Greg the atheist on the Importance of Salvation

[Greg]

Is it a sin to teach heresy?

 

[Josheb]

Is it a sin to teach heresy?

Yes

 

[John Bauer]

Is it a sin to teach heresy?

Yes.

 

[Greg]

Should I refrain from sinning, yes or no?

 

[Josheb]

Should I refrain from sinning, yes or no?

Yes.

 

[John Bauer]

Should I refrain from sinning, yes or no?

Yes.

 

[Greg]

Yes.

Then if God has secretly willed that I sin, I should refrain from fulfilling that aspect of God's will. I'll put it into the form of a deductive syllogism, which then means you cannot reasonably disagree with the conclusion unless you prove Premise 1 is factually incorrect, or prove Premise 2 is factually incorrect, or show that the Conclusion fails to properly distribute the middle, since those are the only 3 ways to "refute" such a syllogism. If both premises are factually correct and the conclusion properly distributes the middle, the syllogism is thus both valid and sound, and for that reason alone, the conclusion necessarily mirrors actual reality. There is no such thing as a valid and sound deductive syllogism in which the conclusion is still false. Here we go:

• P1 - God secretly willed for Hitler to sin
• P2 - Hitler should not sin
• C - Hitler should not do what God secretly willed

I don't think you can successfully attack P1 because a) you believe Hitler murdered Jews, and murder is a sin, and b) the premise is rendered necessarily true by WCF sec.3 (God has ordained all things whatsoever). There is no such thing as anybody deviating from God's secret will, therefore, Hitler's sins of murdering Jews cannot be construed as deviating from God's secret will. That logically leaves no other possibility except that Hitler's murder of Jews had conformed to God's secret will. Thus P1 is factually true

I don't think you can successfully attack P2 because W.ShorterCatechism Answer to Q 39 says it is man's duty to obey the "revealed" will of God, which in Hitler's case was the perfect equivalent of "Hitler should not sin". The revealed will of God is the Law, and the Law says "thou shalt not murder". So "Hitler should not sin" is factually true, thus P2 is factually true.

At this point the only hope of refuting the syllogism is to show that the conclusion fails to properly distribute the middle.

I don't think you can argue that the conclusion fails to properly distribute the middle, because "Hitler" and "should not" is found in both second premise and the conclusion, and God's secret will is represented in both first premise and the conclusion. Thus the conclusion is true. Thus the syllogism is both valid and sound. And the conclusion in a valid and sound syllogism is necessarily reality itself, it's not a recommendation or a subjective viewpoint.

Thus the conclusion, "Hitler should not do what God secretly willed" (as defined in the syllogism) is true.

And Christians always give unbelievers the truth