FORMAL LOGIC -- Justifying that Initial Premises are TRUE

[public hermit]

Good questions

Thank you for the detailed response. I don't know how much endurance I have, but we'll see.

I would assert that the Bible (and Church doctrine) strongly connects the Bible's concept of what "our shared reality" is, and the concept of bearing true witness, or the opposite, of bearing false witness (lying).

What is it that we bear false witness about? Our shared reality.

What is it that we could bear FALSE witness about? Our shared reality.
LYING is important in the Jewish and Christian moral-ethical system, BECAUSE lying can get us condemned at the final judgment. (!!!)
Lying is a false representation of our shared reality. This means that Christians need to be VERY clear about what our shared reality, is.

Because God holds us responsible for lying, this means that it was possible for us to observe accurately what our shared reality is.

Okay, I definitely misunderstood. I thought you were giving us a way to secure sound premises, in general. For whatever reason, I thought you meant premises with which most or many would agree. Your domain for "shared reality" is limited, which was my misunderstanding. Had we been talking about premises with which most (e.g. maths and logical principles) or many (hard sciences) would agree, then we would have a shared reality not limited to one point of view. The premises within these domains often enjoy widespread agreement and transcend the differences of language, culture, politics, social location , whatever. I think those are the most promising areas to secure premises in a *shared reality.*

I do like what you're saying about honesty. Honesty is a vital principle not only for Christians but for all of us. Honesty and the desire for others to be honest assumes a shared reality that we can latch onto that also transcends our peculiarities. Although I agree God holds us responsible for honesty, I think most people share general intuitions about honesty and its value. This is another promising candidate for premises from a shared reality.

North American Christians have not done a good job of teaching about our shared reality, from the biblical point of view. Some of the parts of our shared reality are:

-- the physical universe
-- biological life
-- valid reasoning methods
-- God
-- abstract ideas (such as ownership)
-- God's moral-ethical code
-- virtues and vices

The way you are using "shared reality" and "biblical point of view" is confusing to me. You seem to be saying both of those phrases refer equally to everything on that list. I'm not tracking the common factor. I kind of want to agree that the pedagogy is lacking, but I really don't know. What sound premises do we need to live well?

Note that some people are not careful about carefully observing what our shared reality is. We see this is a lot of activities:

-- slander: speaking lies about someone
-- gossip: passing on information that we do not know is true (this is what a lot of talk shows do)
-- accepting speculation or guessing, without carefully searching out whether the speculation is true. This is what passing on conspiracy theories, does.
-- Not accepting the methods of valid reasoning. This is what the anti-intellectual Christian groups do. They reject formal logic, and call it "vain philosophies". But, careful thinking has always been promoted by the Bible.
-- Not accepting valid methods of reasoning, also undercuts the study of how the biblical authors use human language. And how human language can express many different things, using different styles of writing.
-- Not accepting that there can be accurate historical writing.
-- Not accepting that there can be a fair rule of law. Note that a fair rule of law is based on evidence, which is observations about our shared reality, and honest testimony from people who observed this reality.
-- Without a fair rule of law, and strict rules on evaluating evidence, we can never have justice, from a legal process.

I pretty much agree, I think. At least, I agree these are mostly not good things. I'm not sure what you mean by not accepting accurate historical writing, but I like the general idea of what you're saying here.

As far as Epistemology, I am attracted to the soft Foundationalism. But,
I sympathize with Coherentism, but not as standing alone as a principle to justify
beliefs as True. (see the quotes from Wood). One truth cannot be contradictory to
another truth (formal logic is based on this), so truths in our belief system should
cohere together.

I also agree with Wood that the intellectual virtues are needed, in order to
have sound thinking. Without developing the mind, we will not properly
grasp "valid reasoning" methods. which I think are a component in our
shared reality.

NOTE: I explicitly point out the relevance of this approach to our shared
reality, by pointing out that the biblical sin of LYING, must be misrepresenting
SOMETHING dealing with our shared reality (unless we are lying to god, about
some event that only I perceived). So, the biblical concept of bearing false witness,
requires Christians to deal with the concept of our shared reality (even though
many Christians, have blown off this logical requirement).

That's a fair epistemic position, I think. I pretty much assume both are somehow true, but I have no idea how. The idea of something like Susan Haack's Foundherentism is intriguing to me, just because features of both seem to be important.

I definitely agree that if the domain is limited to Christians, honesty is part of our shared reality.

Also, the concept of Ownership is an abstract concept (that is undetectable by
the hard sciences, in the object being owned). And because ownership is a
big thing in a fair rule of law, and the 10 Commandments, this means that
Christians must EXPLICITLY include "abstract concepts" in the components of
our shared reality.

I include the concept of "justice", because it is grounded in a fair rule of law,
God's moral-ethical law, and a shared concept of what reality is.

That makes sense to me, and I like what you're saying, but my Christian faith is basically Platonist; whereas, some might argue it is not the case that abstract concepts are part of our shared reality. Now we have a bunch of intellectual Christains who disagree. That has never caused problems. lol As you were saying about intellectual virtues

So, when I address how to justify our personal beliefs as True, I MUST
deal with topics that tie directly to core Jewish and Christian beliefs,
about reality. This is not "doing theology", but the nature of reality
impacts all sorts of disciplines, for Christians and non-Christians.

