HP: Let me make this perfectly clear. We are first believers and Scripture is always welcomed to make any point one has on any subject. One can use it as primary evidence or supporting evidence, whatever they so desire. This is no heathen philosophical course. This is an exercise to discern the true philosophy Scripture assumes, and to see if in fact the philosophy we believe is assumed in Scripture agrees with revelation from God in other areas of revelation.
the difference is that you believe Scripture is okay to make a point, but you believe it is inadequate. Thus, I am asking you to make your points rationally without Scripture. If Scripture is not to be trusted, you cannnot use it to make your point. I want you to make your point without the Bible. Why? I can make my point using Scripture, but you will reject my arguments on the perspicuity and other doctrines of the Bible. Thus, I want to hold you to the standard within your worldview.
If II Timothy 3:16-17 is accurate, then we must use the Scripture first and foremost. To argue to old argument. Your side would say that man creates the Word of God (General or Special Revelation). I say that the Word of God has always created man. From Genesis 1:1, God spoke and created. With Abraham, he called him, in the New Testament he created us to be new. The Word of God is what creates man, it is authoritative.
Jerry made some excellent observation concerning truths of general revelation, pointed to by Scripture but not established by Scripture. Ruiz simply avoided them.
Of a truth I believe true philosophy can to some degree be established apart from Scripture, and even needs to be examined apart from Scripture to a degree. Scripture speaks of general revelation. It does not suggest that one has to first read Scripture to understand the import of general revelation in the least. One does not have to read Scripture before he reads Scripture, before he reads Scripture to understand and recognize the general revealed truth found in Scripture. Jerry pointed this out clearly in post #18. Romans 1:18-20, Job 37: 3-4, 22,24.
There were no evidence. His statement was not a rational proposition, evidence, and conclusion.
To say that we judge scripture is really arrogant. God's Word is not judged by man, but judges man. Like with Job, to question God's Word is saying we are superior to God. Rather, my point is to say that the Word should not be subject to me, but I am subject to God's Word.
II Timothy 3:16-17 refers to God's Word as "God-Breathed", this is directly from God and is an intimate aspect of God. This is good for a number of things like doctrine, reproof, training in righteousness that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. You wish to say that it is insufficient. In other words, we need something else to make us thoroughly equipped if you are right. That mentality contradicts II Timothy 3:16-17. In fact, we should "Preach the word" (II Timothy 4:1-2). The focus of our entire Christian life is Special Revelation, not General.
Here is living Scriptural evidence, to us a believers, that general revelation exists outside of Scripture and that Scripture is not the only source of general revelation nor does one have to read scripture to know clearly about general revelation. If you believe that is circular reasoning, hang in there. It gets better.
I mentioned a first truth of reason NOT found directly in Scripture, but clearly I believe it is assumed to be true by Scripture. It is found in post #8. Ruiz he has avoided it altogether unless I missed something, which can happen in these debates. I will post it again. "To do anything praiseworthy of blameworthy one must have contrary choice.
By definition, Scripture is Special revelation and not General Revelation. This is theology 101.
Apart from contrary choice, no choice is possible and apart from choice, nothing blameworthy or praiseworthy can be predicated of ones intents or subsequent actions."
Instead of simply addressing it directly , Ruiz took off on a rabbit trail and tried to indicate no basis of morality can be established apart from Scripture. The only thing sillier I have ever heard along this line would be the often heard false comment, 'you cannot legislate morality.' Both Ruiz's comment and the last one mentioned are far from the truth. Morality of one kind or another is legislated daily, and some basic elements of truth concerning morality, notions of right and wrong, are indeed intuitively planted by God apart from Scripture.
Your presupposition is a circular reason. You base choice upon your own definition of choice and thus you think you proved something. This is clearly circular. You have yet to prove choice is even accurate.
Calling my philosophical statement is silly is okay, I really don't care. But you have yet to prove morality apart from Scripture.
Secondly, morality is legislated but that is not a rational basis for morality. this morality is made up or they rely upon God. I could address this, but I will just refer you to Bahnsen's debate that I have previously cited and asked you to read. Without God, morality is a figment of your imagination. You cannot prove morality without God.
One knows instinctively that they do not desire to be killed. They know intuitively that they do not desire their own things stolen. Both of these notions are intuitive moral notions that are universally held by all men, and are known apart from Scripture. They are moral issues, in spite of the philosophical nonsense Ruiz tries in vain to establish, that nothing moral could be determined apart from Scripture, and that killing millions of Jews could be right and one could believe that Christ did nothing praiseworthy. Much learning has obviously clouded the reasoning powers of some.
Yes, it is impossible to prove Hitler was wrong without God. As you cannot have universal abstracts without the God of the Bible. I ask, prove to me universal abstracts apart from special revelation. This is a major philosophical debate and one you have not engaged in. Again, I point you to Bahnsen's debate.
Certainly men devoid of Scripture could argue for or against anything, even intuitively held principles, and argue, as Ruiz is attempting to do 'sans general revelation or reason,' but all that shows is that men can do despite and argue despite God's intuitive knowledge. They cannot justly establish that nothing can be morally ascertained apart from Scripture. they can simple argue to argue, as Ruiz is again attempting to do.
You can argue based on intuition. So can a Muslim argue that they should kill all those who do not believe in Allah and say it is intuitive. Hindus can say that child rape is good. Romans in the 1st Century said it was good to have sexual relations with boys at young age. They believed it was evident.
You have not showed how one can come to the conclussion that morality exists apart from Scripture. The fact is, nothing can be proven without Scripture. You can say "intuition" but if one person's intuition disagrees with another then who is right? The fact is, you have nothing to argue except that you think I am wrong and you call me names in making your argument.
