Thread: Does Morey Violate 9th Commandment in Van Drunen critique?

Originally Posted by biblicalthought

This is from the CBUS February Newsletter. Dr. Robert Morey wrote:

Natural Theology and Its Inroads

I just finished reading the most recent defense of Natural Theology and Natural Law. It was written by Stephen Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Eerdmans, 2006). My first question was who is Stephen Grabill? On page ix he acknowledges that he wrote the book for the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion in Liberty located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This foundation is sponsoring seminars on Natural Theology and Natural Law at such places as Calvin College. This book is recommended by J. P. Moreland and Budziszewski.

I went on the Internet and found the Acton Institute was established in honor of Lord Acton, a fanatical Roman Catholic scholar, who fought against the evangelical gospel in England. Budziszewski is a Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism and has connection to the Acton Institute. I found that the head of the Institute is headed by a Jesuit priest.

What this book attempts to demonstrate is that all of the Reformers, including Calvin, still retained much of Medieval-Roman Catholic thought. This is no surprise to us as both Luther and Calvin retained such ridiculous doctrines as the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Roman Catholic Church proclaimed that ethics and morality were not based upon Scripture alone, but also upon the findings of human reason. They used the little clichés that Natural truths and Laws are “self-evident,” “intuitive,” and “universal.” These clichés are actually psychological terms, not philosophical in nature. Something “Feels” right or wrong to me. Intuition is a psychological term.

The book is an attempt to move Calvinists from sola scriptura to sola ratione. That the Reformers believed in General Revelation I fully grant. But Grabill makes the astounding assertion that General Revelation is Natural Theology.

General Revelation is God’s activity whereas Natural Theology is man’s activity. General Revelation is happening 24 hours a day, 7 days a week throughout the entire universe. Natural Theology is the failed attempt of a few Western professors of religion from such universities as Oxford and Harvard. For most of human history, Natural Theology and Natural Law were never believed in or taught by the majority of mankind.

The fatal flaw in Grabill’s book is found on the last page (191). He admits that while the Reformers believed that General Revelation was taking place all the time, man’s depravity blocked the light of General Revelation. Man could be saved only by special revelation.

It is interesting to note that on pages 6-7 Grabill lists the Natural Theologians who support Natural Law. Among others, he lists David Van Drunen, who has recently joined the faculty at Westminster Seminary (Escondido, CA). This is interesting because in a series of email exchanges I had with Dr. Van Drunen, he denied that he was a Natural Theologian. Under my questioning he did admit that his book Law & Custom: The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, the Future of the Common Law (Peter Lange), was financially underwritten by the Jesuits. It was dedicated to a Jesuit priest. His education was by the Jesuits.

When I had other people contact Westminster concerning whether Van Drunen was a Natural Theologian trained by the Jesuits, they were told that none of these things were true. Grabill’s book is the final straw that breaks the camel’s back. The Jesuits finally have someone on the faculty of Westminster Seminary. Van Til would have declared Van Drunen’s book heresy!

Source

It's public knowledge that Van Drunen received his PhD from Loyola but that hardly makes him a Jesuit. Is your mentor aware of the 9th Commandment, I wonder?

I just finished reading the most recent defense of Natural Theology and Natural Law. It was written by Stephen Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Eerdmans, 2006). My first question was who is Stephen Grabill? On page ix he acknowledges that he wrote the book for the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion in Liberty located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This foundation is sponsoring seminars on Natural Theology and Natural Law at such places as Calvin College. This book is recommended by J. P. Moreland and Budziszewski.

Who recommends Morey's books? The theologically and philosophically perfect?

What's the above supposed to prove? That he excels in circumstantial ad hominems. Granted...long ago.

I've also heard that his latest book on Eastern Orthodoxy suffers from "numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes." Does that prove anything?

I went on the Internet and found the Acton Institute was established in honor of Lord Acton, a fanatical Roman Catholic scholar, who fought against the evangelical gospel in England. Budziszewski is a Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism and has connection to the Acton Institute. I found that the head of the Institute is headed by a Jesuit priest.

Perhaps the simple minded who are taught to recoil from any mention of a, gasp!, Catholic, will be bullied or persuaded into viewing the book's *content* as false.

What this book attempts to demonstrate is that all of the Reformers, including Calvin, still retained much of Medieval-Roman Catholic thought. This is no surprise to us as both Luther and Calvin retained such ridiculous doctrines as the perpetual virginity of Mary.

So the book succeeds in what it sets out to do...

The Roman Catholic Church proclaimed that ethics and morality were not based upon Scripture alone, but also upon the findings of human reason. They used the little clichés that Natural truths and Laws are “self-evident,” “intuitive,” and “universal.” These clichés are actually psychological terms, not philosophical in nature. Something “Feels” right or wrong to me. Intuition is a psychological term.

Of course this is a complete straw man of natural law theorists. This of course sets up a straw man, painting the picture that natural law theorists simply try to prove their position based on "feelings." I have read more than my fair share of these books, and I can conclude that Morey is either playing dumb, or is dumb.

And, what does he mean that morality is "based on Scripture alone?" This is vague and subject to a whole host of interpretations. Should we stone people? Or is Morey going to build in qualifications? And, when he does, will he bravado wear off?

Intuition is not a psychological term, and Morey's definition (i.e., "feels right) is the first one debunked in almost every philosophical work that deals with intuition that I've read. Intuition is actually a powerful philosophical argument, used in many areas of the discipline.

Indeed, "based on Scripture" has become a cliché in itself!

Furthermore, as many erudite scholars have pointed out, the OT laws represent a sort of moral basement. They were not intended to be the best expressions of the highest laws. They weren't meant to be moral ceilings. That's why divorce was allowed for many reasons as long as you got a certificate.

Does he mean that the *principles* are in the Bible? Okay, but we still *apply* these principles to situations. We must use our reasoning here. We must look at the world, not the Bible. If our reasoning is completely untrustworthy, Morey shoots himself in the foot, or has a completely impractical ethic. We can dismiss him out of hand when trying to deal with tough questions.

The book is an attempt to move Calvinists from sola scriptura to sola ratione. That the Reformers believed in General Revelation I fully grant. But Grabill makes the astounding assertion that General Revelation is Natural Theology.

No it wasn't. And to violate the 9th commandment in a discussion on ethics is nothing short of ironic. Moreover, Morey himself told us what the book *attempts* to do:

QUOTE MOREY: "What this book attempts to demonstrate is that all of the Reformers, including Calvin, still retained much of Medieval-Roman Catholic thought." END QUOTE MOREY.

General Revelation is God’s activity whereas Natural Theology is man’s activity. General Revelation is happening 24 hours a day, 7 days a week throughout the entire universe. Natural Theology is the failed attempt of a few Western professors of religion from such universities as Oxford and Harvard. For most of human history, Natural Theology and Natural Law were never believed in or taught by the majority of mankind.

Grabill doesn't confuse the two.

And, notice the question begging epithets: "failed attempt."

Let's wait until Sudduth's book comes out and compare the work of a top-notch scholar against Morey's. Oh, perhaps we can dismiss Sudduth since he comes from Oxford!

And, what did they "fail" at? Morey doesn't tell us. My guess is that when he specifies, he'll be shown to not understand what they *attempted* to do. Of course they probably "failed at" what Morey wants them to achieve. But, really, is that a "critique?"

The fatal flaw in Grabill’s book is found on the last page (191). He admits that while the Reformers believed that General Revelation was taking place all the time, man’s depravity blocked the light of General Revelation. Man could be saved only by special revelation.

I don't get why this is a "fatal flaw?" Natural Theology and Natural Law aren't trying to *save* people.

On this page Grabill says,

"Calvin, Vermigli, and the Reformed Scholastics all share the conviction that Scripture is the cognitive foundation (principium cognoscendi) of theology and that moral arguments can be based on axioms derived from that principium. Consequently, they recognized the existence of a natural knowledge of God that is present in the natural order and discernable either in conjunction with or apart from Scripture. This knowledge, however, has no saving efficacy and merely serves to render all people to be "without excuse" for their moral infractions, as Romans 1:20 attests. ... This study has endeavored to rediscover the contribution of select representatives of reformed Orthodoxy....We have seen, contrary to current scholarly opinion, that some of the most formative voices in the Reformed tradition thought the diminished natural faculties still functioned sufficiently to reveal the general precepts of the natural moral law." --Grabill, RNLRTE, 191

Fans of Morey have just seen his dishonesty. Morey gives an impression of Grabill that is contradictory to what Grabill is asserting. There is no fatal flaw here. By my lights, there's not much wrong here at all.

