General canons, but not Bible

Peter Twele: Facebook

Neymar would be the player that is rolling and rolling...

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

Continuing with the review of this text and my learning more symbolic logic.

Philosopher Langer, explains that symbolic logic contains certain principles of logical reasoning. (210). Although her teaching has its complexities, the reader should take comfort that principles of logical reasoning are also contained within the academic disciplines of philosophy, philosophy of religion and theology. If these disciplines are done correctly!

In symbolic logic, the method by which all propositions in a system are produced rests on 'general canons of logic procedure'. (210) These are 'universally known, though seldom explicitly stated'. (210). This lack of the explicit contributes to the complexity and philosophical challenge of symbolic logic.

Principles

Principle of substitution

It is assumed that whenever two terms are identical, and are the names for the same element, either symbol may be used in the place of the other. (210). Langer explains that if a = b then a x c could also be written as b x c (210), as example.

Principle of application

This is the assumption that a statement about to any element applies to each element. (210). Therefore quote:

'(a, b) . a + b = b + a' (210)

If this is true of r and m then r + m = m + r

Principle of inference

It has been recognized in academic literature (in regard to symbolic logic, my add), that if a proposition many be granted (known as true), if another proposition us implied, that second proposition may also be accepted and asserted. (210-211). Langer's explanation below. Since the first propositions means the same as (⊃) the second proposition, both can be logically asserted within symbolic logic.

page 211

Key symbols ≡df = Equivalence by definition : = Equal (s) ε = Epsilon and means is ⊃ = Is the same as ⊨ is Entails ˜ = Not ∃ = There exists ∃! = There exists ∴ = Therefore . = Therefore < = Is included v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives). x = variable = Conjunction meaning And 0 = Null class cls = Class int = Interpretation

Briefly John 8 31-36: What kind of free?

East Maple Ridge

John 8:31-36

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

I recently listened to short July 4 sermon from the United States of America, where Pastor Jon Courson, that is a fine exegete, implies (paraphrased) that the concept of 'free' in John 8 means that America has liberty and political freedom because it is significantly Christian.

Let us briefly exegete John 8 in regard to being 'free':

From Strong...

1658 ἐλεύθερος 1659 ἐλευθερόω

Please see iPhone images:

8: 32 which is 1659: To liberate, deliver, make free. (34). So, knowing the truth will liberate someone giving them freedom.

8: 33 which is from 1658: Strong defines 1658 as unrestrained (as a citizen, as an example), not a slave, free within liberty. (34)

8: 36: Knowing the Son of God, Jesus Christ, will make you truly free (1659), and this person shall be free (1658) indeed. The person has liberty and freedom within the truth, and is unrestrained and not a slave.

Bauer documents that ἐλεύθερος is in regard to '1. of political and social freedom' (250), and references John 8: 33 noting that this will be the opposite of slavery with this section (1). This definition is in agreement with Strong.

In regards to ἐλευθερόω: Bauer documents that 8: 32 is in regard to moral matters. (251). Again a consistency with the work of Strong.

Courson in his commentary, explains that (paraphrased) the Pharisees were blind as they could not admit that they lacked political freedom under the occupation of the Roman Empire in 8: 33. (509).

But the core problem was still Pharisees rejection of Jesus Christ (the gospel message, his deity and work, my add). (509). Ellis takes the view that the Jews were not denying historical facts, but were stating that in each historical situation they had aspects of freedom. (1247). Importantly, it was the Pharisees that brought the concept of political freedom into the discussion with Jesus Christ.

Jesus does acknowledge, seemingly this political freedom, although secondarily in importance in verse 36.
---

34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

The primary context is spiritual in John 8. We can reason this as sin is primary thing documented against freedom (34-36), and in the gospel context the atoning and resurrection of God the Son, Jesus Christ in conjunction with the Trinity is the remedy to sin.

Pastor Courson is correct, I would reason as secondary context that this includes political freedom and liberty. Again, supported by Greek scholars Strong and Bauer.

Theologically, although I agree with the Lord Jesus Christ that spiritual freedom should lead to political freedom, clearly it is not the case with every 'free' in Christ, Christian believer. For example, there are Christians in orthodox and radical Islamic countries that have state and society limited freedoms. However, in the culminated Kingdom of God, spiritual freedom will lead to political freedom as the government and its citizens under God the Son and the Triune God, will live this out.

Pastor Courson made the classic claim (paraphrased) on his July 4, 2018 sermon that the United States of America is the freest nation on earth because it is Christian. Acknowledging his correctness from John 8 in a secondary context, there would still be a very significant intellectual, philosophical and political debate on which Western nation actually is the most free! There is no obvious answer in my view.

The massive size of the United States government, civilian and military and its power to oversee all citizens is at least one philosophical premise that can provide substantial doubt on Pastor Courson's claim, at least in some contexts.

A premise is support of his view is the large size of the Christian Church and Christian publishing, in the United States of America.

page 498

page 34

page 42

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

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

ELLIS, DAVID J. (1986) 'John' in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

Incontinence (philosophy, akrasia and Romans 1)

Today

Blackburn explains the philosophical concept of incontinence which is known as, from the Greek as akrasia, is described as the weakness of the will where a person knows what to do, but does something else. (10).

Although I reason that a person, that is not under significant force or coercion from another cause, to do otherwise, will, via human nature, follow his/her greatest desire via the use of the human will; I can also acknowledge that a person can have a significant, reasonable understanding of what is ethically (external) and moral (internal) right and yet do otherwise. This is as philosophy in basic agreement with the theology of Romans 1:

New American Standard Bible

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [o]crawling creatures.

I can acknowledge that philosophical incontinence (akrasia) is a reasonable and true concept.

Last week

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

I was ripped-off unintentionally?/Ethical objectivism

I thought I was buying this 'looks like' Near Mint book from the Excited States of Americana, for a Very Fine price, but that hole cuts it down to a near worthless, for a collector, Good or Fair. I have asked the Amazon seller for a replacement. Time will tell. My deduction, in faith, is I was ripped-off unintentionally. I also paid $12 for duty to import this book into the Socialist Paradise of Canada. On the bright side I received four good quality books from Rip-off Britain today as well. A fine eBay seller, mate. I was not ripped-off in that case.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Ethical objectivism

British philosopher, Blackburn explains this view claims ethics are objectively true. (126). These claims are not relative or subject to any human culture. (126). These are not purely subjective in nature. (126).

I agree with Blackburn that objective ethics can be true and that they are not purely subjective, but I reason there is subjective aspects in interpretation. Biblical ethics, developing within progressive revelation in textual context, I reason are objectively true, not subject to the stamp of approval of humanity or human culture. They are also interpreted subjectively to some extent.

Further, connecting my two topics. I reason ethically and objectivity I have been sold a less than good book for what I purchased it as. Again, in faith I will state, unintentionally. I also review each page when I order texts from eBay and Amazon.