The Relationship between Theology and Philosophy

[quantumfaith]

Let the reader understand that he reasons in reverse osmosis. He tries to reason from that which he cannot understand clearly to establish his points. He should be trying to reason from universal truths known and recognized by all men of reason, instilled within the hearts and minds of all sentient beings by God and allowing those truths to unlock deeper truths and admit that the manner in which the mind of God makes decisions is for the most part off limits to finite beings. He should be reasoning from the understandable to the hard to understand instead of in reverse.

Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning? Some oscillate between the two.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

QF: Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning?

HP: One thing for certain is that DW finds a way to induce his philosophical ideas concerning the nature of God into his posts and ideas that are at best unproven conjecture: Case in point, his idea that God is driven and acts by compulsion. WoW! If that is true, compulsion is in reality God and to be praised.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: One thing for certain is that DW finds a way to induce his philosophical ideas concerning the nature of God into his posts and ideas that are at best unproven conjecture: Case in point, his idea that God is driven and acts by compulsion. WoW! If that is true, compulsion is in reality God and to be praised.

God is driven by the complusion by His own will which is controlled by His own nature which is incapable of sin, unrighteousness, unholiness as He is without shadow of turning but purest light.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie because it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to change His nature. Likewise, so is the case with the nature of fallen man (Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 8:7).

 

[billwald]

Deductive logic is a mathematical way of analyzing information but requires that every statement be true for a true result. It does not apply to theology and this is the major error of the OPC and half the Baptists. Why? Because there is no deductive proof of the existence of God. In other words, there no objective way to differentiate between "always was" and "God."

 

[Dr. Walter]

Deductive logic is a mathematical way of analyzing information but requires that every statement be true for a true result. It does not apply to theology and this is the major error of the OPC and half the Baptists. Why? Because there is no deductive proof of the existence of God. In other words, there no objective way to differentiate between "always was" and "God."

If we assume the Word of God is true in every statement and it is from statements of scripture that deductive logic is based, then why is it a major error to do so? There are objective evidences to prove that the scriptures are the Word of God (Scientific, Archeological, prophesy, etc.).

 

[quantumfaith]

Deductive logic is a mathematical way of analyzing information but requires that every statement be true for a true result. It does not apply to theology and this is the major error of the OPC and half the Baptists. Why? Because there is no deductive proof of the existence of God. In other words, there no objective way to differentiate between "always was" and "God."

Logic can be used to "prove" the existence of a first cause, see William Lane Craig's presentation of the Kalam Cosmological argument. But, yes, one can argue as to the nature and/or person of the said first cause.

Both forms of logic are valid and useful, one must simply acquaint oneself as to which form is logic best fits the argument (data) under consideration. In mathematics and science in general both forms of logical conclusion are quite useful in the extension of knowledge and wisdom.

This is where, many within the circle of Christianity (apologetics) fall short, not commiting oneself to endeavors within the domain of science. If one wishes to be a well rounded and convincing presenter (apologist) of the gospel in the context of the culture at large, one should pursue at least a general science education.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: God is driven by the complusion by His own will which is controlled by His own nature which is incapable of sin, unrighteousness, unholiness as He is without shadow of turning but purest light.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie because it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to change His nature. Likewise, so is the case with the nature of fallen man (Jn. 3:19-20; Rom. 8:7).

HP: Consider your philosophy DW. let's see, is man to be blamed and that eternally in a living hell for failure to act against his nature????

Can you even fault, let alone blame, a cat for not sitting on command or blame or even fault a dog, let alone blame it for not catching the mouse? Can you even fault, let alone blame a fish for not saying ‘Poly wants a cracker” or fault, let alone blame a donkey for not retrieving the downed bird in the water? And yet you tell us God Himself and sinful man is driven by the same necessitated compulsion and yet somehow responsible for failure to overcome a necessitated fate?? I don’t think so DW.

One thing I certainly know is that I am not necessitated to believe such nonsense as you purport concerning sentient beings and the cause of their moral intents, no not not for love or for money.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Like all your illustrations they are nonsensical and invalid. You confuse MORAL nature with non-moral or a-moral instincts. If the cat or dog had been trained not to do it and yet defied the command they are guilty. God is not responsible for man's sin but man is. Man sinned in Adam - by one man's act many were made sinners and individually EVERY MAN man chooses to sin (Rom. 3:9-12) and so he is both a sinner by nature and by choice in full light that it is wrong in both cases. Any human that has not sinned in Adam and has not sinned willfully will not go to hell. If you can find such a man outside of Christ then you have found ONE person who has never sinned and never needs salvation.

HP: Consider your philosophy DW. let's see, is man to be blamed and that eternally in a living hell for failure to act against his nature????

Can you even fault, let alone blame, a cat for not sitting on command or blame or even fault a dog, let alone blame it for not catching the mouse? Can you even fault, let alone blame a fish for not saying ‘Poly wants a cracker” or fault, let alone blame a donkey for not retrieving the downed bird in the water? And yet you tell us God Himself and sinful man is driven by the same necessitated compulsion and yet somehow responsible for failure to overcome a necessitated fate?? I don’t think so DW.

One thing I certainly know is that I am not necessitated to believe such nonsense as you purport concerning sentient beings and the cause of their moral intents, no not not for love or for money.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Like all your illustrations they are nonsensical and invalid. You confuse MORAL nature with non-moral or a-moral instincts.

HP: I used non moral illustrations because you attach compulsion to ones nature and then try to denote it as moral. I used the illustration to point out the error of such thinking.

DW: If the cat or dog had been trained not to do it and yet defied the command they are guilty.

HP: Here is a perfect example of what I am writing about. There is NO MORAL GUILT that can be attached to animals, for they are not moral in nature. You confuse guilt in moral agents with guilt associated with animals not held accountable to God's moral law. In order to be moral, or to make moral decisions, one has to be able to understand the intrinsic value of a command apart from rewards or punishments. Animals such as dogs and cats have no such moral abilities, therefore they are not guilty of a breach of morality period.

DW: God is not responsible for man's sin but man is. Man sinned in Adam - by one man's act many were made sinners and individually EVERY MAN man chooses to sin (Rom. 3:9-12) and so he is both a sinner by nature and by choice in full light that it is wrong in both cases.

HP: You start well but finish bad. God is not responsible for sin but rather man is,…. but then you take off on a philosophical tangent of the federal headship theory that is not taught in Scripture period. Every man is a sinner because ‘ALL HAVE SINNED,’ NOT because Adam was our federal head.

DW: Any human that has not sinned in Adam and has not sinned willfully will not go to hell. If you can find such a man outside of Christ then you have found ONE person who has never sinned and never needs salvation.

HP: No man sinned in Adam but Adam. All have sinned in our dispensation according to Scripture in some fashion or another even though it might not be in the same manner as did our first parents.

No one can say definitively that some men have not sinned, but I have clear questions in my mind about two men that did not see death as we know it, Enoch and Elijah. Call them sinners if you so please but as for myself I will await to hear that from God Himself. I do not see God in Scripture condemning them of sin period. I will not do as most do and just write it in between the lines.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I simply took your stupid and inept illustration and ran with it, not that I think it is any more applicable than you do.

Romans 5:17-19 repeatedly states "by one man's" action, disobedience, MANY WERE MADE.

Romans 3:23 says "For ALL men have sinned" but inspired HP says no man can say that definitively of all men.

YOu can change words to mean their opposite. You can call Paul a liar as he repeatedly states "ALL" men have sinned (Rom. 3:9-12; 23). You can call Paul a liar when he repeatedly says "BY ONE MAN'S" sin, action, disobedience MANY WERE....condemned, made sinners, etc.

You have no response for dying infants as they have no committed any willful act of sin and yet they suffer the wages of sin.

You read the Bible the way you want to be read and what you don't agree with you just deny what it says.

What gives you any confidence that you are even a Christian?????????????

HP: I used non moral illustrations because you attach compulsion to ones nature and then try to denote it as moral. I used the illustration to point out the error of such thinking.




HP: Here is a perfect example of what I am writing about. There is NO MORAL GUILT that can be attached to animals, for they are not moral in nature. You confuse guilt in moral agents with guilt associated with animals not held accountable to God's moral law. In order to be moral, or to make moral decisions, one has to be able to understand the intrinsic value of a command apart from rewards or punishments. Animals such as dogs and cats have no such moral abilities, therefore they are not guilty of a breach of morality period.



