My turn to reply …
(Daniel Chew's words in red)
Antithesis said...
Dear PR:
1) Don't you realize that you are using words now to express your own thoughts?
>And how is that related to your proposal that language can be symbolized perfectly in formal logic, or that language can express truths perfectly?
2) The entire doctrine of the authority and Verbal, Plenary Inspiration of Scripture depends upon the axiom that language can express God's truth perfectly in the written Scriptures.
>Verbal plenary inspiration means full inspiration of each and every WORD of Scripture. VPI simply stated is thus, “The word plenary means "full" or "complete". Therefore, plenary verbal inspiration asserts that God inspired the complete text(s) of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, including both historical and doctrinal details. The word verbal affirms the idea that inspiration extends to the very words the writers chose. For example, in Acts 1:16 the Apostle Peter says "the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake" (KJV).”
http://www.theopedia.com/Inspiration_of_the_Bible#Plenary_verbal_inspiration
How is this related to your proposal that language can be symbolized perfectly in formal logic, or that language can express truths perfectly?
And you haven’t explained how the authority of Scripture necessitates that language can be symbolized perfectly into formal logic, or that language can therefore express truths perfectly. Again, if language can express truths of Scripture perfectly, why are there so many different interpretations of the SAME Scripture? What do you think?
What is so “deductively sound” concerning your statements?
3) So therefore, if language cannot express God's truth perfectly (~p), both of these doctrines are nonsense (~q).
>This is a non sequitur, an unsound argument with false premises.
4) And therefore, since both of these doctrines are biblical (q), therefore language can express God's truth perfectly (p). Modus tollens!
>Nope. See above.
Likewise, I can formulate my argument as such:
If dogs cannot speak, then cats cannot meow.
But cats can meow, therefore dogs can speak. (doesn’t follow, does it? False premises!) Ditto, modus tollens!
Apply the axioms (Authority of Scripture + VPI), and therefore, language must express truths/be symbolized perfectly? It just doesn’t follow i.e. this is deductively valid but unsound.
5) See the above logical statement.
>But not deductively sound. How logical is that?
6) So if God does not so superintend the development of huamn language, how can the doctrine of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration be correct?
>Again, what has VPI to do with the development of language? If each and every word of Scripture is inspired or God-breathed, does that guarantee that e.g. Koine Greek per se will be able to express truths/propositions perfectly?
7) What same line of reasoning? One concerns something which is deductively derived from Scripture; the other not.
>See above (i.e. your deductively UNSOUND argument). Nevertheless, it IS reductio ad absurdum. Don’t believe me? Show our comments to a logician.
8) The proposition p that is to be inserted must be scriptural of course, so it is still a false analogy, since very plainly one is dedutively deduced from Scripture while the other isn't.
>See above. It’s not a false analogy. It’s a reductio. And your argument was deductively unsound.
9) Where is that proposition "God has to preserve the Scriptures perfectly" found in Scripture?
>Likewise, where is the proposition “God has to develop language perfectly to express truths perfectly” found in Scripture? Chapter and verse?
A question: If God superintended the preservation of Scripture, the preservation is perfect, right/wrong? Options are: Scripture is not preserved, partially preserved or perfectly/completely preserved (plus/minus God’s sovereign providence). Reformed folks will admit God’s sovereignty/providence, unless you say that God has no part in this. Which leaves us with: God did not preserve, partially preserve or perfectly/completely preserve Scripture. Which one will it be?
10) Language is developed/superintended by God to providentially express truth perfectly ONLY as they are used in the Scripture. Words and phrases that are not found in the Scripture are irrelevant to the entire question.
>That’s so puzzling! You mean the same Koine Greek (as a language) used in NT/Scripture can express truths perfectly, but is unable to express truths perfectly elsewhere?
It’s the SAME LANGUAGE the development of which was superintended by almighty God. You mean the Koine Greek used in Scripture is “different” from Koine Greek used elsewhere (like those used by the READERS of Scripture?)?
11) I said that they are preserved within the manuscripts, so they ARE perfectly preserved, just not in the way you desire probably.
>I didn’t say that I believed in “perfect” preservation. I was using the example as a reductio (didn’t I reiterate that???).
Ah, how do you know that these words of the autographs are perfectly preserved in the manuscripts/apographs if you do not know which words are in the originals?