Also, thinking in a focussed way about the particular COMPONENTS
of our shared reality, starts to point out why some denominational theologies
or "trends" are dysfunctional. (Although this is a subject that can be seen
as emotionally explosive, it is a necessary follow-on to debating what our
shared reality is. And, I discuss the topics, philosophically.) Especially,
if we agree that "valid reasoning methods" are part of our shared reality,
THEN we must say that being systematically anti-intellectual is a form
of lying about our shared reality. This directly connects dysfunctional
reasoning, and the perpetuation of dysfunctional reasoning, with the
Christian sin of lying.

I do not know how much thinking it will take, for a younger generation
American Christian to put together this approach to our shared reality, with
formal logic rules of inference, and the justifying of initial premises as
True. It may take a year. I wrote an entire book about it, and published it in
2020 with Dorrance Publishing. And I have been studying systems of logical
notation for 35 years, so this sort of synthesis of formal logic and philosophy
and moral theory is not new to me. BUT, I admit, that this synthesis (which
I present in the book) does not come easily. Because American Christians
have not cultivated a renewed mind, as the Apostle Paul commands.

Think about these ideas for a month.

I like the general idea of the importance of a shared reality. Solipsism is not cool. I would want it to be a wide-open domain. Where are the areas of wide spread agreement? We already know what they are: maths, logic, and hard sciences. To varying degrees, these enjoy very widespread intersubjective agreement. Once you get into the areas of religion, ethics, politics-those do not enjoy widespread agreement and are weak candidates for a shared reality. That doesn't mean they are not true; it means we don't agree that they are. But this goes back to my point about the role of agreement regarding sound premises. They have to work. And what makes them work? Agreement.

The matter of truth and how we hook onto it is still a question.

 

[Stephen3141]

NOW, I think that the discussion is opening up much more. which is what I
was shooting for.

Initially, the language of "our shared reality" may seem a bit weird, both to
secular non-Christians, and some Christian groups alike. But, I think, if we
stick with this concept, then it will point out how some Christian groups do not
really accept the shared reality that the Bible presents (about the goodness of
the intellect), AND how narrow modern disciplines (like the hard sciences)
cannot even express many concepts that the historical philosophers accepted
as "real" (such as virtues, and vices, good and evil), and so are "narrow" in
their view of reality.

Anti-intellectual Christian groups (I assert) do not understand what "valid
reasoning methods" are, in our shared reality. Therefore, they don't know how to
meaningfully interface with disciplines (ancient or modern) that are based on
formal logic. That includes much of Philosophy, and the hard sciences.

Those who point to the hard sciences as the epitome of accurate reasoning,
(I assert), are only looking to solve very narrow categories of problems, that are
associated with the hard sciences. The vocabulary, the "variables" in the
vocabulary of the hard sciences, CANNOT EVEN EXPRESS moral-ethical
questions. and so the hard sciences, cannot address moral-ethical problems.
Although Philosophy has a discipline of Moral Theory, those who are anti-
intellectual ignore historical philosophical discussions, including the historical
models of morality-ethics (ME), and this results in naive discussions of
morality-ethics in these religious groups.

By the way, a shocking truth is that the modern hard sciences CANNOT AGREE
on what "causality" is, because their narrow discipline vocabularies are designed
only to solve narrow disciplinary problems. Please read the Introduction to

The Oxford Handbook of Causation book by Helen Beebee

The Oxford Handbook of Causation. This basic modern reality, that the hard
sciences cannot agree on what "causation" means, should be shocking to those
who are engaged in careers that involve STEM learning.
---------- --------
BUT, also, with regard to the definition of "our shared reality", I am somewhat
invoking the ancient concept of "two worlds". That is, the world that we "see"
with our senses, and then the hidden world that presents, and causes our senses
to respond in a certain way. (Both are real.)

For example, the Bible deals with "reality" as super-atomic presentations.
Modern subatomic physics would argue that this is not the "real" world.
But I would argue that the way that the Bible presents "reality", is an
explanation for human senses, and should not be faulted for not descibing
super position, and subatomic physics....

When I talk about "our shared reality", I am talking about the reality that
is accessible to all of us (directly or indirectly), through our human senses.
---------- ----------

When I talk about "causality", I base this in the most general form of causality, which
is logical causality -- the material implication. This is what the applied logics of
the hard sciences, and mathematics, are built from. This is why formal logic,
is key to talking about a Christian worldview of causality, and our shared
reality.

...

These thoughts are not commonly put together, by those engaging in logic,
the hard sciences, Christian apologetics, or theology. But I am showing that
these thoughts belong together, and end up being inseparable.

I cannot disengage formal logic, from the necessity to attempt to justify
that initial premises in a proof are True. This engages historical philosophy.
Historical philosophy includes Moral Theory, and so I cannot disengage
ME models. This connects with concepts of reality, and lying, and telling the truth,
and Christian doctrine, and Christian apologetics. The concept of our shared
reality engages with the hard sciences.

I do not want to disengage with each other, the Components of Our Shared Reality.
Nor should they be disengaged.

(But, that DOES NOT MEAN that I am trying to do theology, when I
invite discussion about formal logic, and what our shared reality is.)

(Really, for Christians and non-Christians alike, read The Oxford
Handbook of Causation, Introduction. This opens up questions as
to how we should view causation, and logical implication.)

As always, I invite comments. But not from AI tools that have not
assimilated the Oxford Handbook of Causation.

 

[public hermit]

so the hard sciences, cannot address moral-ethical problems.

Agreed.

By the way, a shocking truth is that the modern hard sciences CANNOT AGREE
on what "causality" is, because their narrow discipline vocabularies are designed
only to solve narrow disciplinary problems. Please read the Introduction to

The Oxford Handbook of Causation book by Helen Beebee
The Oxford Handbook of Causation. This basic modern reality, that the hard
sciences cannot agree on what "causation" means, should be shocking to those
who are engaged in careers that involve STEM learning

I don't know how shocking it is. Causation is a philosophical issue, but you're right, it's a live debate.

For example, the Bible deals with "reality" as super-atomic presentations.
Modern subatomic physics would argue that this is not the "real" world.
But I would argue that the way that the Bible presents "reality", is an
explanation for human senses, and should not be faulted for not descibing
super position, and subatomic physics..

Yes, but is anyone worth thier salt as theologians or scientists expecting these ancient texts/authors know about quantum mechanics? I mean, I know some posters make wild claims, so if this goes back to pitiful Xn pedagogy, I agree.

When I talk about "our shared reality", I am talking about the reality that
is accessible to all of us (directly or indirectly), through our human senses

I think this is where I'm either misunderstanding you or I don't agree.

BUT, also, with regard to the definition of "our shared reality", I am somewhat
invoking the ancient concept of "two worlds". That is, the world that we "see"
with our senses, and then the hidden world that presents, and causes our senses
to respond in a certain way. (Both are real.)

Do you mean like Platonic ideas? Material reality participates in an ideal reality? Or, an ideal reality that causes material reality?

 

[Stephen3141]

(I do not think that Platonic ideas "cause" anything.

The "reality" that the Bible presents, is accessible to our senses.
But we do not understand these sensations as the cause of those sensations.
Thus, a version of the "2 worlds" concept. The world that we perceive, is not
the world that causes those sensations.

It is this "level" of reality that I refer to, when I use the phrase "our shared
reality". I think that this is necessary, to relate to what the biblical writers wrote.)

 

[Stephen3141]

An Example: How initial definitions (premises) must be justified as True...

I will assert that the world-class New Testament Greek lexicon is

"A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature"
based on earlier versions of Bauer's lexicon, and edited by a series of editors through
the last 300 years... Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich.

This lexicon is a huge compilation of how Christians used the koine Greek language,
and it contrasts and compares how non-Christians also used the same language.
It is not a single denomination's work.
It is referred to in shorthand as (BDAG).
This work is so extensive, that most of the usages of a word in the Greek New
Testament can be found as an example, listed in this work.

If you can't afford the full version, there is a "lite" version.
But for serious NT study, you should get the full version.

The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the... book by Frederick William Danker

Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen... book by Walter Bauer

Note that individual denominational lexicons, will not include the massive amount
of information that (BDAG) has. And individual denominational lexicons are often
driven by denominational theological preferences, rather than by the raw research on
the biblical languages.

***. If you wish to seriously justify that the definitions that you use, that are mentioned
in the New Testament, are True, then you MUST check this reference book, to
ensure that the definition of terms that you are using, are actually the New Testament's
definition of these terms.

*** NOTE that the New Testament authors interpret (properly) the Old Testament, so
Christians should be VERY aware of how the NT authors are quoting texts from the
Old Testament, or are "quoting ideas" from the Old Testament.

NOTE: Although some people will object to using definitions from the New Testament
(as doing theology), this is necessary to write proofs/arguments from a Christian point
of view. Getting definitions from the New Testament accurate, is upstream of theology.

There are anti-intellectual Christian groups that prefer to use a lexicon of New Testament
Greek that was developed by a single Christian denomination, but pretty much, every
credible cross-denominational seminary in the country, will use this NT lexicon.

 

[Stephen3141]

An Example: How initial definitions (premises) must be justified as True...

I assert that the standard Greek text of the New Testament is contained in the
United Bible Societies (UBS) recension of the New Testament Greek documents, called
"The Greek New Testament" Fifth edition. Past editors have been the glands, and
Bruce Metzger.

Aland Alan and Others (edited by) Books | List of books by author Aland Alan and Others (edited by)

This recension will show all the variants manuscripts of the New Testament, and will rate
them from most reliable to least reliable, for each verse.

 

[Stephen3141]

An Example: How initial definitions (premises) must be justified as True...

A question was left on an apologetics site about the meaning of James 1.21-22.

21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Jas 1:21–22.

In my response to this other post, I wrote...
---------- ----------

I am surprised that there are no Fundamentalists emphasizing "Saved by the Word alone!" "Saved by the Word alone!" James uses the same word swzw that most of the rest of the New Testament uses as "save/preserve".

This word has all sorts of meanings (BDAG 982-983):

"to preserve or rescue fr. natural dangers and afflictions"
"keep from harm"
"save from death"
"bring out safely fr."
"save/free from disease"
"keep, preserve"
"thrive prosper, get on well"
"save or preserve fr. transcendent dangerous destruction, save/preserve fr. eternal death"
"of qualities, etc., that lead to salvation" James 1.21 is specifically mentioned with this meaning
"be saved, attain salvation"

note that certain passages refer to multiple meanings (above).

Note that many of these meanings go on throughout the life of a child of God. We do not receive the teaching of the Word of God only at one time, but over and over again, throughout our life. And it is this ongoing saving/preserving that leads to a faithful ending of the race (to use Paul's wording).

I mention this, because some people who do not read the Greek, think that "save" in English is a one-time event. But in the Greek swzw, entering into God's people through conversion is only the beginning of the race. And "salvation" is not complete, until we finish the race faithfully. We need the Word of God, throughout this race.
---------- ----------

So, whatever argument or proof you wish to construct, about the meaning
of these verses in James, you must at least include the biblical definition
of the Greek word that is translated as "save" in some English translations.
This is gotten from the lexicon (BDAG) and the Greek word swzw.

The verses (James 1.21-22) are not listed as examples of any of these
meanings in (BDAG). However, most of the meanings of "save" in the
greek do not refer to initial conversion to Christianity, or even to the
forgiveness of sin.

But the command "be doers of the word" implies an ongoing obedience, as does
the command to put away all filthiness, etc. And this suggests that the meaning
of "save" in this text, refers to an ongoing progression toward to completion of
our entire Christian life -- the end of the race.

Whatever theology you wish to appeal to, when interpreting this text, you should
carefully take into account the authoritative definitions of what swzw can mean,
in the New Testament. And these definitions should be in the initial premises
of your proof.

 

[Stephen3141]

(I guess, from the lack of comments on the above entry, that many Christians
are not interested in creating sound arguments about "salvation". This is a
bit puzzling to me, because I still see a lot of Christians voicing their beliefs
about what "salvation" is, from a Christian point of view.)

 

[Stephen3141]

An Example: How initial definitions (premises) must be justified as True...

"Grace" is an English word that commonly appears in Christian discussion,
that is held in English.

So, if we want to create sound arguments or proofs relating to the topic of "grace",
what sort of definition do we have to have in our initial premises?
---------- ----------

If you're dealing with the New Testament Greek, then the core language used is xaris/xarizomai.

It should be noted that: "xaris is not always clearly differentiated in meaning from xaras"
(BDAG 1079) (although it is very clearly differentiated from the FB word corrector that
thinks it ought to be "harass".)

It should be noted that the Old Testament hesed is connected to xaris/xarizomai
(BDAG) 1079)

Core meanings of xaris are:

"a winning quality or attractiveness that invites a favorable reaction, graciousness,
attractiveness, charm, winsomeness"
"a beneficent disposition toward someone, favor, grace, gracious care/help goodwill"
("especially of the beneficent intention of God")
"practical application of goodwill, (a sign of favor), gracious deed/gift, benefaction
[including on the part of humans],
"exceptional effect produced by generosity, favor"
"response to generosity beneficence, thanks gratitude"
(such as being grateful to someone, or thankful to God)
(BDAG 1079-1080)

Meanings of xarizomai are:

"to give freely as a favor, give graciously to"
"to cancel a sum of money that is owed"
"to show oneself gracious by forgiving wrongdoing, forgive, pardon"
(BDAG 1078)
---------- ----------

Some have tried to sum up the meaning of xaris/xarizomai as
"the kind providence of God". But this phrase, although very broad,
is too specific. As most of the meanings associated with
xaris/xarizomai can be characteristics shown by human beings,
and are not uniquely responses shown by God.

There are all sorts of references given as examples in (BDAG)
for the different meanings of these words.

Psalm 136 is an Old Testament reference, that over and over again
refers to the love/kindness of God, using the hesed root. (Note that
the assertions in the psalm are often NOT what some Christian
groups associate with the "grace" of God or the "love" of God!
---------- ----------

My point, is that many arguments/proofs that use the word "grace"
are hardly referring to the meaning of the Greek root in the New
Testament for the kind providence of God, or to the hesed root
in the Old Testament.

Christians need to be much more accurate, in their use of the
English word "grace" in arguments or proofs.

 

[Stephen3141]

An Example: How initial definitions (premises) must be justified as True...

A question was left on an apologetics site about the meaning of James 1.21-22.

21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Jas 1:21–22.

In my response to this other post, I wrote...
---------- ----------

I am surprised that there are no Fundamentalists emphasizing "Saved by the Word alone!" "Saved by the Word alone!" James uses the same word swzw that most of the rest of the New Testament uses as "save/preserve".

This word has all sorts of meanings (BDAG 982-983):

"to preserve or rescue fr. natural dangers and afflictions"
"keep from harm"
"save from death"
"bring out safely fr."
"save/free from disease"
"keep, preserve"
"thrive prosper, get on well"
"save or preserve fr. transcendent dangerous destruction, save/preserve fr. eternal death"
"of qualities, etc., that lead to salvation" James 1.21 is specifically mentioned with this meaning
"be saved, attain salvation"

note that certain passages refer to multiple meanings (above).

Note that many of these meanings go on throughout the life of a child of God. We do not receive the teaching of the Word of God only at one time, but over and over again, throughout our life. And it is this ongoing saving/preserving that leads to a faithful ending of the race (to use Paul's wording).

I mention this, because some people who do not read the Greek, think that "save" in English is a one-time event. But in the Greek swzw, entering into God's people through conversion is only the beginning of the race. And "salvation" is not complete, until we finish the race faithfully. We need the Word of God, throughout this race.
---------- ----------

So, whatever argument or proof you wish to construct, about the meaning
of these verses in James, you must at least include the biblical definition
of the Greek word that is translated as "save" in some English translations.
This is gotten from the lexicon (BDAG) and the Greek word swzw.

The verses (James 1.21-22) are not listed as examples of any of these
meanings in (BDAG). However, most of the meanings of "save" in the
greek do not refer to initial conversion to Christianity, or even to the
forgiveness of sin.

But the command "be doers of the word" implies an ongoing obedience, as does
the command to put away all filthiness, etc. And this suggests that the meaning
of "save" in this text, refers to an ongoing progression toward to completion of
our entire Christian life -- the end of the race.

Whatever theology you wish to appeal to, when interpreting this text, you should
carefully take into account the authoritative definitions of what swzw can mean,
in the New Testament. And these definitions should be in the initial premises
of your proof.

Practical application:

So, the definition of "saved" in the Greek New Testament (above) heavily
restricts the type of argument/proof that you can write, AND be consistent
with the historic meaning of "save/preserve" in the Greek New Testament.

Some Examples:
---------- ----------
1. If you wish to argue "Once saved, then always saved" you need to specify which
meaning of "saved" you are referring to.

In the Psalms, David repeatedly asks God to save him from multiple enemies, who
are trying to kill him. It is obvious, in this meaning of save/preserve, that "Once
saved, always saved" is an unsound conclusion.

In the metaphor of salvation, which is the historic Exodus of the sons of Israel
from Egypt, the Bible refers to the sons of Israel as being "saved" from the
slavery of Egypt. However, the Bible is also clear that most of the older generation
that was saved from slavery in Egypt, went on to not trust God, and to fall under
God's condemnation (to die in the wilderness, without entering the promised
land). This older generation was "saved", but did not finish the final process of
being "saved", in the sense of entering the promised land. So, you could argue
that they were "Saved, but not saved".

In the New Testament, the biblical authors are often not precise about which
meaning of "saved" they are referring to. In the book of Acts, we have the work
of the Holy Spirit resulting in the preaching of the Apostles being heard in many
different languages, resulting in many hundreds of people being "saved". But, as
in the Exodus, this means that they converted to Christianity and joined the
People of God. (They physically left Egypt, in the Exodus.) But this does not
mean that they could not defect, as most of the older generation of the Jews
in the Exodus defected from trusting God. These converts could be said to "be
saved, but not yet completely saved". This leaves open the question of whether
they could later ditch their initial faith, and apostatize/fall away from the New Covenant.

Paul's language, is often referring to a combination of the meanings of "saved".

18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us. 19 For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; 20 for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now; 23 and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Ro 8:18–25.

Paul is saying that we are "saved", and yet, we are still awaiting the FUTURE
redemption of our physical bodies, in the resurrection of the dead. In this case,
we could use the slogan "Saved in the spirit, but still awaiting the future salvation
of the body." It is theologically problematic, to assert that when the language of
being "saved" in the New Testament (or the Old Testament), that ALL the aspects
of being saved are guaranteed, deterministically, when the initial process of
being saved/preserved has started. This is the forced conclusion, that some
theologies promote. And their arguments/proofs, end up being Unsound, as they
are not referencing the entire meaning range of "save/preserve" in the Bible.

Also, especially in Paul, we see endless optimism. He speaks as if (almost) all who
start into this process of being saved/preserved, will continue faithfully to the end
of the race (without disqualifying themselves). We see the naïveté of interpreting Paul's
language this way, when we read his examples of clear defection from the New
Covenant.

21 They forgot the God who had saved them,
who had done great deeds in Egypt,
22 Amazing deeds in the land of Ham,
fearsome deeds at the Red Sea.
23 He would have decreed their destruction,
had not Moses, his chosen one,
Withstood him in the breach
to turn back his destroying anger.
V
24 Next they despised the beautiful land;
they did not believe the promise.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Ps 106:21–24.

5 I wish to remind you, although you know all things, that [the] Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Jud 5–6.

There is a case to be made for the slogan, "Saved, and later condemned."
---------- ----------

I bring up these very different slogans/conclusions, because some
of them simplistically embrace one meaning of the concept of save/preserve,
but blindly ignore the other aspects of God saving/preserving. And, the
result is Unsound conclusions, that result from only partial definitions used
in Initial premises of an argument/proof.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Practical application:

So, the definition of "saved" in the Greek New Testament (above) heavily
restricts the type of argument/proof that you can write, AND be consistent
with the historic meaning of "save/preserve" in the Greek New Testament.

Some Examples:
---------- ----------
1. If you wish to argue "Once saved, then always saved" you need to specify which
meaning of "saved" you are referring to.

In the Psalms, David repeatedly asks God to save him from multiple enemies, who
are trying to kill him. It is obvious, in this meaning of save/preserve, that "Once
saved, always saved" is an unsound conclusion.

In the metaphor of salvation, which is the historic Exodus of the sons of Israel
from Egypt, the Bible refers to the sons of Israel as being "saved" from the
slavery of Egypt. However, the Bible is also clear that most of the older generation
that was saved from slavery in Egypt, went on to not trust God, and to fall under
God's condemnation (to die in the wilderness, without entering the promised
land). This older generation was "saved", but did not finish the final process of
being "saved", in the sense of entering the promised land. So, you could argue
that they were "Saved, but not saved".

In the New Testament, the biblical authors are often not precise about which
meaning of "saved" they are referring to. In the book of Acts, we have the work
of the Holy Spirit resulting in the preaching of the Apostles being heard in many
different languages, resulting in many hundreds of people being "saved". But, as
in the Exodus, this means that they converted to Christianity and joined the
People of God. (They physically left Egypt, in the Exodus.) But this does not
mean that they could not defect, as most of the older generation of the Jews
in the Exodus defected from trusting God. These converts could be said to "be
saved, but not yet completely saved". This leaves open the question of whether
they could later ditch their initial faith, and apostatize/fall away from the New Covenant.

Paul's language, is often referring to a combination of the meanings of "saved".

18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us. 19 For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; 20 for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now; 23 and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Ro 8:18–25.

Paul is saying that we are "saved", and yet, we are still awaiting the FUTURE
redemption of our physical bodies, in the resurrection of the dead. In this case,
we could use the slogan "Saved in the spirit, but still awaiting the future salvation
of the body." It is theologically problematic, to assert that when the language of
being "saved" in the New Testament (or the Old Testament), that ALL the aspects
of being saved are guaranteed, deterministically, when the initial process of
being saved/preserved has started. This is the forced conclusion, that some
theologies promote. And their arguments/proofs, end up being Unsound, as they
are not referencing the entire meaning range of "save/preserve" in the Bible.

Also, especially in Paul, we see endless optimism. He speaks as if (almost) all who
start into this process of being saved/preserved, will continue faithfully to the end
of the race (without disqualifying themselves). We see the naïveté of interpreting Paul's
language this way, when we read his examples of clear defection from the New
Covenant.

21 They forgot the God who had saved them,
who had done great deeds in Egypt,
22 Amazing deeds in the land of Ham,
fearsome deeds at the Red Sea.
23 He would have decreed their destruction,
had not Moses, his chosen one,
Withstood him in the breach
to turn back his destroying anger.
V
24 Next they despised the beautiful land;
they did not believe the promise.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Ps 106:21–24.

5 I wish to remind you, although you know all things, that [the] Lord who once saved a people from the land of Egypt later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Jud 5–6.

There is a case to be made for the slogan, "Saved, and later condemned."
---------- ----------

I bring up these very different slogans/conclusions, because some
of them simplistically embrace one meaning of the concept of save/preserve,
but blindly ignore the other aspects of God saving/preserving. And, the
result is Unsound conclusions, that result from only partial definitions used
in Initial premises of an argument/proof.

As much as I appreciate the effort that any one of us might make in trying to ascertain, discern, clarify and codify our Christian beliefs, there are still numerous intractable epistemological and historical and literary problems that Logic itself just isn't going to ameliorate.

And that's the unfortunate Reality in which we're trying to scrap together fragments of thoughts from the past we find in The Bible.

Logic, like Super-Glue, will only reconstruct Humpty Dumpty----just so far. The cracks and missing pieces will always show ............................

 

[essentialsaltes]

Your examples so far appear to be focused on determining the proper definitions of words, in the context of the historical texts from which they come, and with reference to the original languages as needed.

While a very worthy thing in a critical approach to a text, I don't see that it needed all this build-up to arrive at this destination. Then again, you have adopted a very measured pace, so perhaps there is more coming that might relate to justifying that premises are true.

 

[Stephen3141]

As much as I appreciate the effort that any one of us might make in trying to ascertain, discern, clarify and codify our Christian beliefs, there are still numerous intractable epistemological and historical and literary problems that Logic itself just isn't going to ameliorate.

And that's the unfortunate Reality in which we're trying to scrap together fragments of thoughts from the past we find in The Bible.

Logic, like Super-Glue, will only reconstruct Humpty Dumpty----just so far. The cracks and missing pieces will always show ............................

I agree. Formal Logic (in an argument or proof) preserves truth.
If the initial premises don't have enough truth in them, then the argument/proof
will not have more truth in it than was reachable in the initial premises.

One of the reason why I am writing this thread, is to underline the importance
of the definitions and relationships that we bring INTO formal logic, by writing
our initial premises. If you look at many of the arguments on this site, many
start with initial premises that cannot be justified from historic Christianity.
Yet, their conclusions are claimed to be Christian (by the person who wrote
the argument/proof).

For Christians who are anti-intellectual, I am underlining the need to use
authoritative reference books on what the language of the biblical text
means, when making arguments related to Christianity. For these Christians,
this may seem to be a VERY new idea.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. Formal Logic (in an argument or proof) preserves truth.
If the initial premises don't have enough truth in them, then the argument/proof
will not have more truth in it than was reachable in the initial premises.

One of the reason why I am writing this thread, is to underline the importance
of the definitions and relationships that we bring INTO formal logic, by writing
our initial premises. If you look at many of the arguments on this site, many
start with initial premises that cannot be justified from historic Christianity.
Yet, their conclusions are claimed to be Christian (by the person who wrote
the argument/proof).

For Christians who are anti-intellectual, I am underlining the need to use
authoritative reference books on what the language of the biblical text
means, when making arguments related to Christianity. For these Christians,
this may seem to be a VERY new idea.

Ok. Then, I can empathize with some of your points. But at the same time, in addition to bringing in the litany of Logic(S) that may apply to our attempts to figure out, maintain and retain our Christian beliefs, we have to recognize the limiting factors that Hermeneutics and other relevant fields of study bring to this conversation.

And this is why I tend to say that no one here, including myself, can ever bring to the table the finalizing "Logical" analysis or matrix that will ultimately funnel each and every one of us into some final form of Systematic Theology. Because we're dealing with fragments of history and missing pieces, none of us has the last word on the matter. Think of this maybe in either terms that Godel or Tarski would present ... if they were presented with figuring out "Christianity" in either mathematical or logical terms where human language is instead the currency.

... in other words, there are 2nd Order Truths that rule over our 1st Order Truths that prevent any of us from reaching a climatic, or Archimedean point of method that leads to supreme perfecting of Christian Theology. But somehow, we divide up into our various enclaves and denominations and try to beat each other over the head with the claim, "Eureka, we've have IT!!!!"

No, at best, and even with Logic at our side, none of us has that sort of epistemic position or justification or clarity of belief needed to prove our epistemic position. We do have historical fragments for faith, however ............................

 

[Stephen3141]

Ok. Then, I can empathize with some of your points. But at the same time, in addition to bringing in the litany of Logic(S) that may apply to our attempts to figure out, maintain and retain our Christian beliefs, we have to recognize the limiting factors that Hermeneutics and other relevant fields of study bring to this conversation.

And this is why I tend to say that no one here, including myself, can ever bring to the table the finalizing "Logical" analysis or matrix that will ultimately funnel each and every one of us into some final form of Systematic Theology. Because we're dealing with fragments of history and missing pieces, none of us has the last word on the matter. Think of this maybe in either terms that Godel or Tarski would present ... if they were presented with figuring out "Christianity" in either mathematical or logical terms where human language is instead the currency.

... in other words, there are 2nd Order Truths that rule over our 1st Order Truths that prevent any of us from reaching a climatic, or Archimedean point of method that leads to supreme perfecting of Christian Theology. But somehow, we divide up into our various enclaves and denominations and try to beat each other over the head with the claim, "Eureka, we've have IT!!!!"

No, at best, and even with Logic at our side, none of us has that sort of epistemic position or justification or clarity of belief needed to prove our epistemic position. We do have historical fragments for faith, however ............................

I would stand back, a bit, from some of your assertions...
But, in the main, I agree.

Formal Logic deals with the syntax of an argument/proof.
Formal Logic does not deal with initial definitions of concepts, that appear in initial premises.
Formal logic DOES define what "logical causality" is (material implication), but Formal Logic
does not define the concepts that it would show are in a relationship of logical causality,
or not.
Formal logic does not define what concepts are relevant, to a Christian worldview.

There are "limiting constraints" that are upstream of Formal Logic.
Some are basic philosophical conclusions, such as in Epistemology.
Some are authoritative definitions, such as should be recognized in a good
course in biblical Hermeneutics. This includes world class lexicons of the
biblical languages.

There are limiting constraints (I assert), in human language. Although we may see, for
example, the law of the excluded middle as a philosophical principle, and as a result,
downstream, as a principle in the definition of concepts in Formal Logic, this is also
a limiting concept in human language. How can we TALK about a concept that both
has and does not have, at the same time, the same characteristic?

What I am saying is that there are basic limiting principles that we use in the
definition of our initial premises (in a logical proof), that come from OUTSIDE of
Formal Logic. AND, if we are going to try to use logic from the viewpoint of a
Christian worldview, these imported limiting concepts, must be consistent with
Christian beliefs.
---------- ----------

ALSO, another limiting principle that I am promoting, is that the Bible presents
a view of our shared reality, that we MUST engage with, if we are to use logic
in a way that is consistent with a Christian worldview.

The shared reality that the Bible presents, is a "middle level" reality.
It is not subatomic quantum theory.
It is not a super high level history of the stars and solar systems in the physical universe.
It is an account of human beings, living on one planet.
This is a super-atomic and subgalactic level of our shared reality.

Although Christians may speculate or engage in research on other levels
of our shared reality, the Bible deals with this middle level of reality.
This is also why I think that Christian theology should stick to this middle
level of reality.
---------- ----------

I agree with you, that trying to put together (complete) systematic theologies
is probably NOT what Christians should be doing.

But despite the Bible presenting a middle level of reality, and giving incomplete
revelation, I think that the question of the Authority of a conclusion, is a
different question than the Completeness of revelation. I think that there are
many topics on which we could come to an authoritative agreement.
(And, that implies stepping on some theological toes.)
---------- ----------

I have noticed that there are CUTTING PLANES of differences, that can
account for many of the theological differences in denominational
theologies. Some of these are...

1 whether or not the intellect, properly used, is a gift from God,
or something that is to be feared like the plague

2 the nature of the biblical text, and how it should normally be
interpreted

3 a definition of what is authoritative in the Church, and so what
determines what proper study and interpretation of the Bible is

I would disagree with the anti-intellectual denominations, in that they propose
an anti-intellectual way to intuit the text of the Bible, which is written in human
language, which has a logical structure. If we reject formal logic, then we
misunderstand the nature of human language, and lose the ability to determine
the meaning of the text of the Bible.

(2) involves the use of sound hermeneutics, although this is not a simple topic,
as the anti-intellectual groups deny much of the logical approach to linguistics.

(3) involves the complication that many denominations read into the structure
of Church leadership, key points of the theology that they have already accepted.
This also involves Church leadership defining the canon of the New Testament,
which is sometimes grossly overlooked by people who assert that the Bible is the
only and highest authority in Christianity.
---------- ----------

A Christian use of formal Logic, within a Christian worldview,
must take into account all these topics.

 

[Stephen3141]

[For those who think that I am slowly working up to the main topic,
I have already presented it.

The vetting of the truthiness (or falseness) or initial premises,
involves reasoning and definitions that come from OUTSIDE of
formal logic. And Christians must acknowledge this.]

 

[Stephen3141]

[I despise the word changing of the FB interface, and its "spell checking".
The "truthiness"??? Is that the best that this computer interface can come up with????]

 

[GDL]

A few days ago, I received notification of and read an article concerning the Parallel Features in 1 John. I'm satisfied that most Christians will never consider such information. I'm also satisfied that many to most scholars may never comprehend or fully realize the types of outlines and structures in our inspired Text.

In the very early hours just after the beginning of this new day, I was awakened to read through and analyze 1 John once again. For the next 4 hours I did just that.

Not looking back at this early study, the one thing that strikes me as I read through this interesting thread with all participants making productive posts, is how it was clear this morning how in our close relationship (aka fellowship) with our Father and His Son and His Spirit, we in part are functioning at the level of and based upon His very personal work in our "inward parts", our "hearts" in His presence as we walk with Him. This is elsewhere discussed in terms of conscience, and also His leading and guiding.

There are simply some things to be learned from our relationship and from our Text that will never be furthered by logic as a few have mentioned herein. Having said that, I greatly appreciate any mental discipline that can assist in understanding what it can assist in. And I agree that the intellectual pursuit in and from our Text has been slighted by many. This is not surprising given the seemingly extensive biblical illiteracy in our time.

Although I'd like to experience agreement and "the same mind" spoken of in our Text, at this point such has been relegated to the back of my mind. Although I may watch for it, I do not expect it in my remaining time here. Forums like this serve to highlight how deep and fractured is the mess of christendom.

Regarding BDAG, to me it is a very substantial work and I agree it should be utilized by more. At times though, I have found it to be making theological assumptions that can be questioned. Again, for me there is nothing like getting the basic root meaning of a word from Strong's and several Lexicons, including BDAG, and other resources, and then doing the tedious work of analyzing in context every use of a particular word in our Text to see how God uses it and then working to determine what He means in using it. I find it odd that courses in hermeneutics don't even mention this very basic discipline.

This thread speaks of the example of "save" (and cognates). It's not just the various definitions of the word that can inform us, but also the various uses and contexts and tenses in which God speaks of it. In one of those tedious word studies done over the course of 1+ years, I learned more about God's Salvation than I had ever learned in any camp-based systematic theology instruction. In fact, I mostly walked away from systematic theology as a result of doing this word study.

Fun thread. Thanks!

 

[Stephen3141]

A few days ago, I received notification of and read an article concerning the Parallel Features in 1 John. I'm satisfied that most Christians will never consider such information. I'm also satisfied that many to most scholars may never comprehend or fully realize the types of outlines and structures in our inspired Text.

In the very early hours just after the beginning of this new day, I was awakened to read through and analyze 1 John once again. For the next 4 hours I did just that.

Not looking back at this early study, the one thing that strikes me as I read through this interesting thread with all participants making productive posts, is how it was clear this morning how in our close relationship (aka fellowship) with our Father and His Son and His Spirit, we in part are functioning at the level of and based upon His very personal work in our "inward parts", our "hearts" in His presence as we walk with Him. This is elsewhere discussed in terms of conscience, and also His leading and guiding.

There are simply some things to be learned from our relationship and from our Text that will never be furthered by logic as a few have mentioned herein. Having said that, I greatly appreciate any mental discipline that can assist in understanding what it can assist in. And I agree that the intellectual pursuit in and from our Text has been slighted by many. This is not surprising given the seemingly extensive biblical illiteracy in our time.

Although I'd like to experience agreement and "the same mind" spoken of in our Text, at this point such has been relegated to the back of my mind. Although I may watch for it, I do not expect it in my remaining time here. Forums like this serve to highlight how deep and fractured is the mess of christendom.

Regarding BDAG, to me it is a very substantial work and I agree it should be utilized by more. At times though, I have found it to be making theological assumptions that can be questioned. Again, for me there is nothing like getting the basic root meaning of a word from Strong's and several Lexicons, including BDAG, and other resources, and then doing the tedious work of analyzing in context every use of a particular word in our Text to see how God uses it and then working to determine what He means in using it. I find it odd that courses in hermeneutics don't even mention this very basic discipline.

This thread speaks of the example of "save" (and cognates). It's not just the various definitions of the word that can inform us, but also the various uses and contexts and tenses in which God speaks of it. In one of those tedious word studies done over the course of 1+ years, I learned more about God's Salvation than I had ever learned in any camp-based systematic theology instruction. In fact, I mostly walked away from systematic theology as a result of doing this word study.

Fun thread. Thanks!

I'm very happy that you are not horrified, or shocked, or enormously puzzled by this thread. (Really!)

I think that those who read the thread, will see that it is not a thread on theology.
Hopefully, those who read the thread, will begin to see the relevance of the
philosophical discussions on what reality is, and evidence, and how we need
to vet our initial premises against what the Bible presents as our shared reality.

Hopefully, the readers of the thread will realize that the Incarnation, as God breaks
into human life, happens also in human language that the biblical authors use.
Although the early Christians tend to "take over" the koine Greek that they write in,
the distinct use of that language is still accessible to secular linguists. Just as the
Incarnation in Jesus Christ, was accessible to Gentiles in the first century.

(This is why I promote a massive reference book like BDAG, rather than a
denominational reference book like Strong's. Denominational concordances
tend to impress pre-decided theologies onto the language of the Bible, rather
than recognizing what the language, first of all, meant when the biblical
writers wrote.)

 

[Stephen3141]

Hopefully, I will be able to get into examples of how initial premises are defined,
and how differences in those definitions, affect whether or not the
argument/proof is compatible with Christianity.