HP: You start well but finish bad. God is not responsible for sin but rather man is,…. but then you take off on a philosophical tangent of the federal headship theory that is not taught in Scripture period. Every man is a sinner because ‘ALL HAVE SINNED,’ NOT because Adam was our federal head.



HP: No man sinned in Adam but Adam. All have sinned in our dispensation according to Scripture in some fashion or another even though it might not be in the same manner as did our first parents.

No one can say definitively that some men have not sinned, but I have clear questions in my mind about two men that did not see death as we know it, Enoch and Elijah. Call them sinners if you so please but as for myself I will await to hear that from God Himself. I do not see God in Scripture condemning them of sin period. I will not do as most do and just write it in between the lines.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: I simply took your stupid and inept illustration and ran with it, not that I think it is any more applicable than you do.

HP: 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I simply gave you simple truth, and all truth comes from God. A lot of things are stupid and inept to the natural man.

DW: Romans 5:17-19 repeatedly states "by one man's" action, disobedience, MANY WERE MADE.

HP: It certainly does, but what it does not tell us is that the word 'made' means forced or coerced. I am certain though that whatever you believe that ‘many were made’ entails is the only way to understand it, all others get the highway.

But God be praised, for He has a way of opening even the blind eyes that cannot see.

While we are on that subject, would you say it is ‘impossible’ for a blind man to see? I certainly would. In common parlance I could look at a blind man and say truthfully it is impossible fo rhim to see. You might consider testing your conveniently narrow interpretation of ‘impossible’ on blind Bartimaeus, and see what a blind man may have to offer you in way of the meaning of ‘impossible.’

DW: Romans 3:23 says "For ALL men have sinned" but inspired HP says no man can say that definitively of all men.

HP: Well, just for starters, Jesus was a man and He did not sin. Tell us again what the word ‘all’ means.

DW: YOu can change words to mean their opposite. You can call Paul a liar as he repeatedly states "ALL" men have sinned (Rom. 3:9-12; 23). You can call Paul a liar when he repeatedly says "BY ONE MAN'S" sin, action, disobedience MANY WERE....condemned, made sinners, etc.

HP: You must really believe you have a tiger by the tail DW. Why don’t you stop lying about me? I have not called Paul a liar by any stretch of the imagination. I will remind you again, that Christ was a man, part of the ‘all’ men spoken of, and was without sin. All does not have to be all inclusive of everyman that has ever lived to make a general statement in common parlance concerning ‘all.’ Besides, it can be properly taken that Paul was speaking to a specific audience, ‘all’ of which had indeed sinned.

DW: You have no response for dying infants as they have no committed any willful act of sin and yet they suffer the wages of sin.

HP: Only one devoid of wisdom would refute our Lord’s clear indication that children are indeed innocent of sin. “For such is the kingdom of heaven.” Scripture informns us tha unless we become as little children we should no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. Are you to tell us that Jesus was recommending that we become sinners to enter the kingdom of heaven?? Oh well. What is harder to break through than the bars of a castle? Unproven presuppositions and dogmas of men like the original sin Augustine was the father of.

DW: What gives you any confidence that you are even a Christian?????????????

HP: Two things DW, two things. The witness to my heart by the Holy Spirit that I am a child of God coupled with a clear conscience between God and my fellowman.

Where does your confidence lie? Remember, every deceived man has faith in his faith.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

When it suites you, you quote 1 Cor. 2:14 but when I or others quote it and point out the words "neither indeed can be" then of course it doesn't mean what it says.

HP: It certainly does, but what it does not tell us is that the word 'made' means forced or coerced. I am certain though that whatever you believe that ‘many were made’ entails is the only way to understand it, all others get the highway.

Sure, just change the subject when you can't deal with the objection or the text! Paul repeatedly states it was by one man's act. Not by YOUR PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS but by ONE MAN'S ACT. "MANY" were brought under Condemnation, judgement, "made sinners" by ONE MAN'S ACT.
"MANY" were not brought under condemantion, judged, "made sinners" by their OWN INDIVIDUAL SINS but by ONE MAN'S SIN! It was an act of ONE MAN's WILL not the action of your will or my will that brought us under judgement, death, condemnation and made us "sinners." This fact destroys your whole position as your position denies that ONE MAN'S choice, action, "MADE" others to be "sinners"! Your position denies that ONE MAN'S CHOICE, ACTION brought condemnation, judgement, death upon others.

This is why INFANTS can die, suffer death becuase of ONE MAN's SIN, ONE MAN's CHOICE!!!! The child did not independently sin, did not independently choose, but suffers DEATH which is the condemnation and judgement of sin due to ONE MAN's ACT, CHOICE, SIN! Therefore that proves the infant was BORN UNDER CONDEMNATION or death was not possible. Therefore that proves the infant was BORN A SINNER or death was not possible as death is the wages of sin.

While we are on that subject, would you say it is ‘impossible’ for a blind man to see? I certainly would. In common parlance I could look at a blind man and say truthfully it is impossible fo rhim to see. You might consider testing your conveniently narrow interpretation of ‘impossible’ on blind Bartimaeus, and see what a blind man may have to offer you in way of the meaning of ‘impossible.’

If the Biblical text used the word "impossible" in regard to the blind person's ability to change his own natural blindness then it could not be changed by that person. If the Bible used the word "impossible" in regard to God's ability to change the blindness of such a man then it would remain impossible as "impossible" means "impossible." However, if we qualify it to mean that it is "impossible" only for the man to change his nature but it is not 'impossible" for God to change that man's nature then what is impossible for man is possible for God.

However, when something is ascribed to God as "impossible" there is no other creature or being in the universe that can make possible what is "impossible" for God to do unless they are more powerful than God. When God says through His own word that it is "impossible" for him to lie then it is "impossible" and that can only be due to the fact that the impossibility lies within the immutable moral nature of God or else it would be possible.

Of course the truth makes no difference to you as you will twist and pervert it until it fits your heresies.

HP: Well, just for starters, Jesus was a man and He did not sin. Tell us again what the word ‘all’ means.

You illustrate why you are an inept interpreter of God's Word. You place your ignorance on public display for all to see. The context is describing FALLEN MAN in Adam not God tabernacled in humanity!!!! So in this context "all" means "all" who have Adam for their human father. Christ was the only human being born of a woman without a human father.

Any person that disputes that "all" humanity IN ADAM has sinned and is under condemnation and judgement of death is simply advertising immense ignorance of God's Word.

HP: Only one devoid of wisdom would refute our Lord’s clear indication that children are indeed innocent of sin. “For such is the kingdom of heaven.” Scripture informns us tha unless we become as little children we should no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. Are you to tell us that Jesus was recommending that we become sinners to enter the kingdom of heaven?? Oh well. What is harder to break through than the bars of a castle? Unproven presuppositions and dogmas of men like the original sin Augustine was the father of.

So children are "innocent"??? Is that why they suffer DEATH which is judgement, the condemnation, the wages of sin???? Whose sin? When did they sin? If they are innocent then why does God judge them by KILLING them as it is God who appoints the time of death (Heb. 9:2;;7) As it is God's law that prescribes death! Would God reward an "innocent" child with the CURSE of DEATH? If they had not sinned somewhere at some time in some way they would not be paid the WAGES OF SIN which is death! The Bible says that BY ONE MAN'S SIN "many were made sinners." By one man's choice, by one man's action (Rom. 5:17-19).

Yes, the atonment of Christ I believe provides redemption for those who die due to Adam's sin without ability to choose right or wrong for themselves. But their death proves they sinned in Adam and thus Adam represented the whole human nature when by ONE MAN"S DISOBEDIENCE "many were made sinners."

So, dying infants go to heaven. David believed that in regard to his illigitimate infant and Jesus is supportive of that by the passage you quoted. However, the infant still DIES and death has no power over the "innocent" only sinners.

Two things DW, two things. The witness to my heart by the Holy Spirit that I am a child of God coupled with a clear conscience between God and my fellowman.

If that is all the assurance you have of your salvation then God help you! My assurance is based primarily and most importantly upon GOD'S WORD of salvation. Justifying faith rests solely upon God, His Word of promise and His power to accomplish His promise (Rom. 4:17-21). Secondarily, upon a conscience cleansed of sin; Thirdly, upon the internal witness of His Spirit.

There is no basis for your assurance of salvation apart from faith in God, His Word of promise and His ability to perform that promise. You can be deceived about your conscience and about inward impressions.