Now since you said these statements, let me ask you the same question you asked a moment back, “Where is that proposition "God has to preserve the Scriptures perfectly" found in Scripture?”
12) You obviously do not know my view on textual criticism, as if I believe in the higher critical school or even the Westcort/Hort textual critical philosophy.
>Really? Since you promote/use the ESV on your blogs and writings, you must believe/trust the underlying texts for the ESV. What are the underlying Greek texts used to translate the ESV? What critical theory are these texts based on? (Hint: you mentioned this a few sentences ago)
13) I wrote, “Why don’t you show me how language can be perfectly symbolized into its logical forms? As far as I’m concern, all linguists and logicians agree with my observation. It’s you who disagree. Therefore, the onus of proof is on you.”
You answered, “I have never said we can do it; I just said that it may be possible to do it by God.”
>Yes, with God all things are possible. So is verbal plenary preservation possible? Likewise, “I have never said we can do it; I just said that it may be possible to do it by God” irrespective of whatever textual theory one may have.
14a) I said, “I was having some fun with our newfound friend Joel.”
You said, “And for what reason?”
>Is fun evil/sinful? Why the fuss about having “fun?” When you go out with your friends to the shopping malls (and whatever else you do), you mean you don’t have any “fun?” When you go dating, there’s no fun involved?
Isn’t it needful to think through one’s theological leaning/system with such challenges? Isn’t that the whole point of a discussion or debate? Or would you rather stay comfortably in your ivory tower? If that’s the case, I wouldn’t question any of your beliefs EVER.
And by the way, your statements are red herrings.
14b) Discussion is meant to challenge and edify each other within the Body of Christ, not create unneccessary strife, or "having fun".
>What strife? Commenting on your blog is considered “strife?”
So you didn’t find the discussion edifying/fun? Why not? I found this extremely edifying and fun, and it’s good to have our theological high horses challenged for iron sharpens iron, isn’t it? Or perhaps you’re not used to being challenged?
14c) BTW, just so you know, I have very dim views of sombody masquerading as another 'annonymous' person, so I wouldn't be too pleased if you are actually somebody I know, to say the least.
>Why would you “know” me? I have very dim views of somebody suspecting others of masquerading as 'anonymous' persons, so I wouldn't be too pleased if you are actually somebody I know, to say the least.
Time to address the issues instead of ad hominems?
15) If you want to call that "revelation rationalist", then fine. I was thinking more of the Descartes type of rationalist.
>He IS a rationalist, not a Cartesian rationalist. Another reference for you:
Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology, pp 46-47.
And I’m sure you know that already. :)
16) The intellect tained by the Fall does not make an objective truth an objective lie; it just makes it seems so and therefore the fallen Man is irrational. This does not change reality one bit though. Since God is the Word/Logic, and the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth (Jn. 16:13), therefore the regenerate mind is able to be rational in his/her thinking about the things of God.
>You are avoiding the key issues here; no one says that the “regenerate mind” is irrational. And to say that fallen man is always irrational is saying too much (e.g. fallen men don’t use the “rational” laws of logic in maths?)
However, are you saying that regenerate Man is PERFECT in his intellect/understanding, with no negative noetic effect whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration? Hence, his understanding/intellect/noetic structure - being PERFECT - will in no way affect the interpretation of the Truth of Scripture?
In which case, as I have asked before and I’ll ask you again, why are there so many different interpretations of the SAME Scripture BY REGENERATE MEN if their intellects are all so perfectly rational, and our understanding so untainted by the Fall/sin?
17) Do you know my views on textual criticism? I don't think so.
>Well, your preference and usage of the ESV speaks volumes about your textual convictions, unless, of course, you are using the ESV out of ignorance.
18) antithesis, Btw, are you Vincent in disguise?
>Who’s Vincent?
Yours truly,
Antithesis
6/10/08 15:04
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
>Who’s Vincent?
Vincent is a friend of mine who is studying philosophy and writes comments using the exact same format as you. Furthermore, he has been using a few alternate monikers recently which does not help his case if he was to be accused of commenting under a different name.
>>Why would you “know” me?
That was related to the issue stated above.
>So you didn’t find the discussion edifying/fun? Why not? I found this extremely edifying and fun, and it’s good to have our theological high horses challenged for iron sharpens iron, isn’t it? Or perhaps you’re not used to being challenged?
