tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post7405340699921338079..comments2021-01-26T15:10:05.791-08:00Comments on Confessional Kingdom: Ariminians and Presuppositional ApologeticsChristopher Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-25658606191533092762013-05-29T11:49:08.524-07:002013-05-29T11:49:08.524-07:00Waka,
Thanks.. I will respond to your first respon...Waka,<br />Thanks.. I will respond to your first response later. That will take a little bit of time. <br /><br />But, for your second question, I wanted to provide some context for my answer to your question on whether I am a dominionist or not. <br /><br />The short answer is yes. <br />However, I want to be clear to you on what I mean by this and what I dont mean by this. <br /><br />I would normally say that I am a "theonomist" because this term seems to imply a little bit different focus as opposed to "dominionist." Maybe it doesnt seem that different to many people, but that is my preference. <br /><br />I say this because my focus is on adhering to God's law as fulfilled through Christ. Through adherence to God's law because of my love for Christ, I now have the motivation and desire to serve the Lord through various commissions of thought, speech and deed. <br /><br />And I also recognize that all (non-Christians and Christian) are under ONE epistemologically-consistent moral standard, as revealed to Christians in a special way through the Word, and yet it is implanted in all of our hearts (Christian and non-Christian) as also revealed and told to us in the Bible (Rom 2). <br /><br />This leaves non-Christians without any excuse for the right standard of morality and about who God is, regardless of whether they have the Bible or not.. (romans 1).<br /><br />With this standard, I am called to live out my faith as salt and light to this world, in which I perform various acts of service to lovingly be in accord with the law of God.. whether that be in my studies, how I interact with my family, my church community, and how I vote and how I interact in the "political" and legislative process as a citizen. <br /><br />Because of that one epistemologically consistent standard for all, I also recognize that culture is never "neutral".. and that it should be recognized that it is the church's mission and also the individual Christian's mission to spread the gospel, love our neighbor, and inform them about God's love through Christ and the loving commands that he gives to us to follow him. <br /><br />Without Christ, the law condemns. With Christ, the law sanctifies. Yet, in either case, the law is still the epistemologically consistent standard that all are required to obey. <br /><br />Christ's command for us to be salt and light has no meaning if we are not attempting to bring about godly morality as reflected in his law. This is ***closely*** coupled with proclamation of the how the gospel saves from the condemnation of that godly law. <br /><br />Through this preaching of both law and gospel, men and women will become saved and through the renewing of their hearts and minds, their actions in culture and politics etc.. will change.. This will gradually "transform" society.. <br /><br />However, regardless of whether this world becomes Christianized in the end, Christ still has dominion.. this should never be forgotten... This is why those who disobey and spurn his commands and the gospel are still held accountable when they die. <br /><br />But, we Christians do well to obey Christ's command to be salt and light in the world, and this is why it is important to pass godly laws and generate law abiding culture so that the path and environment for gospel proclamation is aided and not hindered. <br /><br />Quick example:<br />If one has absolutely no concept that homosexuality is wrong, he will most likely (but not necessarily always) greatly struggle over this concept before becoming a Christian, or this may even be the temporal factor that prevents him from being a Christian... <br /><br />If one already has a concept that this is wrong, the "path" for him to become a Christian (temporally speaking) is more clear..<br /><br />This is simply an example, but I hope that you can see the purpose that we as Christians are to try to pass godly laws and influence the culture towards a more law-abiding direction. <br /><br />Does this help with your question about my dominionist status?Christopher Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-16878885660757519992013-05-27T14:56:32.056-07:002013-05-27T14:56:32.056-07:00also are you a dominionist?also are you a dominionist?wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-58335760170616392682013-05-27T14:53:24.733-07:002013-05-27T14:53:24.733-07:00"context, education level and various factors..."context, education level and various factors"<br />perhaps i should have been more clear-i look at the historical context this message was written in, who it was written by and who it was written for.Also i forgot to mention, how much that message pertains to reality, also how can you see an invisible attribute?<br />" Other than simply asserting it, what evidence do you have that Paul's followers actually used this to "insult" non-Christians?"<br /> Sye Ten Bruggengate, Tony Miano,Ray Comfortwakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-71730045317958396392013-05-27T09:21:18.646-07:002013-05-27T09:21:18.646-07:00Waka,
Thanks.
