Paul's Passing Thoughts

We Disagree on the Premise…So How Do We Know Who’s Right?

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on October 17, 2016

MosesOne can always determine the validity (that being the moral and thus one that is correct and true) of a metaphysical assumption by considering the axiomatic results the logical conclusions of such assumptions must produce.

Andy

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil…I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life…” ~ Deuteronomy 30:15,19

Advertisements

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. John said, on October 17, 2016 at 1:18 PM

    It’s either or, not both (Deuteronomy passage). Moses called on the Israelites to choose between good/life and evil/death, where the former indicated obedience; the second option indicated disobedience to God’s decrees, commands, and laws. Choosing the former would result in blessings and life, etc. Guaranteed, by God.
    Sadly, in Protestant circles, the choice is everything but free or even clear, and whatever follows is total chaos, confusion, uncertainty, fear, panic, lies, etc. And guess who is the father of lies?

    Andy, yours is a very philosophical statement, but I think I got it. Eventually. A physical assumption is the opposite of a metaphysical one. Could you give us more examples?

    Like

    • Andy Young, PPT contributing editor said, on October 17, 2016 at 1:41 PM

      You’re partway there.

      In dealing with reformed/protestant theologians, at best you will only ever get them to acknowledge that the two of you are coming from differing points of view (“we agree to disagree”). What they are really saying is that they are acknowledging a difference in metaphysics (the nature of reality and existence). They do this unwittingly because such a statement is philosophical and not theological, and they are not trained in philosophy even though their theological position requires them to adopt a philosophy. In other words, they won’t couch it in philosophical language.

      Second, they will reject your premise out of hand because to them “authority” always trumps reason. So even though you have a more reasonable argument, it cannot possibly be valid because it is not authoritative.

      I submit that it is indeed possible to objectively determine that one metaphysical assumption is indeed true and thus the correct “moral” premise. And you do that by evaluating each one and looking at what are the end results of each. I would submit that the premise that results in life would be the correct, moral, and valid view of reality and existence.

      If we understand that the Bible is God’s metaphysical statement to mankind, then what God is saying is, this is how the world works, this is the way I made it to work, this is reality. Therefore, if you follow this philosophy to its rational conclusion, the result is life! (This is ostensibly what God was saying to Israel in Deuteronomy 30.)

      Said another way, we can reject the metaphysical premise of protestant/reformed theology, and its accompanying epistemology of historical-redemptive hermeneutics, because following it to its rational conclusion, the result is condemnation, fear, and ultimately DEATH!

      Clearly, the one that results in Life would be the moral ideal, and thus the correct and true one!

      Like

      • John said, on October 17, 2016 at 2:54 PM

        Yes, I see it more clearly now, Andy; thanks a lot. My angle on protestant/reformed/calvinist theology (lies) has always been from a straightforward dissection of their beliefs (TULIP, etc.), and those obvious lies never did make sense to me, not even as a youngster, but I was told, “Don’t mock God; ours is the truth; there is no other.” Yeah, the authority factor that trumped even the Word of God, in action.

        Indeed, I’ve said it also: Calvinism/Reformed theology can only lead to death; that is its natural conclusion.
        Ultimately, on some level in all of this, it’s man’s Word (historical-redemptive exegetics) and man’s imagined, self-created authority against God’s Word, understood in a grammatically interpretive way. There can only be one Truth.

        Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: