Follow by Email

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Another Kind of Mutual Indwelling

When we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into his life, death, resurrection and ascension to the Father’s right hand. In Christ, we are robed in God’s righteousness (Philippians 3:9) and accepted in the beloved (Ephesians 1:6). There is, however, a mutual indwelling between the Son of God and those who are adopted in him; for we are not only in Christ but He resides in us. By our being in Him, we are seen as righteous in the Father’s sight, for he sees the righteousness of his only begotten Son, who is our righteousness. With Christ in us, we are enabled to walk in good works, for which we have been ordained (Ephesians 2:10). The mutual indwelling occurs at the same moment. For there is nobody in Christ who is not indwelt by His Spirit, and there is nobody indwelt by Christ’s Spirit who is not, also, in Christ. Being in union with Christ entails a mutual indwelling, which is the grounds for our forgiveness and Christian life.


Counter since: 9/6/2006

Free Website Counter

Hit Counters


Anonymous said...

Hello Ron,
I just recently found your blog and I really appreciate it. I am looking forward to reading your TAG argument and defense of Theonomics.

A Question/Comment:

In reading some of your past entries I came across "The Impropriety of Trying to Prove..."

I'm not sure I understand completely your conclusion. It seems that you are saying that TAG commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy?

From my understanding, this fallacy does not operate under the same conditions that non-theist systems operate under.

The Christian does not presuppose the ultimacy of Chance and therefore the argumentum ad ignorantiam (AI) is very limited in its scope. Presupposing the Christian worldview relieves one from the burden of always committing an AI on any conclusion (which all non-believing worldviews create, by Christian presupposition of course). One can thus only charge the Christian of AI in his premise-conclusion by presupposing its falsity. So naturally we come to the conclusion that Van Til et al had been asserting all along; that one must presuppose the Christian worldview. In this, there is no inductive problem from said premise 2 of your post unless one has already presupposed the falsity of the entire argument; however in doing so one cannot prove the falsity of anything because they commit the AI.

However, I may have misunderstood your post.

Mr. Anonymous.

Ronald W. Di Giacomo said...

I'm glad you enjoy the blog. Thank you very much.

The argument that something must be true simply because it hasn't been proved to be false, or vice versa, commits the fallacy of ignorance. TAG does not commit this fallacy. I didn't mean to communicate that TAG is fallacious. TAG is sound in and of itself. My contention was with the impropriety of trying to prove step-2 by inductive inference. First off, induction cannot prove an abolute truth. Secondly, the conclusion of the subsidiary, inductive argument for step-2 is self-refuting for it presupposes what it denies in its conclusion. In other words, the inductive "proof" aimed at establishing step 2 of the TAG argument I put forth presupposes God's actual existence whereas the conclusion of the inductive argument is that God probably exists. The probability of God existing cannot justify induction and, therefore, the subsidiary argument, nor can it justify deduction and, therefore, TAG. The point of that post was not so much to vindicate TAG but to show the wrongheadedness of trying to prove step two by inductive inference.

By refuting competitive worldviews one by one, the veracity of the Christian worldview is demonstrated, not proved. The Christian worldview can be proved true by TAG.