Apologetics to the Glory of God

An Attenuated Commentary of The Bible (Samples)

Sample #1:

33 “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and  knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”
36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)

Paul here, after discussing the sovereignty of God in spite of the rebellion of Israel, speaks of the incomprehensibility of God. This is not the only time he has done this in the epistle to Rome (c.f Romans 9:19-20).

But what of the Fristian who holds to this letter? Even though Paul might reject what he’s saying, wouldn’t Paul be begging the question?

Sample #2:

1 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. (Colossians 2:1-3)

Presented here is the application of Paul’s doctrine of Christ, and the nature of wisdom. Paul naturally begins the application of the doctrine after spelling out just who Christ is (c.f. Col 1:15-18). However, we must not let Paul make too strong of a metaphysical claim. Just because It is indeed true that all of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ, in whom we have those benefits through Spirit-wrought union, however we must place that aside, given the possibility of a plausible argument from a position that opposes the doctrine set forth. For instance the Fristian, who accepts the book of Colossians, may say that he too believes this, and that Paul, and the Christians that follow, are begging the question in attempting to apply this principle of thinking against him. For the Fristian can just mirror these objections insofar as it suits him to do so. Paul may call it a delusion, but we would call his doctrine a delusion.

Posted

in

by

Justin

Tags:

Comments

5 responses to “An Attenuated Commentary of The Bible (Samples)”

  1. B.C. Askins Avatar
    B.C. Askins

    The question is begged, not by Paul, but by you – in assuming, rather than demonstrating, that Paul agrees with you rather than the Fristian. He would say Paul thinks your doctrine is mistaken and a delusion

    Reply
    1. Resequitur Avatar
      Resequitur

      “The question is begged, not by Paul, but by you – in assuming, rather than demonstrating that Paul agrees with you rather than the Fristian”

      1) Yep, I’m assuming Christian Theism, which includes the bible’s teaching on the doctrine of the Trinity. The onus is on the fristian to show that Paul wasn’t teaching any of those things.

      2) Is it a logical fallacy to believe what the Scripture clearly teaches based on the Authority of God, is that a vicious circle?

      “He would say Paul thinks your doctrine is mistaken and a delusion”

      Good for him, now do the hard work of demonstrating it.

      Reply
  2. B.C. Askins Avatar
    B.C. Askins

    You still don’t seem to grasp that the Fristianity objection is a defeater for your particular flavor of TAG – nothing more, still nothing less. It “mirrors” your argument’s content and form but adds a mysterious fourth person to the Trinity. When you say the Fristian needs to demonstrate such and such, and “he” is merely mirroring your arguments, you criticize yourself. You look in the mirror, point your finger and say, “The onus is on him to do the demonstrating.” The rest of us watching this can only shake our collective heads at your confusion.

    Reply
    1. Resequitur Avatar
      Resequitur

      “You still don’t seem to grasp that the Fristianity objection is a defeater for your particular flavor of TAG – nothing more, still nothing less.”

      You still don’t seem to grasp that the Fristianity objection doesn’t defeat anything, because it needs Christianity to make the objection. You also don’t seem to realize that if you don’t have any basis (the one you offered is necessarily inconsistent) for making the argument then you’ve not really done anything

      ” It “mirrors” your argument’s content and form but adds a mysterious fourth person to the Trinity. ”

      Notice how Ben just repeats himself over and over at this point, all of his objections have been answered, he hasn’t dealt with the content yet of what we’ve said yet. Any honest person would note what was said here and come to the same conclusions.

      “When you say the Fristian needs to demonstrate such and such, and “he” is merely mirroring your arguments, you criticize yourself.”

      Note that Ben is a Christian as well, and note elsewhere that The Christian theist makes an appeal to authority when arguing for his view. Also note the wedge Ben is trying to drive between The appeal to authority (based on faith) and reasoning. Watch how this plays out when doing anything else. You can’t understand a certain passage to have certain implications because a Fristian could mimic you in doing it. Why does Ben object simply to the metaphysical, would he do the same thing with his soteriology? If not, why not? Isn’t salvation having to do with the metaphysical?

      “You look in the mirror, point your finger and say, “The onus is on him to do the demonstrating.” The rest of us watching this can only shake our collective heads at your confusion.”

      Notice how Ben just simply reasserts that Fristianity is a mirror, without dealing with any of our argumentation.

      Reply
    2. BK Avatar
      BK

      Ben – you said “It “mirrors” your argument’s content and form but adds a mysterious fourth person to the Trinity. ”

      No, it does not mirror the *content* of TAG at all – as TAG’s content includes Biblical Christianity. Christianity has (as I’m sure you realize) a Trinity – not a Quadrinity.

      BK

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *