

kausin ( Hebrews 6: 8: Marshall 649)

This is defined as ‘burning’. The end of those being judged as apostates.

Apostates are figuratively burned waste according to Hughes. (223). If indeed, the 1 Corinthians section is in regard to Christians/Church leaders and the Hebrews section is in regard to apostates, in can be concluded that useless work is useless work, whether from believers or non-believers. 

For balance, I should state that from the similarities of the verses, it is also plausible that the same group of persons in being discussed, that being non-repentant, believers. But, in agreement with Hughes, this is a problematic interpretation. To be clear, I do not reason that anyone that publicly denies the gospel is a true Christian believer. For a believer, to not always be completely repentant of sin is biblically possible and theologically tenable. Apostasy is in non-belief. Non-belief places a person outside of the Kingdom of God.

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1981) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. 

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic. 

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.

FEE, GORDON (1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

In Defence of the Defence

Foto Blur: Barcelona

UWTSD, (2009), PhD Viva for Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010).

As noted earlier in this PhD Viva series, my tutors placed much emphasis on empirical and practical theology. This was done for the sake of thesis originality. I agreed on the originality point.

I also agreed that problem of evil and theodicy work needed practical theology, associated. However, I reasoned the thesis needed more philosophy of religion and philosophical theology material within the pre-Viva version, than I was advised to include.

As it turned out, the external and interviewer reviewers requested more work in regard to philosophy of religion and Reformed theology. Practical and Empirical theology was largely downplayed within the Viva review.

I had provided a very significant amount of work and citations from John S. Feinberg, John Calvin and from others within Reformed theology, but the external reviewer had one writer in particular, he suggested I use in final revisions, in regard to Reformed methodology. This suggested theologian was John R. Franke.

I complied. This was In Defence of the Defence and required eight months additional work.

Below are some related Doctoral excerpts.

PhD thesis

Concerning objectivity, within this thesis my Reformed perspective shall not be spared from an objective evaluation and critique as a result of empirical findings. Again, this is not to indicate, in any way, that I wish to avoid intellectual challenges to Reformed theology as concepts from both conservative and liberal perspectives shall be reviewed and examined within this work.

John R. Franke (2005) provides, within The Character of Theology, a recent academic method of examining and explaining Christian and Reformed theology which are reasoned to exist, in part through Biblical revelation. Franke (2005: 8-10). This approach by Franke and others is an appropriate precursor to a discussion of Feinberg’s Reformed sovereignty approach.

Franke mentions that some evangelicals will have difficulties with his approach that takes a non-traditional look at theology and not only a traditional Biblical approach. He reasons that what is Biblical should not just be assumed and should be a subject of intellectual scrutiny, and on this point I fully agree. Franke (2005: 8-10).

I consider myself primarily Reformed as opposed to primarily evangelical. Many evangelicals will struggle with the compatibilism accepted within my PhD thesis.

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.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.