Based on what you said, it seems ...Waka, <br />Thanks. <br /><br />Based on what you said, it seems that the reason that you don't believe what Paul said in Rom 1 is that his "acolytes in the future can insult non-Christians claiming that they are dishonest about their position." <br /><br />1) When you say that you are using "context, education level and various factors", these items you described are either not valid as a standard for determining whether a particular inference is valid or you are being entirely unclear. <br /> a) What "context" are you using? (vague)<br /><br /> b) How is education level ever a proper standard that would determine the truthfulness of a statement?<br />(fallacious appeal to authority)<br /><br /> c) What exactly is "various factors"? (vague)<br /><br />2) Also, it is fallacious reasoning to say that a statement is false because of the way in which someone might use that statement. <br /><br />Among the other informal fallacies that you commit in your reasoning, the immediate one that comes to mind is a red herring: <br />Your conclusion that Paul's statements in Romans is false does not logically follow from the premises that his followers use his statements to insult non-Christians. <br /><br />If you prefer, you can put your inference in a syllogism with proper premises to form a conclusion. This would be the most efficient way to prove to me the soundness and validity of your conclusion. <br /><br />3) Other than simply asserting it, what evidence do you have that Paul's followers actually used this to "insult" non-Christians?<br /><br />These questions are good for a start. I look forward to your response. Christopher Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-81466518544601667492013-05-27T08:53:26.694-07:002013-05-27T08:53:26.694-07:00"What is your standard for how you would know..."What is your standard for how you would know whether what Paul said is true or not?"<br />i take a look at the context, education level, and various factors that pertain to why the person might have said such a things,and for Paul to say that people who say they dont believe in God because they are so wicked that they "supress the truth" is just so that his acolytes in the future can insult non-Christians claiming that they are dishonest about their postion wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-89154446069426063172013-05-25T12:15:40.954-07:002013-05-25T12:15:40.954-07:00Waka,
Thanks for the message.. I like talking ab...Waka, <br /><br />Thanks for the message.. I like talking about these kinds of things, so I appreciate your contribution. <br /><br />In order to help this along:<br />What is your standard for how you would know whether what Paul said is true or not? Christopher Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-37295322512360321152013-05-24T14:42:47.341-07:002013-05-24T14:42:47.341-07:00"From a biblical and apologetical standpoint,... "From a biblical and apologetical standpoint, the unbeliever already does knows that God exists. Romans 1 tells us that all men have clearly been shown who God is: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" God has been clearly seen, and all men are without excuse"<br />Loaded statement so therefore it automatically falls, and i don't know that god exist and i have not clearly seen invisible attributes, Paul was just clever enough to put that into his writing so that his acolytes can insult people who disagree with him with rude insults wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-61351707982352478472013-05-21T22:56:42.325-07:002013-05-21T22:56:42.325-07:00Chang,
Thanks.. As I read your comment, I immedia...Chang, <br />Thanks.. As I read your comment, I immediately thought of RC Sproul. <br />I have read part of "Miracles" years ago. I have to pick it back up again. Christopher Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03901993614400205774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5069588270680861622.post-80712123833136182322013-05-21T10:04:37.551-07:002013-05-21T10:04:37.551-07:00To be fair to evidentialists and classical apologe...To be fair to evidentialists and classical apologetics...not all evidentialists are arminians. Have you read C.S. Lewis' Miracles? Fantastic (perhaps one of the best) in exposing presupposition of naturalism, but like WLC, falls short in other ways. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com