[quote]Cortes wrote:
I know I’ve been away a while and all but…an epistemology thread, started by Tirib, complete with multiple call-outs in the OP, and I don’t even get an “oh yeah what was that one guy’s name, Hernando something or other?”
I’m genuinely hurt.
Well, Tirib, I know you didn’t do that on purpose. I don’t know how I know it, but I just know it. [/quote]I just walked through the door guys and it’s midnight. Cortes, of course it’s not on purpose. I have mentioned you and quoted from our exchanges on several occasions in your absence. Some of the best dialog I’ve had is with you. It doesn’t hurt that you actually pay attention and think either. I’m not calling anybody out though. I’m inviting them to talk =] Everybody thinks I’m a such a deluded braindead imbecile and so here they can show why.
You are most welcome of course. I gave you credit for asking me one of only two questions I considered even having a semblance of difficulty. It was a further development of one started by Elder Forlife. Kamui as the other. He’s a sleeper. VERY sharp.
I would never overlook you on purpose Cortes. I was thinking more of people I’ hadn’t had this exchange with yet.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< I see one free willer on the invitation list. >>>[/quote]I see all free willers. [quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< Is there a difference in proselytizing to Jews and Catholics tirib?[/quote]It depends more on the individuals. Ultimately though? Not really. Everybody needs Jesus. And for the same reason too. Catholics and Jews are not even int he same galaxy theologically speaking though. That may come into play. Again, depending on the individuals.
The key is faithfulness no matter what. People do the preaching, but God does the saving. That doesn’t mean being obnoxious for obnoxiousness sake, but it does mean not compromising truth to avoid making somebody angry. It’s an affront to the gospel when people water it down to make it more palatable. That leads to false shallow conversion and pews filled with artificial dead religionists.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:<<< Other truths which can be said to be necessarily true are axiomatic and self evident. They require no proof. They are true by definition and serve no purpose but to set up propositions for other arguments. >>>[/quote]Oh and Lifty is the closest so far. REALLY close indeed. Good job buddy. In fact that’s almost dead on as a formal definition of epistemology. The “serve no purpose except” thing has to go. We will abruptly part company though when it comes to what those propositions are.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< I see one free willer on the invitation list. >>>[/quote]I see all free willers. [quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< Is there a difference in proselytizing to Jews and Catholics tirib?[/quote]It depends more on the individuals. Ultimately though? Not really. Everybody needs Jesus. And for the same reason too. Catholics and Jews are not even int he same galaxy theologically speaking though. That may come into play. Again, depending on the individuals.
The key is faithfulness no matter what. People do the preaching, but God does the saving. That doesn’t mean being obnoxious for obnoxiousness sake, but it does mean not compromising truth to avoid making somebody angry. It’s an affront to the gospel when people water it down to make it more palatable. That leads to false shallow conversion and pews filled with artificial dead religionists.
[/quote]
What about Calvin’s views on infant baptism?
Calvin declares that “infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God”(Inst.4, 16, 8). He reasons this primarily through paralleling circumcision and baptism, asserting that Scripture testifies to the fact that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision was previously for the Jews(Inst.4, 16, 11).
Where does that leave the unbaptised and those baptised outside of ‘the’ church?
EDIT: Not trying to have a go at you and I realise it’s off topic. But it seems to me Calvin advocated and tried to develop a samilar sort of theocracy to the Catholic church.
If the first principle is unprovable, all that follows from that first principle is baseless, null and void, without merit, invalid and non-binding.
Why would you build your life around a castle in the sky?[/quote]This was the perfect answer Ephrem. I’ll be back sometime later. As soon as I started this thread my already insanely busy life switched into the next gear. Yes, God is speaking in that. He always is.
Aragorn, SexMachine etc. I’m not ignoring anybody on purpose. I’ll get there. Oleena, I’m not sure what you mean. (honestly)
If the first principle is unprovable, all that follows from that first principle is baseless, null and void, without merit, invalid and non-binding.
Why would you build your life around a castle in the sky?[/quote]This was the perfect answer Ephrem. I’ll be back sometime later. As soon as I started this thread my already insanely busy life switched into the next gear. Yes, God is speaking in that. He always is.
Aragorn, SexMachine etc. I’m not ignoring anybody on purpose. I’ll get there. Oleena, I’m not sure what you mean. (honestly)[/quote]
I raised things not related to epistemology so maybe we can talk about it on another thread another time. Didn’t mean to hi-jack.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< I raised things not related to epistemology so maybe we can talk about it on another thread another time. Didn’t mean to hi-jack.[/quote]I’m in no position to whine over somebody taking a thread off topic. Especially mine. I saw your post about Calvin’s Geneva too. That is a HYOOJ study in ecclesiology and the civil magistrate. Infant baptism doesn’t flip me out, but I lean very definitely toward the anabaptist position. Calvin would be horrified. Like REALLY horrified.
That was a different time with different challenges to overcome that Calvin erroneously attempted to tackle with an inordinate wielding of the force of the magistrate. He of all people should have known better. God never fails to remind the saints that NO earthly manifestation of His kingdom in the church, in this life, in this age will EVER produce infallibility. The bigger the attempt? The bigger the failure. Hence Roman Catholicism.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I know I’ve been away a while and all but…an epistemology thread, started by Tirib, complete with multiple call-outs in the OP, and I don’t even get an “oh yeah what was that one guy’s name, Hernando something or other?”
I’m genuinely hurt.
Well, Tirib, I know you didn’t do that on purpose. I don’t know how I know it, but I just know it. [/quote]I just walked through the door guys and it’s midnight. Cortes, of course it’s not on purpose. I have mentioned you and quoted from our exchanges on several occasions in your absence. Some of the best dialog I’ve had is with you. It doesn’t hurt that you actually pay attention and think either. I’m not calling anybody out though. I’m inviting them to talk =] Everybody thinks I’m a such a deluded braindead imbecile and so here they can show why.
You are most welcome of course. I gave you credit for asking me one of only two questions I considered even having a semblance of difficulty. It was a further development of one started by Elder Forlife. Kamui as the other. He’s a sleeper. VERY sharp.
I would never overlook you on purpose Cortes. I was thinking more of people I’ hadn’t had this exchange with yet.
[/quote]
I know, Tirib, I wasn’t really hurt. Well, not that much, anyway Plus, it gave me the opportunity to be witty and ironic, which I’m sure you know I am very fond of.
You and I got about as far as I felt I was capable of getting on my free will thread, which I think delved pretty deep into this (had to, being that free will is basically the first step up the chain that has to be made after the establishment of (an? your? the?) epistemology.
I know it’s a bit past Christmas, but if I had my wish, I would LOVE to see Thunderbolt’s take on this.
Maybe I’ll jump in here and there. Or get sucked in. PWI has a tendency to do that.
Careless of me, but I meant that definitions are analytic statements and provide no new knowledge in and of themselves. They are only useful (in argument) when paired with other propositions to form logical syllogisms.
NOTHING can be “proven” by sinful autonomous FINITE logic Ephrem. Yours or mine. They’re the same thing. We both embrace by faith a first principle which is by definition unverifiable on the basis of sinful autonomous FINITE logic. Mine explains everything including yours. Yours explains nothing at all.
He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Kamui, and maybe only him thus far, has felt the true force of biblical epistemology. He still refuses the solution that is also the argument itself. Yep. Circular. Always will be for us critters. Only God Himself lives without the circles my friend.
I will unavoidably be pointing people to those old posts. They’re already done and the meat is all there.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[/quote]LOL. I love it.[/quote]Are you ever going to say something of substance. I know ya got it in ya. The is an epistemology thread. Get over your grudge and give us sumthin. Come on. I’m bein absolutely sincere here. I’m genuinely interested in what you have to say.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
NOTHING can be “proven” by sinful autonomous FINITE logic Ephrem. Yours or mine. They’re the same thing. We both embrace by faith a first principle which is by definition unverifiable on the basis of sinful autonomous FINITE logic. Mine explains everything including yours. Yours explains nothing at all.
He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Kamui, and maybe only him thus far, has felt the true force of biblical epistemology. He still refuses the solution that is also the argument itself. Yep. Circular. Always will be for us critters. Only God Himself lives without the circles my friend.
I will unavoidably be pointing people to those old posts. They’re already done and the meat is all there.[/quote]
You said that the first principle is unprovable. If you can’t prove god exists any and all explanation you have is worthless.
I can’t explain our existence, and I’m not presuming to be able to do so. That is okay.
I’m fine with not-knowing. This is not circular and it’s not based on faith. To me, it’s honest.
Plus, it gave me the opportunity to be witty and ironic, which I’m sure you know I am very fond of.