Circular Reasoning

[Brandan Kraft]

Not according to the article and what I have read, so I dont know what else to explain. I was not there.

The article is wrong.

66 books is fine with me

BUT why do you choose the protestant canon over the catholic canon? What right did the protestants have to choose their canon over the catholic canon? If the protestants had a right to choose their canon, why can't I choose MY canon? You have chosen yours, why can't I?

Correct Brandan. We all have our favorite books and ones we turn to most often. This is much different than excluding a book entirely. And screaming Justinian interpolation.

Dude, you exclude entire books don't you? Your canon doesn't have books that are found in other canons. Why do you get to exclude books in your canon, and I can't?

First off it is not 'my' canon. Second, the Gospel hermeneutic is a cute phrase, but we would have to exclude many more if using this.

It is too your canon. You compiled your own list of books that you consider canonical. Your reasoning behind it is that you want to conform with tradition. That's fine. But don't deny that you have formed your own canon. ANYONE who supports ANY FORM of canon has formed their own canon even if it includes embracing a canon that already existed!

I dont have to leave you alone. By adopting your understanding you have put yourself alone, or perhaps with the few others in 6000k years and if youre ok with that, I commend you. I could never be.

Considering the history of ChristenDUMB, I cannot trust them to properly formulate a canon for me to adopt lock stock and barrel without even questioning their decisions. If I do question why certain books are included, the answer is, "it's scripture ithat has always been included in the canon, therefore it must be included in the canon!"

I find it amazing that my position on Scripture can be criticized as circular reasoning.. Circular reasoning!?!?!?!? Traditional canon dogma is circular reasoning!

*ring* *ring* *ring*...
"Hi Kettle... YOU'RE BLACK!"

Brandan

[lionovjudah]

BUT why do you choose the protestant canon over the catholic canon? What right did the protestants have to choose their canon over the catholic canon? If the protestants had a right to choose their canon, why can't I choose MY canon? You have chosen yours, why can't I?

I will end with the words of the inspred Paul. Talking to you BK, I could actually see him pointing at you when saying this.{Drama added for purpose}

23(AL)All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things (AM)edify.

[Highlyfavored]

I will end with the words of the inspred Paul. Talking to you BK, I could actually see him pointing at you when saying this.{Drama added for purpose}

23(AL)All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things (AM)edify.

I would think he would point at anyone and say this, and add "this especially includes the book of James"

[unhingedsquare]

The scriptures are true in their entirety once one has faith in Jesus.

John 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. KJV

In Jesus' day as today we have many who look to the scriptures but miss the message. The law is not understood in it fierceness nor the Gospel in it's sweetness. The Pharisee then as today will search ways in which to appease God and miss entirely the promises associated with Jesus' advent, perfect life, death, burial and resurrection. The law is minimized in such a way that a person can think it can be obeyed.

Jesus is not true because the Bible is true. But rather the Bible is true because Jesus is.

God's peace. †

[Dans la Musique]

That's unhinged reasoning square!

[unhingedsquare]

That's unhinged reasoning square!

Why thank you for noticing! My reasoning resembles that remark!

God's peace. †

[Robert David]

Dear friends please have patience with me not very good on the computer. Two thoughts came to me while reading your posts re. circular reasoning-1 Icame to think of those in John 4 v42 We beleive now, not because of what YOU said,but because we ourselves have heard him. And the second thought was from Exodus 10 v23b But in Gosen there was light. just had to wave to you from where I am.

[Jentley]

I realize that Brandon closed the thread that Huntington posted related to James, but I have a tangential question. Perhaps this belongs on another area of the forum, but I put it here because that is where the other post was. (feel free to move it if it pleases you)

There has been a lot of talk of the Gospel-defined "canon" and I see that you are discussing "Gospel hermeneutic" at next year's conference. (unfortunately I probably can't make it because I will be 7.5 months preggers)

Brandon wrote:
"But we don't believe "the bible." We believe the Gospel, and then we believe most of the books of the bible are true because they are consistent with the Gospel. I don't accept anything as truth just because everybody else says it's the truth."

The problem that keeps nagging me is that there is only one way that we know ANYTHING of the Gospel : through Scripture. God clearly designed his truth to be primarily revealed through the written Word. So if Scripture defines the Gospel, yet the Gospel is to define Scripture, aren't we in a hopeless logical quandary? How would you (Brandan) resolve this?

Dorcas,

The issue of circular reasoning regarding Scripture's authority, and specifically God's authority in Scripture, stems from:

1.) Confusion of Divine utterances in Scripture with Divine preservation and transmission of Scripture.

2.) Denial of basic hermeneutic principles of context and self explanation of Scripture.

3.) Eisegesis.

4.) The broad capacity for human self hypnosis through repitition.

I Corinthians 7:12a, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."

Vs.25, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."

II Corinthians 8:8a, I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others."

II Timothy 3:16a, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

Text word #2315, "theopneustos: Divinely breathed in," occurs only once in all of Scripture.

The English word "inspiration" occurs only twice, once as #2315 in II Timothy 3:16, and once in Job, unrelated to the writing of Scripture.

II Peter 1:20-21, "Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the scripture os of any private interpretation. For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Text word #5342, "phero: be, bear, bring forth, carry, come, drive, endure, go on, lay, lead, move, reach, rushing, uphold," occurs, as well only once in Scripture in II Peter 1:20.

It is a hermeneutic principle that no single verse is to be used to form a Theologic Doctrine.

The Scripture spoken of in both II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:20 is cited within the context of Scripture then in hand, namely the Law and the Prophets, not the New Testament writings.

Any mention made by Paul and Peter of each other's writings does not necessarily, by that means, confer Scriptural status upon each other. Faithful Christian writers citing each other, today, does not indicate Divine utterance within their written works.

Scripture itself names its parts which are Divine utterance.

1.) "Thus saith the Lord," and equivalent introductions.

2.) The Words of Jesus.

3.) The words of John the Revelator.

4.) The Law and Prophets cited by Jesus.

The three Pauline examples above in I and II Corinthians are self explanatory for not being Divinely uttered.

Peter's mention of Prophesy occurring by the phero of God is specified for prophesy of "old time," not during his time.

God does provide Scripture, preserve Scripture, and transmit Scripture, but not all Scripture, as shown by Paul, is the very Word of God. To say that all Canonized Biblical Scripture is the very Word of God is to necessitate the use of circular logic.

God alone can construct and convey axiomatic statements, but God does not use circular reasoning.

Constant and holy sounding repitition of sincere beliefs do not validate them.

Jentley.

[rlhuckle]

Dorcas,

The issue of circular reasoning regarding Scripture's authority, and specifically God's authority in Scripture, stems from:

1.) Confusion of Divine utterances in Scripture with Divine preservation and transmission of Scripture.

2.) Denial of basic hermeneutic principles of context and self explanation of Scripture.

3.) Eisegesis.

4.) The broad capacity for human self hypnosis through repitition.

I Corinthians 7:12a, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."

Vs.25, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."

II Corinthians 8:8a, I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others."

II Timothy 3:16a, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

Text word #2315, "theopneustos: Divinely breathed in," occurs only once in all of Scripture.

The English word "inspiration" occurs only twice, once as #2315 in II Timothy 3:16, and once in Job, unrelated to the writing of Scripture.

II Peter 1:20-21, "Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the scripture os of any private interpretation. For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Text word #5342, "phero: be, bear, bring forth, carry, come, drive, endure, go on, lay, lead, move, reach, rushing, uphold," occurs, as well only once in Scripture in II Peter 1:20.

It is a hermeneutic principle that no single verse is to be used to form a Theologic Doctrine.

The Scripture spoken of in both II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:20 is cited within the context of Scripture then in hand, namely the Law and the Prophets, not the New Testament writings.

Any mention made by Paul and Peter of each other's writings does not necessarily, by that means, confer Scriptural status upon each other. Faithful Christian writers citing each other, today, does not indicate Divine utterance within their written works.

Scripture itself names its parts which are Divine utterance.

1.) "Thus saith the Lord," and equivalent introductions.

2.) The Words of Jesus.

3.) The words of John the Revelator.

4.) The Law and Prophets cited by Jesus.

The three Pauline examples above in I and II Corinthians are self explanatory for not being Divinely uttered.

Peter's mention of Prophesy occurring by the phero of God is specified for prophesy of "old time," not during his time.

God does provide Scripture, preserve Scripture, and transmit Scripture, but not all Scripture, as shown by Paul, is the very Word of God. To say that all Canonized Biblical Scripture is the very Word of God is to necessitate the use of circular logic.

God alone can construct and convey axiomatic statements, but God does not use circular reasoning.

Constant and holy sounding repitition of sincere beliefs do not validate them.

Jentley.

At first blush, it appears to me that you are violating your own words (no single verse....) somewhat by taking a couple of quotes by Paul in specific circumstances regarding specific things and building a doctrine regarding the entirety of Scripture from them. This is inductive reasoning I think. I'll have to look at your words and the cited passages more closely.....

[Jentley]

At first blush, it appears to me that you are violating your own words (no single verse....) somewhat by taking a couple of quotes by Paul in specific circumstances regarding specific things and building a doctrine regarding the entirety of Scripture from them. This is inductive reasoning I think. I'll have to look at your words and the cited passages more closely.....

Is someone stopping you from doing that, rhuckle ... ?

"Taking one verse" is not the same as taking three verses. And, there are many other examples in the NT which identify themselves as human opinion, distinct from Divine utterance.

If you truly wish to follow up on your preliminary little salvo, start by focusing on how God identifies His own utterances in what we hold as Scriptural Canon. Then, apply that test to I Corinthians 7:12, 25 and II 8:8.

Remember, everyone, even within the body of Christ, carries within them the vast capacity for hypnosis by others and for self hypnosis.

I am looking for authoritative, clear, and meaty answers from you, rather than answers speculative, highly differentiated, and dependent upon hopeful sentiments.

You also might need to know that there actually is no such thing as deductive resoning, and that all "reasoning" is inductive.

God bless you, as you try real hard.

Jentley.

[rlhuckle]

Is someone stopping you from doing that, rhuckle ... ?

"Taking one verse" is not the same as taking three verses. And, there are many other examples in the NT which identify themselves as human opinion, distinct from Divine utterance.

If you truly wish to follow up on your preliminary little salvo, start by focusing on how God identifies His own utterances in what we hold as Scriptural Canon. Then, apply that test to I Corinthians 7:12, 25 and II 8:8.

Remember, everyone, even within the body of Christ, carries within them the vast capacity for hypnosis by others and for self hypnosis.

I am looking for authoritative, clear, and meaty answers from you, rather than answers speculative, highly differentiated, and dependent upon hopeful sentiments.

You also might need to know that there actually is no such thing as deductive resoning, and that all "reasoning" is inductive.

God bless you, as you try real hard.

Jentley.

Wow! Guess I touched a nerve,eh? I'll be glad to look for you--as soon as I finish watching my movie. We're iced in here anyway--what better way to spend some downtime than in the Word. Have a nice day!

[rlhuckle]

Is someone stopping you from doing that, rhuckle ... ?

"Taking one verse" is not the same as taking three verses. And, there are many other examples in the NT which identify themselves as human opinion, distinct from Divine utterance.

Of course, but what you are doing is taking some verses that discuss Paul's advice regarding specific behaviors and making universal application. Sure, there are other verses that identify themselves as human opinion--but human opinions are not the issue--God's commands are.

If you truly wish to follow up on your preliminary little salvo, start by focusing on how God identifies His own utterances in what we hold as Scriptural Canon. Then, apply that test to I Corinthians 7:12, 25 and II 8:8.

Well, Paul does say that God will judge everything by his gospel--so that is the standard--and yes, this one verse does summarize the doctrine that Jesus Christ has been given all authority, eh?

Remember, everyone, even within the body of Christ, carries within them the vast capacity for hypnosis by others and for self hypnosis.

I'm sure you include yourself in this category?

I am looking for authoritative, clear, and meaty answers from you, rather than answers speculative, highly differentiated, and dependent upon hopeful sentiments.

I love it when you talk sternly and give orders! Do you have an agenda or do you merely enjoy being authoritative?

You also might need to know that there actually is no such thing as deductive resoning, and that all "reasoning" is inductive.

We may be using different definitions for 'inductive.' I am using it to describe reasoning that begins with specifics and then attempts to draw general or universal applications. When I talk about deduction, I am talking about beginning with true propositions and then logically drawing conclusions from them.

God bless you, as you try real hard.

Jentley.

In the immortal words of Scotty--'tis no tribble atoll!