tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post772595717201948360..comments2023-04-14T04:28:54.000-04:00Comments on Reformed Apologist: Deduction, Induction, TAG and CertaintyReformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-16705514070866438782016-01-18T22:28:23.078-05:002016-01-18T22:28:23.078-05:00sure thing but I'd need to create a gmail acco...sure thing but I'd need to create a gmail account. Phone works too for me. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-44934899230461721292016-01-18T18:44:45.199-05:002016-01-18T18:44:45.199-05:00Alright, it makes sense that one would only need a...Alright, it makes sense that one would only need actual revelation. My point was someone could arbitrarily apply it.Someone could just say " I have received revelation from my God which is the precondition of intelligibility ". So, I mention all the things this being must have and do ( omniscience or providence). Which they arbitrarily apply all those qualities to their god ( via arbitrary voice in one's head or by some means of private revelation )<br /><br />Would you be able to come on a Google Hangout?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-55633418218047167052016-01-11T17:18:54.138-05:002016-01-11T17:18:54.138-05:00Oh, my misunderstanding. It's revelation that&...Oh, my misunderstanding. It's revelation that's necessary. But would you come on a Google hangout sometime? I was just talking about TAG and someone attributed all the things needed (ex. fruitful connections to the world, providence, etc) to these fairies. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-30326686641487431152015-12-28T18:42:01.293-05:002015-12-28T18:42:01.293-05:00Create the worldview and let's see if it accou...Create the worldview and let's see if it accounts for intelligible experience without aping C. As for MB, he actually posited contrary of your recollection. A canon without Jude is not relevantly different from C he'd say. He's my bud, so I can speak for him. :) <br />Mike rightly noted that it's merely to think counterfactually about the the corpus of Scripture. You are correct though; he referred to Jude and not James...<br /><br />I'd prefer to talk two way. Post your number. I won't publish it but I'll phone. It's easier that way and will save us lots of time..<br /><br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-15512214920565026422015-12-28T18:20:19.991-05:002015-12-28T18:20:19.991-05:00When you say that a worldview that "apes"...When you say that a worldview that "apes" the Christian worldview can provide the preconditions of I.. 1.It seems like a stretch to say "they must be aping the Christian worldview ". I mean of course things like Fristianity . But couldn't someone create a worldview to purposefully account for intelligibility?(I hope that isn't as dumb as a question as it sounds)<br />2."To ape the Christian worldview is not to offer a completing worldview "<br />Well, why not?<br />3. It seems like Dr. Michael Butler thinks it is necessary to have 66 books . Like in his article he mentions an objection about if we lost the book of Jude. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-28639907446591921562015-12-28T09:47:01.800-05:002015-12-28T09:47:01.800-05:00No other worldview can provide the preconditions w...No other worldview can provide the preconditions without aping the Christian worldview. To ape the Christian worldview is not to offer a completing worldview. 66 books is not essential. A revelatory epistemology is, which addresses your query regarding OT saints. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-13514186093761418712015-12-26T21:18:46.315-05:002015-12-26T21:18:46.315-05:00Does that mean it is possible worldviews to provid...Does that mean it is possible worldviews to provide the preconditions of intelligibility? ( I'm not Paul ) Also, why are the 66 books necessary? Wasn't Adam(Abraham,Noah,Moses) able to be rational? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-57125055423127711952015-12-23T01:42:19.278-05:002015-12-23T01:42:19.278-05:00Sorry,to disappoint you but I was quoting Paul. I&...Sorry,to disappoint you but I was quoting Paul. I'm not him. I was just wondering if the fact that there are hypothetical competitors is a problem for the " impossibility of the contrary".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-32869062982418857032015-12-04T04:59:42.601-05:002015-12-04T04:59:42.601-05:00In so much that such a worldview would have to be ...In so much that such a worldview would have to be aping Christianity, it's no threat. It must posit a revelational epistemology that discloses an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent Creator who governs providence, providing the fruitful connection between minds and the external world. He must be the ontological necessity who stands behind reality, knowledge and ethics... There are only hypothetical competitors who fit the bill. <br /><br />Email me so I know it's you. :)Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-46414042193058571892015-12-04T03:47:52.478-05:002015-12-04T03:47:52.478-05:00The mere logically possibility that another worldv...The mere logically possibility that another worldview also can provide for preconditions of knowledge does not bother me. - Paul Manata <br /><br />Do you agree?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-83707741847393542382014-06-28T23:48:16.671-04:002014-06-28T23:48:16.671-04:00P.O.K. affirms that the Bible approves of slavery ...P.O.K. affirms that the Bible approves of slavery but does not think that God approves of slavery. He apparently does not think the Bible is God's word.<br /><br />This person thinks that if God approves of something then we should see that something (whatever it is) occur in Israel and America. If we don't see it occur, then God must not approve; in which case the Bible is not God's word. Such reasoning, just like the reasoning he employs that leads him to believe that gravity should be the same on the moon, won't be much use to him on moral issues.<br /><br />I've pointed out to this person that he doesn't abide by his own strictures. Certainly he must think that God approves of perfection, yet we don't find perfection in Israel or America (or anywhere else where mankind dwells). Does this observation cause him to reject his understanding of God? Of course not; this implies that his arguments are arbitrary.<br /><br />He wants to know the difference between biblical slavery and southern slavery. He posts me nearly weekly asking this same question and also asks why we don’t find slavery in these mentioned lands if God approves of the practice. Obsessive and unreasonable is no way to go through life.<br /><br />Well, I appreciate the article from Wilkins and the quotes from R.L D. on the matter, but I'm afraid the material will not be of much use for someone who only pretends to be pursuing knowledge.<br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-80384060320151372892014-06-27T11:50:58.232-04:002014-06-27T11:50:58.232-04:00Great article by Wilkins. Lovin' this:
"...Great article by Wilkins. Lovin' this: <br /><br />"In the Hebrew republic, slavery was akin to *indentured servanthood* — the only permanent slaves were foreigners (Lev. 25:44-46) or Hebrews who voluntarily submitted themselves to a more permanent servile status (Ex. 21:5-6). But in the Greco/Roman world, the system of slavery was *pagan* from top to bottom, with the slaves having virtually no recognized rights at all. So a vast difference exists between the laws God gave to His covenant people for the regulation of slavery among themselves, and the laws God gave to His covenant people to regulate their conduct in the midst of a pagan system."<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-77174340148399735082014-06-27T11:19:31.019-04:002014-06-27T11:19:31.019-04:00From link:
When we turn to individuals and famili...From link:<br /><br />When we turn to individuals and families, the situation is very different. The abolitionists maintained that slave-owning was inherently immoral under any circumstance. But in this matter, the Christians who owned slaves in the South were on firm scriptural ground. May a Christian own slaves, even when this makes him a part of a larger pagan system which is not fully scriptural, or perhaps not scriptural at all? Provided he owns them in conformity to Christ's laws for such situations, the Bible is clear that Christians may own slaves.<br /><br /> Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed. <b>And those who have <i>believing</i> masters</b>, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things. <b>If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing...</b> (1 Tim. 6:1-4a).<br /><br />The slavery of Rome was anti-scriptural, and because of the evil of the slave trade, the larger system of slavery in the South was certainly sub-scriptural. <b>Nevertheless, the Bible prohibits us from saying that slave-owning in such contexts is sin.</b><br /><br />The Bible teaches that a man may be a faithful Christian and a slave-owner in a pagan slave system. If he owns slaves, then <b>Scripture does put a series of requirements on him, which the church of Christ may and must insist upon.</b><br /><br />But beyond those requirements, the church may not presume to legislate.<br /><br /> Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him (Eph. 6:5-9).<br /><br />Paul says something very similar elsewhere (Col. 3:22-4:1). As far as the apostle was concerned, nothing can be plainer than the fact that a Christian could simultaneously be a slave owner and a member in good standing in a Christian church.Bible and Slaverynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-75786482398125463682014-06-27T11:05:58.751-04:002014-06-27T11:05:58.751-04:00http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/so...http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htmBible and Slaverynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-4916028307050583002014-05-06T07:23:25.005-04:002014-05-06T07:23:25.005-04:00What I think she or he was trying to say is since ...What I think she or he was trying to say is since slavery is economically positive and permissible by Scripture it must be God who prevents it because capitalists could justify it with the Bible. Therefore God must not allow it and the Bible must be false. This is very unusual reasining but nothing she has said makes any sense anyway, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-73350561454076435362014-05-05T23:47:52.056-04:002014-05-05T23:47:52.056-04:00Who in their right mind can claim that gravity is ...<i> Who in their right mind can claim that gravity is not a fact of reality?</i><br /><br />A fact of "reality" like gravity on the moon? So much for inductive inference bringing forth "facts" of reality given that there can be and in the case of gravity there *are* exceptions. Forget about the moon, Mr. Pursuit Of Knowledge, at what point does empirical observation become a "fact" of reality? Facts of reality are facts before being discovered. <br /><br />Answer me this...Do you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God? InPursuitofGodlinessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-47880514589359644302014-04-23T20:42:04.029-04:002014-04-23T20:42:04.029-04:00Inpursuit needs to pursue understanding what his o...Inpursuit needs to pursue understanding what his own questions mean. Maybe then he can see why he has been answered. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-33509091202956499762014-04-20T22:25:13.532-04:002014-04-20T22:25:13.532-04:00Your posts are getting more and more convoluted. Y...Your posts are getting more and more convoluted. Your original post argued that God’s approval of x should entail the fruition of x. My analogy was not “false” because it showed that your axiom is not something you hold to consistently because the approval of perfect kindness does not BY YOUR STANDARD mean that perfect kindness should obtain in America or Israel. Accordingly, it’s not a universal truth that you yourself abide by - that if God approves of something we should, therefore, see that something existing in America or Israel. Yet again, you argue by the same self-refuting axiom when you assert: “my point is that the bible does not terminate the practice of slavery and if God approved of slavery, why are there no slaves in Israel or America?” So, once again you argue according to a principle you don’t agree with: <br /><br /><i>If God approves of x, then we should expect to see x<br /><br />We don’t see x. <br /><br />Therefore, God does not approve of x</i><br /><br />As for the moral justification for slavery; it’s biblical restitution. If a man destroys your property, then he should have to make amends. Sitting in prison with three squares a day while watching talk shows does nobody any good, let alone serve the ends of justice. Don't confuse biblical slavery with southern slavery. <br /><br />The only way I will ever correspond with you again is if you post a number for me to phone and for you disclose your identity. <br /><br />That you would say that "gravity" is a fact of nature illustrates that you are at odds with the scientific world; the philosophical world and your own understanding of how things are on the moon. <br /><br />Bye<br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-91324871678295213512014-04-20T20:14:01.073-04:002014-04-20T20:14:01.073-04:00"Does the approval of x imply the fruition of..."Does the approval of x imply the fruition of x?" You and I differ on this point. You believe God approves of slavery, and I<br />do not.<br /><br />"In other words, given the fact that the God approves of perfect kindness, do you wonder why there isn't perfect kindness in Israel or America - or anywhere else?" This is a False analogy because perfect kindness does not guarantee wealth creation as slave labor does. Nevertheless, my point is that the bible does not terminate the practice of slavery and if God approved of slavery, why are there no slaves in Israel or America?<br /><br />"Do you wonder why you reason so badly given that God approves of perfect reasoning?" "Why do you hate God so much?" Because I'm inquisitive and seek knowledge, I hate God? Is your accusation the end result of your reasoning?<br /><br />Approval of a practice by God would confirm its moral justification. So, I'm asking you (a theologian) for a moral justification for slavery.InPursuitofKnowledgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-59997996852963331282014-04-17T23:08:32.705-04:002014-04-17T23:08:32.705-04:00Given the fact that the bible approves of slavery ...<i>Given the fact that the bible approves of slavery and does not terminate the practice, why are there no slaves in Israel or America?</i><br /><br />Does the approval of x imply the fruition of x? In other words, given the fact that the God approves of perfect kindness, do you wonder why there isn't perfect kindness in Israel or America - or anywhere else? Do you wonder why you reason so badly given that God approves of perfect reasoning? <br /><br />Please answer me. Why do you hate God so much? What has He ever done to you but be patient and long suffering with your rebellion against Him? Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-38475976257019079072014-04-17T22:36:36.540-04:002014-04-17T22:36:36.540-04:00Given the fact that the bible approves of slavery ...Given the fact that the bible approves of slavery and does not terminate the practice, why are there no slaves in Israel or America?<br /><br />Leviticus 25 (New King James Version)The Law Concerning Slavery<br />39"And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. 41And then he shall depart from you--he and his children with him--and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. 42For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God. 44And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have--from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your <br />permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.InPursuitofKnowledgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-89493445366326378442014-02-19T01:10:30.682-05:002014-02-19T01:10:30.682-05:00I just saw your most recent interchange with "...I just saw your most recent interchange with "Roger" about the <br />"Covenant Of Works." I hope he is just being difficult because if he is not just being difficult he is just unlearned about these things. Oh well... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-78040152913724835132014-02-15T11:23:53.699-05:002014-02-15T11:23:53.699-05:00Other than your last remark, I'm in agreement....Other than your last remark, I'm in agreement. :) Seriously, thanks. <br /><br />What I find most striking is that so often the people who appear least equipped to make fine distinctions often seem to be the loud, obnoxious, dogmatic ones. They might do well to ask themselves whether they were the sharper ones in school or more importantly ever tested well. Everyone is now apt to teach. It's no longer a gift but a cyber right. <br /><br />If one cannot construct a basic syllogism or doesn't recognize informal fallacies that jump off the page, then I suspect they would do well to lurk more or ask more questions rather than assert so much. That would take too much humility I suppose. Of course we now operate in a climate wherein even these observations will be met with resistance. So, I've probably said enough. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-19310194273447221212014-02-15T10:09:01.304-05:002014-02-15T10:09:01.304-05:00Ron:
What is more egregious is Gordon Clark is im...Ron:<br /><br />What is more egregious is Gordon Clark is impugned with these beliefs. <br /><br />It is an atrocity that Clark has such a bad name. The reason he has is because his followers assume trajectories and draw inferences that are not implicit in his writings. <br /><br />It always takes a few generations for people to get beyond personalities and misunderstandings so that they might profit from those they have misunderstood. <br /><br />If people would spend more time thinking than just parroting they might begin to understand a few things. A healthy fear of the Lord wouldn't hurt either. <br /><br />I always appreciate your willingness to parse out and evaluate points of view on merit alone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-13804284309259487002014-02-14T13:38:56.943-05:002014-02-14T13:38:56.943-05:00Thomas,
Thanks for stopping by and weighing in. B...Thomas,<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by and weighing in. Briefly, as I think about this more I wonder whether what is being conflated is preference as opposed to choice. That one <i>prefers</i> chocolate can be morally neutral since preferences can be God-given and not learned, etc. Indeed though and to your point, it is terribly simplistic and misleading to abstract choices from the matrix of things. <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Ron<br /><br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com