Greg's first deductive syllogism

[Bruiser]

Post 34? Hold on, I'll be back. I hain't read it; but I often use a Debate tactic of using someone's beliefs against them, Even if I agree with them or not...

He would have liked debating with me...

I read it but don't understand it so much. I like things simple...

I don't see why the Syllogism in Post 1 isn't sound. A deep explanation probably won't help me. It has two sound Premises and a sound Conclusion...

 

[Arial]

I read it but don't understand it so much. I like things simple...

I don't see why the Syllogism in Post 1 isn't sound. A deep explanation probably won't help me. It has two sound Premises and a sound Conclusion...

Try posts 6-9. 12,13,18,19,20

 

[Bruiser]

Try posts 6-9. 12,13,18,19,20

You said his Premise is Trivially true; so I'm right. Why not go with the flow and answer Yes to his OP?

Atheists are easy to defeat; even smart ones. If I were him, I would have latched on to your "Trivially true" as a Yes. Inch and Mile stuff...

 

[atpollard]

You said his Premise is Trivially true; so I'm right. Why not go with the flow and answer Yes to his OP?

Atheists are easy to defeat; even smart ones. If I were him, I would have latched on to your "Trivially true" as a Yes. Inch and Mile stuff...

Just for the record, POST #9 illustrates where the OP was always intending to go:

Once the FORM was accepted as "valid", then came the word substitutions ...

• P1 - Major Premise: Hitler should do should do anything God wills him to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for Hitler to murder Jews.
• C - Hitler should murder Jews

and ...

• P1 - Major Premise: Hitler was morally obligated to do anything God willed him to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God willed for Hitler to murder Jews.
• C - Hitler was morally obligated to murder Jews

Followed by his claim of "gotcha" ...

Remember, this is a deductive syllogism. If you can't show the incorrectness of either premise, or show that the conclusion fails to properly distribute the middle, the conclusion is reality. No amount of "God's hidden will changes everything, see Deuteronomy 29:29" can overcome the truth of a conclusion in a syllogism that is both valid and sound.

So let me ask you:

IF the first argument is valid ...

• [P1] The elect should do anything God wills them to do. + [P2] God wills for the elect to repent of their sins. = [C] The elect should repent of their sins

THEN, is the second argument ...

• [P1] Hitler should do should do anything God wills him to do. + [P2] God wills for Hitler to murder Jews. = [C] Hitler should murder Jews
• [P1] Hitler was morally obligated to do anything God willed him to do. + [P2] God willed for Hitler to murder Jews. = [C] Hitler was morally obligated to murder Jews.

... just as valid?

 

[Bruiser]

Just for the record, POST #9 illustrates where the OP was always intending to go:

Once the FORM was accepted as "valid", then came the word substitutions ...


and ...


Followed by his claim of "gotcha" ...


So let me ask you:

IF the first argument is valid ...

• [P1] The elect should do anything God wills then to do. + [P2] God wills for the elect to repent of their sins. = [C] The elect should repent of their sins

THEN, is the second argument ...

• [P1] Hitler should do should do anything God wills him to do. + [P2] God wills for Hitler to murder Jews. = [C] Hitler should murder Jews
• [P1] Hitler was morally obligated to do anything God willed him to do. + [P2] God willed for Hitler to murder Jews. = [C] Hitler was morally obligated to murder Jews.

... just as valid?

I read it, that's why I wish he was still here. The Bait and Switch would have shown him that God should Punish Sinners. My approach uses a person's own Thesis against them. Agreeing with his approach, means I can use his approach to convince him of Sin...

Oh yeah, his second Syllogism isn't as Valid since I suspect Hitler wasn't Elect (oh boy, if we find out he was). But it's still a good Syllogism, because it doesn't mention the Elect. Hitler wasn't Morally obligated to obey God; no more than Xerxes was. But he did follow Providence...

 

[atpollard]

I read it, that's why I wish he was still here. The Bait and Switch would have shown him that God should Punish Sinners. My approach uses a person's own Thesis against them. Agreeing with his approach, means I can use his approach to convince him of Sin...

Heck, I am a former atheist. I can probably hold up his side of the argument ...