Look, you come in like a bull in a china shop, and question the positions of others without stating your opinion. Coupled with the little personal information you have revealed make you seem like someone who is only interested in deconstruction and not constructive dialogue.
How about you telling us more about you and your position on the topics?
And if you want to utilize the classic debate tactic and focus only on the truth, then I will give you what you ask for. Truth only; feelings NOT regarded.
6/10/08 23:51
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
1) "And how is that related to your proposal that language can be symbolized perfectly in formal logic, or that language can express truths perfectly?"
So did this statement/question of yours "And how is that related to your proposal that language can be symbolized perfectly in formal logic, or that language can express truths perfectly?" relate any truth perfectly? If it relates any particular truth, but not perfectly, then how do I know that the truth is what exactly what you want to say without any distortion whatsoever?
2) "How is this related to your proposal that language can be symbolized perfectly in formal logic, or that language can express truths perfectly?"
Oh, if language cannot express truths perfectly, then how can the words used in Scripture express any biblical truth perfectly? If they cannot, then the words are NOT inspired, only the sense behind the words are, and that denies Verbal Inspiration.
3) "Again, if language can express truths of Scripture perfectly, why are there so many different interpretations of the SAME Scripture? "
How about sin, and traditionalism?
4) "Likewise, I can formulate my argument as such:
If dogs cannot speak, then cats cannot meow.
But cats can meow, therefore dogs can speak. "
The argument is unsound because the premise "If p, then q" is false. However, my stated argument is soun because the conditional premise IS true.
5) "Again, what has VPI to do with the development of language? If each and every word of Scripture is inspired or God-breathed, does that guarantee that e.g. Koine Greek per se will be able to express truths/propositions perfectly?"
You should go and be a lawyer; words seem to be mere putty to you. Question: In your opinion, is there ONE meaning for any particular sentence made by anyone?
6) "Don’t believe me? Show our comments to a logician"
Appeal to authority? For someone who argues against the ability of words to convey truths perfectly, you sure are using a lot of words to persuade me, as if your words can convey your meaning perfectly.
7) "Which leaves us with: God did not preserve, partially preserve or perfectly/completely preserve Scripture. Which one will it be?"
None of the options. Scripture is fully preserved; if you refuse to understand our position and constantly misrepresent it, then this particular area of discussion is done.
8) That’s so puzzling! You mean the same Koine Greek (as a language) used in NT/Scripture can express truths perfectly, but is unable to express truths perfectly elsewhere?
Language is used by individuals. If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words. That is all I mean by that.
9) "Ah, how do you know that these words of the autographs are perfectly preserved in the manuscripts/apographs if you do not know which words are in the originals?"
Answer: Because the Scriptures tell us that its own words are preserved (cf Mt. 5:18).
10) "So is verbal plenary preservation possible? Likewise, “I have never said we can do it; I just said that it may be possible to do it by God” irrespective of whatever textual theory one may have"
My axiom is found in Jn. 1:1, and that is all I am going to say. Go take up your argument with God and argue with Him how He can say He is the Word/Logic while there are proper sentences which are illogical.
11) "And to say that fallen man is always irrational is saying too much"
... while conveniently leaving out the second part of the sentence "in his/her thinking about the things of God".
12) "However, are you saying that regenerate Man is PERFECT in his intellect/understanding, with no negative noetic effect whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?"
Straw man again. I was saying that regenerate Man is able to be logical wrt the things of God, and whether they are so can be seen by them. I DID not say that they WILL always be logical.
13) On textual issues: "Well, your preference and usage of the ESV speaks volumes about your textual convictions, unless, of course, you are using the ESV out of ignorance"
Give me a break! Are all KJV users believers in KJVOnly-ism? Or maybe they are all TR only-ists? Or how about the NKJV users? Are NKJV users supporters partially supporting the TR and partially supporting Westcort and Hort? And are all users of Inclusive Language versions like the TNIV egalitarians?
The fact of the matter is that there is no strong correlation between my use of the ESV and the underlying manuscripts, unless I am a KJVO. I am satisfied (for now) that the textual basis is NOT corrupt, and that is all the "correlation" that is present. Non-belief in the corruption of the Critical Text does not mean that I am a Westcort and Hort supporter, if you just but apply some basic Aristotelian logic to the issue.
7/10/08 00:32
PuritanReformed said...
antithesis:
So what is your view on language? Are you a Neo-Orthodox theologian?
