These are the responses I received in class:
"Your argument is assuming that God exists and that justification is quoting the Bible."
"Who is to say the God of the Bible is Truth and the God of the Koran, or Gita, or other religious texts are not?"
"Most people use scripture all the time to prove their point, no matter if that is what the Bible says or not. How is your argument any different?"
First, after having a discussion about this argument I presented in class, there are some things I first need to clean up. There is nothing wrong with admitting "I wasn't right."
Let us refresh our memories with my argument:
P1) If God is for us, then nothing is against us.
P2) If nothing is against us, then we can do anything.
P3) We cannot do anything.
C) God is not for us.
P1)If God is not for us, then we must be unloved.
P2) If we are unloved then Jesus died for nothing.
P3) Jesus did not die for nothing.
C2) We are loved, but that does not constitute us the freedom to do anything.
The problem brought to my attention today is that I have a definition fallacy in P2 in my first argument; thus, giving me a false conclusion because I use the same word with a different meaning. This is called an Equivocation Error. That word being the problem is "anything." When I reference it in my first argument which my second one builds off from, the word anything is relating to "outside forces" because "nothing against us" is setting the tone. However, when we get to my second argument, the word "anything" used in my conclusion implies to "internal choices." For Phil. 4: 13 and 1 Corinthians 10:23-24 proves these differences.
Also, I recognize that my C2 needs to be rewritten. For my first argument structure:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
It is not C.
Therefore, it is not A
is invalid because we can not connect C immediately A due to the intermediate of B. Instead, I should have properly structured a Hypothetical Syllogism based upon my Modus Tollens. The new argument should have looked more like such:
If A, then B.
If B, then C.
It is not C.
Therefore, if not A then not C.
P1) If God is for us, then nothing is against us.
P2) If nothing is against us, then we can do anything.
P3) We can not do anything.
C) Therefore, if God is not for us then we can not do anything.
However, now since we have "fixed this" is the opposite true? "If God is for us, we can do anything?" I want to point out now that there is a major difference between "God for us" and "us for God." Scripture declares that God is omnipresent-some examples being Psalm 139: 7-12 and Deuteronomy 31:6; thus, God is always with us but us acknowledging that is a whole different story. So is the matter really being if God supports us or something else? God hates sin; thus He is not going to support you when you are camping out in Sin Valley-read Jacob and Esau's story in Genesis.
To answer the question (in which it may seem like I may have a smidge of Circular Reasoning going on, in which I don't) the answer is yes. It may also seem backwards to say then I/we have more freedom in God then without God but it is true.
Let us continue to the second part of my original argument now:
P1) If God is not for us, then we must be unloved.
P2) If we are unloved, then Jesus died for nothing.
P3) Jesus did not die for nothing.
C2) Therefore, if God is for us then Jesus did not die for nothing.
The fact of the matter is that as mentioned many times before, God wants us to have the good, easy, well-lived, fulfilling, satisfied life. However, the question isn't in the matter of where you are or what you have...it's not about who has the most toys wins. It is about the heart, the inside, the core and soul of who you are. Acquiring the riches of this life will make you lose your ultimate freedom, but Jesus (God) has something no one or thing can take away (Romans 8:31- 38). It is interesting how with God you have the power and gifts to truly love, truly forgive, and truly live. Scripture also says this
"So if the Son sets you free, you are truly free."
-John 8: 36
Free from what you may ask? Free from burdens, free from enslavement, free from judgement, free from sin (all internal motions that then reflect outwardly). Connecting these two arguments now, we have this:
P1) Either God is not for us and we can not do anything
Or God is for us and Jesus did not die for nothing.
The first part is inaccurate as we pointed out; thus this now becomes a Disjunctive Syllogism.
P2) God is for us and we can do anything.
C) God is for us and Jesus did not die for nothing.
Jesus did not die for nothing because we are so loved as to have a God that has given us the freedom to do anything; however, those choices we make have eternal effects. We choose either to be a slave to sin or servant to Christ. Knowing God's love for you doesn't bind you or trip you up, that's what religion does.
Now to get back to those original objections given to me by other students. My argument may still have some issues, the biggest one you see being the Theological Fallacy. For that I can not argue, for no one is argued into salvation.
No comments:
Post a Comment