Why should God punish sinners when God willed saints to be saints and sinners to be sinners? Even Paul ducked the question and told us to "shut up and don't ask that"! - [Atheist mode]

Romans 9:18-20 [NASB]

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. ​

• (God willed saints to be saints and sinners to be sinners)

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" ​

• (Why should God punish sinners when God willed it)

20 On the contrary, who are you, you [foolish] person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?​

• ("shut up and don't ask that"!)

 

[Bruiser]

Heck, I am a former atheist. I can probably hold up his side of the argument ...

Why should God punish sinners when God willed saints to be saints and sinners to be sinners? Even Paul ducked the question and told us to "shut up and don't ask that"! - [Atheist mode]

Romans 9:18-20 [NASB]

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. ​

• (God willed saints to be saints and sinners to be sinners)

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" ​

• (Why should God punish sinners when God willed it)

20 On the contrary, who are you, you [foolish] person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?​

• ("shut up and don't ask that"!)

God gave them over to themselves; he didn't Will anyone to be Sinners. At best, it's Passive Aggressive. It doesn't enter God's Mind to Cause Sin...

This has to be factored into the Potter and the Clay...

 

[Arial]

You said his Premise is Trivially true; so I'm right. Why not go with the flow and answer Yes to his OP?

Atheists are easy to defeat; even smart ones. If I were him, I would have latched on to your "Trivially true" as a Yes. Inch and Mile stuff...

I appreciate and respect your approach. But---look what happens if right off the bat you accept his syllogism.

What is his syllogism attempting to do?

@Greg asks:

What if you found a valid and sound deductive syllogism that drew a conclusion you think conflicted with the bible? Would you be open to the possibility that biblical inerrancy is a false doctrine? Or would you contradict the Calvinist view that logic arises from God's nature, and suddenly discover that logic isn't god's nature after all?
Greg's syllogism:

• P1 - Major Premise: The elect should do anything God wills then to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
• C - The elect should repent of their sins

You concede that the syllogism is sound. Keep in mind that he is framing this from the Calvinist perspective and that is one thing that contributes to its unsoundness. To start with the two questions, present a false dichotomy. If you answer "yes" to P 1 and P2 then you are contradicting the C'ist view that logic arises from God's nature and discover that logic isn't God's nature after all. The two questions themselves are different categories, also. And his portrayal of the Calvinist view is slightly inaccurate. In Calvinism God is logic, (his simplicity) not simply that logic arises from his nature.

What is his next planned move?

Greg:

• P1 - Major Premise: Hitler should do should do anything God wills him to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for Hitler to murder Jews.
• C - Hitler should murder Jews

If you have conceded that the first syllogism is sound, then this one is also.

In order to stay out of the trap that was laid, the syllogism needs to be shown to be unsound, and it is. And that has been demonstrated by several posters.

 

[John Bauer]

In order to stay out of the trap that was laid, the syllogism needs to be shown to be unsound—and it is.

The funny thing is, it’s not even a syllogism.

 

[Bruiser]

As of right now, some Provisionists are telling me that these aren't Syllogisms but are assumptions...

A Provisionist said, Two Honest Questions for Calvinists

How do you know you are one of the unconditionally elect in Christ?
How do you know the grace you received is the Irresistible kind, not the evanescent kind?

For those unfamiliar with evanescent grace, John Calvin taught that evanescent grace is a temporary work of God that can make someone appear truly saved for a time, but it ultimately fades because they were never genuinely elect.

I said,

Because Saint John said, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life". I know that God's Grace is Sound, because God will Lose none. The Syllogism would be...

P1 - We know We have Eternal Life
P2 - We know God will Lose no Saint
C- God's Grace is Sound

The Provisionists said, But Bruiser how do YOU know you are TRULY elected? In the Calvinist soteriology, you cannot logically believe that.

I said, Because God Elects his Saints; I suspect you agree. Knowing you are a Saint, means you know you are Elect...

P1 - Since I Believe in the Son of God, I know I have Eternal Life
P2 - God has Elected each Saint
C- I know I'm Elect

I suppose you agree with both Syllogisms, right?

 

[atpollard]

A Provisionist said, Two Honest Questions for Calvinists

How do you know you are one of the unconditionally elect in Christ?
How do you know the grace you received is the Irresistible kind, not the evanescent kind?

I would need clarification. Do you really care “how can [I know] that I am elect” or are you really asking “how can [you know] that you are elect” … because the answer to those two questions are very different.

My empirical evidence will be of no value to you (personal experience cannot transfer).

On the other hand, of you are asking “How can YOU know that I am one of the elect” or How can I know that you are one of the elect” … that is easy to answer: “we can’t; nobody can see the heart of another.”

 

[Bruiser]

I would need clarification. Do you really care “how can [I know] that I am elect” or are you really asking “how can [you know] that you are elect” … because the answer to those two questions are very different.

My empirical evidence will be of no value to you (personal experience cannot transfer).

The Provisionist wanted to know how Calvinists know they personally have been Elected...

 

[atpollard]

The Provisionist wanted to know how Calvinists know they personally have been Elected...

Romans 10:9-10 [NASB] “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”

The ELECT will and do CONFESS and BELIEVE.
The NON-ELECT will not CONFESS or BELIEVE.
[External appearances do not guarantee internal reality.]

• "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; LEAVE ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'” - Matthew 7:15-23 [NASB]
• “THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.” - Matthew 15:8 [NASB]
• “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.” - Romans 2:28-29 [NASB]

 

[John Bauer]

The Provisionist wanted to know how Calvinists know they personally have been Elected...

They can’t know—and they’re often the first to confess they don’t need to know. It is the Provisionist who insists on probing into the secret things of God.

 

[Bruiser]

Romans 10:9-10 [NASB] “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”

The ELECT will and do CONFESS and BELIEVE.
The NON-ELECT will not CONFESS or BELIEVE.
[External appearances do not guarantee internal reality.]

• "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; LEAVE ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'” - Matthew 7:15-23 [NASB]
• “THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.” - Matthew 15:8 [NASB]
• “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.” - Romans 2:28-29 [NASB]

That's great! Do you like my Syllogisms, or are they right about them being assumptions?

If my Syllogisms are Sound, the Provisionist's bias claims they are my assumptions...

Syllogisms should be above bias and assumption. What if Greg's Syllogisms were sound, but we have bias?

 

[John Bauer]

What if Greg's syllogisms were sound, but we have bias?

They were not syllogisms.

 

[Carbon]

The Provisionist wanted to know how Calvinists know they personally have been Elected...

Haha, yeah, right. I noticed that most of their reasoning is pretty stupid. Sorry to be so blunt.

 

[Carbon]

They can’t know—and they’re often the first to confess they don’t need to know. It is the Provisionist who insists on probing into the secret things of God.

You hit the nail on the head there bro!

 

[atpollard]

That's great! Do you like my Syllogisms, or are they right about them being assumptions?

If my Syllogisms are Sound, the Provisionist's bias claims they are my assumptions...

Syllogisms should be above bias and assumption. What if Greg's Syllogisms were sound, but we have bias?

I don’t really do formal logic. Formal logic led me to the conclusion of “atheism” and encountering God (Road to Damascus style) forced me to reconsider my conclusions.

As far as “syllogisms” go, I went and looked up what they were in an explanation of formal logic and found that there were several types. Greg’s and your’s are not the most typical form:

• P1: All dogs are mammals [D=M]
• P2: “Spot” is a dog. [S=D]
• C: “Spot” is a mammal. [S=M]

Where S (spot) and M (mammal) are linked by the common joiner D (dog).
However, there are other forms and (frankly) I didn’t care enough about Greg’s argument to get that deep into the weeds of “logic” and proving or disproving logical proofs.

For me, TRUTH trumps logic and SCRIPTURE is the “norman normans non normata*” of TRUTH.

* (Latin for “rule of rules that itself has no higher rule” or “measure of measures that itself has no higher measure”)

 

[Arial]

The Provisionist wanted to know how Calvinists know they personally have been Elected...

The Calvinist is not immune to having moments of uncertainty in the matter. It is in fact more likely that the one who would never face these times of questioning would be the Precisionists. Why? Because their first trust is in the decision they made and only secondarily in God.

The Calvinist can actually find his assurance in God from his word. In whom the Bible presents Jesus as (Son of God--God the Son) and the propitiatory, substitutive, work that he did and the fact that they believe it. Knowing also from Scripture that if they were not of the elect they would not believe it (John 3; John 1:12-13; 1 Cor 2:14). Knowing that formerly, they did not believe it.