7/10/08 00:33
(Daniel Chew's words in red)
Antithesis said...
Dear PR:
1) Don't you realize that you are using words now to express your own thoughts?
>And how is that related to your proposal that language can be symbolized perfectly in formal logic, or that language can express truths perfectly?
2) The entire doctrine of the authority and Verbal, Plenary Inspiration of Scripture depends upon the axiom that language can express God's truth perfectly in the written Scriptures.
>Verbal plenary inspiration means full inspiration of each and every WORD of Scripture. VPI simply stated is thus, “The word plenary means "full" or "complete". Therefore, plenary verbal inspiration asserts that God inspired the complete text(s) of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, including both historical and doctrinal details. The word verbal affirms the idea that inspiration extends to the very words the writers chose. For example, in Acts 1:16 the Apostle Peter says "the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake" (KJV).”
http://www.theopedia.com/Inspiration_of_the_Bible#Plenary_verbal_inspiration
How is this related to your proposal that language can be symbolized perfectly in formal logic, or that language can express truths perfectly?
And you haven’t explained how the authority of Scripture necessitates that language can be symbolized perfectly into formal logic, or that language can therefore express truths perfectly. Again, if language can express truths of Scripture perfectly, why are there so many different interpretations of the SAME Scripture? What do you think?
What is so “deductively sound” concerning your statements?
3) So therefore, if language cannot express God's truth perfectly (~p), both of these doctrines are nonsense (~q).
>This is a non sequitur, an unsound argument with false premises.
4) And therefore, since both of these doctrines are biblical (q), therefore language can express God's truth perfectly (p). Modus tollens!
>Nope. See above.
Likewise, I can formulate my argument as such:
If dogs cannot speak, then cats cannot meow.
But cats can meow, therefore dogs can speak. (doesn’t follow, does it? False premises!) Ditto, modus tollens!
Apply the axioms (Authority of Scripture + VPI), and therefore, language must express truths/be symbolized perfectly? It just doesn’t follow i.e. this is deductively valid but unsound.
5) See the above logical statement.
>But not deductively sound. How logical is that?
6) So if God does not so superintend the development of huamn language, how can the doctrine of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration be correct?
>Again, what has VPI to do with the development of language? If each and every word of Scripture is inspired or God-breathed, does that guarantee that e.g. Koine Greek per se will be able to express truths/propositions perfectly?
7) What same line of reasoning? One concerns something which is deductively derived from Scripture; the other not.
>See above (i.e. your deductively UNSOUND argument). Nevertheless, it IS reductio ad absurdum. Don’t believe me? Show our comments to a logician.
8) The proposition p that is to be inserted must be scriptural of course, so it is still a false analogy, since very plainly one is dedutively deduced from Scripture while the other isn't.
>See above. It’s not a false analogy. It’s a reductio. And your argument was deductively unsound.
9) Where is that proposition "God has to preserve the Scriptures perfectly" found in Scripture?
>Likewise, where is the proposition “God has to develop language perfectly to express truths perfectly” found in Scripture? Chapter and verse?
A question: If God superintended the preservation of Scripture, the preservation is perfect, right/wrong? Options are: Scripture is not preserved, partially preserved or perfectly/completely preserved (plus/minus God’s sovereign providence). Reformed folks will admit God’s sovereignty/providence, unless you say that God has no part in this. Which leaves us with: God did not preserve, partially preserve or perfectly/completely preserve Scripture. Which one will it be?
10) Language is developed/superintended by God to providentially express truth perfectly ONLY as they are used in the Scripture. Words and phrases that are not found in the Scripture are irrelevant to the entire question.
>That’s so puzzling! You mean the same Koine Greek (as a language) used in NT/Scripture can express truths perfectly, but is unable to express truths perfectly elsewhere?
It’s the SAME LANGUAGE the development of which was superintended by almighty God. You mean the Koine Greek used in Scripture is “different” from Koine Greek used elsewhere (like those used by the READERS of Scripture?)?
11) I said that they are preserved within the manuscripts, so they ARE perfectly preserved, just not in the way you desire probably.
>I didn’t say that I believed in “perfect” preservation. I was using the example as a reductio (didn’t I reiterate that???).
Ah, how do you know that these words of the autographs are perfectly preserved in the manuscripts/apographs if you do not know which words are in the originals?
Now since you said these statements, let me ask you the same question you asked a moment back, “Where is that proposition "God has to preserve the Scriptures perfectly" found in Scripture?”
12) You obviously do not know my view on textual criticism, as if I believe in the higher critical school or even the Westcort/Hort textual critical philosophy.
>Really? Since you promote/use the ESV on your blogs and writings, you must believe/trust the underlying texts for the ESV. What are the underlying Greek texts used to translate the ESV? What critical theory are these texts based on? (Hint: you mentioned this a few sentences ago)
13) I wrote, “Why don’t you show me how language can be perfectly symbolized into its logical forms? As far as I’m concern, all linguists and logicians agree with my observation. It’s you who disagree. Therefore, the onus of proof is on you.”
You answered, “I have never said we can do it; I just said that it may be possible to do it by God.”
>Yes, with God all things are possible. So is verbal plenary preservation possible? Likewise, “I have never said we can do it; I just said that it may be possible to do it by God” irrespective of whatever textual theory one may have.
14a) I said, “I was having some fun with our newfound friend Joel.”
You said, “And for what reason?”
>Is fun evil/sinful? Why the fuss about having “fun?” When you go out with your friends to the shopping malls (and whatever else you do), you mean you don’t have any “fun?” When you go dating, there’s no fun involved?
Isn’t it needful to think through one’s theological leaning/system with such challenges? Isn’t that the whole point of a discussion or debate? Or would you rather stay comfortably in your ivory tower? If that’s the case, I wouldn’t question any of your beliefs EVER.
And by the way, your statements are red herrings.
14b) Discussion is meant to challenge and edify each other within the Body of Christ, not create unneccessary strife, or "having fun".
>What strife? Commenting on your blog is considered “strife?”
So you didn’t find the discussion edifying/fun? Why not? I found this extremely edifying and fun, and it’s good to have our theological high horses challenged for iron sharpens iron, isn’t it? Or perhaps you’re not used to being challenged?
14c) BTW, just so you know, I have very dim views of sombody masquerading as another 'annonymous' person, so I wouldn't be too pleased if you are actually somebody I know, to say the least.
>Why would you “know” me? I have very dim views of somebody suspecting others of masquerading as 'anonymous' persons, so I wouldn't be too pleased if you are actually somebody I know, to say the least.
Time to address the issues instead of ad hominems?
15) If you want to call that "revelation rationalist", then fine. I was thinking more of the Descartes type of rationalist.
>He IS a rationalist, not a Cartesian rationalist. Another reference for you:
Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology, pp 46-47.
And I’m sure you know that already. :)
16) The intellect tained by the Fall does not make an objective truth an objective lie; it just makes it seems so and therefore the fallen Man is irrational. This does not change reality one bit though. Since God is the Word/Logic, and the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth (Jn. 16:13), therefore the regenerate mind is able to be rational in his/her thinking about the things of God.
>You are avoiding the key issues here; no one says that the “regenerate mind” is irrational. And to say that fallen man is always irrational is saying too much (e.g. fallen men don’t use the “rational” laws of logic in maths?)
However, are you saying that regenerate Man is PERFECT in his intellect/understanding, with no negative noetic effect whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration? Hence, his understanding/intellect/noetic structure - being PERFECT - will in no way affect the interpretation of the Truth of Scripture?
In which case, as I have asked before and I’ll ask you again, why are there so many different interpretations of the SAME Scripture BY REGENERATE MEN if their intellects are all so perfectly rational, and our understanding so untainted by the Fall/sin?
17) Do you know my views on textual criticism? I don't think so.
>Well, your preference and usage of the ESV speaks volumes about your textual convictions, unless, of course, you are using the ESV out of ignorance.
18) antithesis, Btw, are you Vincent in disguise?
>Who’s Vincent?
Yours truly,
Antithesis
6/10/08 15:04
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
>Who’s Vincent?
Vincent is a friend of mine who is studying philosophy and writes comments using the exact same format as you. Furthermore, he has been using a few alternate monikers recently which does not help his case if he was to be accused of commenting under a different name.
>>Why would you “know” me?
That was related to the issue stated above.
>So you didn’t find the discussion edifying/fun? Why not? I found this extremely edifying and fun, and it’s good to have our theological high horses challenged for iron sharpens iron, isn’t it? Or perhaps you’re not used to being challenged?
Look, you come in like a bull in a china shop, and question the positions of others without stating your opinion. Coupled with the little personal information you have revealed make you seem like someone who is only interested in deconstruction and not constructive dialogue.
How about you telling us more about you and your position on the topics?
And if you want to utilize the classic debate tactic and focus only on the truth, then I will give you what you ask for. Truth only; feelings NOT regarded.
6/10/08 23:51
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
1) "And how is that related to your proposal that language can be symbolized perfectly in formal logic, or that language can express truths perfectly?"
So did this statement/question of yours "And how is that related to your proposal that language can be symbolized perfectly in formal logic, or that language can express truths perfectly?" relate any truth perfectly? If it relates any particular truth, but not perfectly, then how do I know that the truth is what exactly what you want to say without any distortion whatsoever?
2) "How is this related to your proposal that language can be symbolized perfectly in formal logic, or that language can express truths perfectly?"
Oh, if language cannot express truths perfectly, then how can the words used in Scripture express any biblical truth perfectly? If they cannot, then the words are NOT inspired, only the sense behind the words are, and that denies Verbal Inspiration.
3) "Again, if language can express truths of Scripture perfectly, why are there so many different interpretations of the SAME Scripture? "
How about sin, and traditionalism?
4) "Likewise, I can formulate my argument as such:
If dogs cannot speak, then cats cannot meow.
But cats can meow, therefore dogs can speak. "
The argument is unsound because the premise "If p, then q" is false. However, my stated argument is soun because the conditional premise IS true.
5) "Again, what has VPI to do with the development of language? If each and every word of Scripture is inspired or God-breathed, does that guarantee that e.g. Koine Greek per se will be able to express truths/propositions perfectly?"
You should go and be a lawyer; words seem to be mere putty to you. Question: In your opinion, is there ONE meaning for any particular sentence made by anyone?
6) "Don’t believe me? Show our comments to a logician"
Appeal to authority? For someone who argues against the ability of words to convey truths perfectly, you sure are using a lot of words to persuade me, as if your words can convey your meaning perfectly.
7) "Which leaves us with: God did not preserve, partially preserve or perfectly/completely preserve Scripture. Which one will it be?"
None of the options. Scripture is fully preserved; if you refuse to understand our position and constantly misrepresent it, then this particular area of discussion is done.
8) That’s so puzzling! You mean the same Koine Greek (as a language) used in NT/Scripture can express truths perfectly, but is unable to express truths perfectly elsewhere?
Language is used by individuals. If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words. That is all I mean by that.
9) "Ah, how do you know that these words of the autographs are perfectly preserved in the manuscripts/apographs if you do not know which words are in the originals?"
Answer: Because the Scriptures tell us that its own words are preserved (cf Mt. 5:18).
10) "So is verbal plenary preservation possible? Likewise, “I have never said we can do it; I just said that it may be possible to do it by God” irrespective of whatever textual theory one may have"
My axiom is found in Jn. 1:1, and that is all I am going to say. Go take up your argument with God and argue with Him how He can say He is the Word/Logic while there are proper sentences which are illogical.
11) "And to say that fallen man is always irrational is saying too much"
... while conveniently leaving out the second part of the sentence "in his/her thinking about the things of God".
12) "However, are you saying that regenerate Man is PERFECT in his intellect/understanding, with no negative noetic effect whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?"
Straw man again. I was saying that regenerate Man is able to be logical wrt the things of God, and whether they are so can be seen by them. I DID not say that they WILL always be logical.
13) On textual issues: "Well, your preference and usage of the ESV speaks volumes about your textual convictions, unless, of course, you are using the ESV out of ignorance"
Give me a break! Are all KJV users believers in KJVOnly-ism? Or maybe they are all TR only-ists? Or how about the NKJV users? Are NKJV users supporters partially supporting the TR and partially supporting Westcort and Hort? And are all users of Inclusive Language versions like the TNIV egalitarians?
The fact of the matter is that there is no strong correlation between my use of the ESV and the underlying manuscripts, unless I am a KJVO. I am satisfied (for now) that the textual basis is NOT corrupt, and that is all the "correlation" that is present. Non-belief in the corruption of the Critical Text does not mean that I am a Westcort and Hort supporter, if you just but apply some basic Aristotelian logic to the issue.
7/10/08 00:32
PuritanReformed said...
antithesis:
So what is your view on language? Are you a Neo-Orthodox theologian?
7/10/08 00:33
No comments:
Post a Comment