Nothing excuses such blatant dishonesty. Morey does not seemed concerned to properly represent others so much as to "sound the alarm" to the sheeple who won't bother to read Grabill for themselves. I doubt Morey even read the book. 191 is the last page. He probably found out who Grabill was, and that was enough for him to dismiss him, and then he flipped around, found the last page, and thought he had something to offer a "reason" why he could be so dismissive of Grabill. But I've come to expect this kind of anti-intellectual, circle the wagons, emotion driven responses by Morey. For someone so opposed to appeals to emotion, he sure does it quite a bit. (Btw, Grabill also published a paper in the WTJ on NL and the noetic effects of sin. Morey is simply attacking based on, well, er, intuition!...the bad kind, that is...)

It is interesting to note that on pages 6-7 Grabill lists the Natural Theologians who support Natural Law. Among others, he lists David Van Drunen, who has recently joined the faculty at Westminster Seminary (Escondido, CA). This is interesting because in a series of email exchanges I had with Dr. Van Drunen, he denied that he was a Natural Theologian. Under my questioning he did admit that his book Law & Custom: The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, the Future of the Common Law (Peter Lange), was financially underwritten by the Jesuits. It was dedicated to a Jesuit priest. His education was by the Jesuits.

When I had other people contact Westminster concerning whether Van Drunen was a Natural Theologian trained by the Jesuits, they were told that none of these things were true. Grabill’s book is the final straw that breaks the camel’s back. The Jesuits finally have someone on the faculty of

Well, a lot of this probably depends on how NL is being defined by all the parties. And, DVD could accept NL *without* being a "Natural Theologian."

Grabill did write the forward for DVD's book (mentioned in my post above), and DVD's book is also put out by the Acton Institute.

I also don't see the relevance in his circumstantial ad hominem remarks.

It also looks like it is Morey who confuses NL with NT.

Anyway, I view Morey like I view Gordon Clark devotés.

And, Van Til was actually quite sensible and level headed. He wouldn't have called DVD's book "heretical." Exclamation marks aside! If he would have thrown that term around for something like this, would he called Morey a heretic for being a credo baptist? He can't "deduce" that from the Bible, so why request this of everyone else?

Rich, of course he is. He's a WTS alum; all WTS grads know about the 9th. Look, the guy's book was financially underwritten by the counter-reforming Jesuits, it was dedicated to an enemy of the gospel - a Jesuit priest, and he was educated in the tradition of Ignatius of Loyola, the principal founder and first Superior General of the Society of Jesus - the Jesuits. How much more anti-Reformation can one get than the movement Ignatius promoted called the "Counter Reformation?"

The statement was "The Jesuits finally have someone on the faculty of Westminster Seminary." It didn't mean that everyone who gets PhD'd by Loyola is a Jesuit. You need to consider all of the other puzzle pieces. Makes sense?

Originally Posted by biblicalthought

Rich, of course he is. He's a WTS alum; all WTS grads know about the 9th. Look, the guy's book was financially underwritten by the counter-reforming Jesuits, it was dedicated to an enemy of the gospel - a Jesuit priest, and he was educated in the tradition of Ignatius of Loyola, the principal founder and first Superior General of the Society of Jesus - the Jesuits. How much more anti-Reformation can one get than the movement Ignatius promoted called the "Counter Reformation?"

The statement was "The Jesuits finally have someone on the faculty of Westminster Seminary." It didn't mean that everyone who gets PhD'd by Loyola is a Jesuit. You need to consider all of the other puzzle pieces. Makes sense?

No, it does not.

The below, however, *does* make sense to me.

Q. 143. Which is the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.839

Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,840 and the good name of our neighbour, as well as our own;841 appearing and standing for the truth;842 and from the heart,843 sincerely,844 freely,845 clearly,846 and fully,847 speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,848 and in all other things whatsoever;849 a charitable esteem of our neighbours;850 loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;851 sorrowing for,852 and covering of their infirmities;853 freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,854 defending their innocency;855 a ready receiving of a good report,856 and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,857 concerning them; discouraging tale-bearers,858 flatterers,859 and slanderers;860 love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;861 keeping of lawful promises;86 2 studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.863

Q. 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own,864 especially in public judicature;865 giving false evidence,866 suborning false witnesses,867 wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;868 passing unjust sentence,869 calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;870 forgery,871 concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,872 and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,873 or complaint to others;874 speaking the truth unseasonably,875 or maliciously to a wrong end,876 or perverting it to a wrong meaning,877 or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;878 speaking untruth,879 lying,880 slandering,881 backbiting,882 detracting,[882a] tale bearing,883 whispering,884 scoffing,885 reviling,886 rash,887 harsh,888 and partial censuring;889 misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;890 flattering,891 vain-glorious boasting;892 thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;893 denying the gifts and graces of God;894 aggravating smaller faults;895 hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;896 unnecessary discovering of infirmities;897 raising false rumors,898 receiving and countenancing evil reports,899 and stopping our ears against just defense;900 evil suspicion;901 envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,902 endeavoring or desiring to impair it,903 rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;904 scornful contempt,905 fond admiration;906 breach of lawful promises;907 neglecting such things as are of good report,908 and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.909

Originally Posted by biblicalthought

Rich, of course he is. He's a WTS alum; all WTS grads know about the 9th. Look, the guy's book was financially underwritten by the counter-reforming Jesuits, it was dedicated to an enemy of the gospel - a Jesuit priest, and he was educated in the tradition of Ignatius of Loyola, the principal founder and first Superior General of the Society of Jesus - the Jesuits. How much more anti-Reformation can one get than the movement Ignatius promoted called the "Counter Reformation?"

The statement was "The Jesuits finally have someone on the faculty of Westminster Seminary." It didn't mean that everyone who gets PhD'd by Loyola is a Jesuit. You need to consider all of the other puzzle pieces. Makes sense?

So if I was educated by Morey, and I dedicated my book to him, and got a job at WTS would you say that "The credo baptists finally have someone on the faculty of WTS." ? Seems ridiculous, huh?

What if I get trained at a secular university, and then later get a job at WTS, would you say, "The secularists finally have someone on the faculty of WTS." ?

Or, more perplexing, what if I learned math from a Jesuit scholar? Would that invalidate 1+1 = 2 for me? If not, then isn't it a bit silly to think that just because someone might agree with a Jesuit in *one* area, that makes them wrong, or in step with the Jesuits? If the Jesuits are right about Nat Law, then it doesn't matter much if they deny the Gosepl of justification by faith alone, now does it. Just like their scientific or mathematical conclusions don't becoem invalidated because they deny said orthodoxy.

BTW, Paul, it cracked me up when you referred to David Van Drunen as DVD. I met David a few times in 2000 when he came to preach at our OPC in Temecula.

I wouldn't ordinarily reply to posts of this sort but....

1. The Jesuits have a man on our faculty? Well, on that reasoning then so do the pagans, the latitudinarians, the evangelicals, and other groups since our faculty members have taken PhDs from institutions from a variety of backgrounds.

2. This wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the fact that he now has his own school would it?

3. "Dr" Morey should know that CVT taught the existence of natural law and that it was universally taught in the 16th and 17th centuries.

4. Not all versions of "natural law" are the same. There are distinct differences between the version of natural law taught by Calvin, Reformed orthodoxy, and CVT, and the version taught by Thomas and Rome. The Protestants (Luther, Bucer, Melanchthon, and Calvin) all identified the decalogue with "natural law" and that was at the foundation of their doctrine of the covenant of works or the "covenant of nature."

5. Denial of natural law is a Barthian distinctive. If teaching "natural law" makes one a Jesuit then denying it makes one a Barthian.

6. You can see a bit about Calvin's doctrine of natural law here.

7. See more links on the HB

So if I was educated by Morey, and I dedicated my book to him, and got a job at WTS would you say that "The credo baptists finally have someone on the faculty of WTS." ? Seems ridiculous, huh?

Are you equating the man Morey with the servants of the Pope that historically were formed, and to this day continue, to undo the Protestant Reformation via the intellectual takeover at the university level? Have you reduced the entire scope and mission of the Jesuits to an exegetical theological understanding of Christian baptism? How does that compare?

Originally Posted by biblicalthought

So if I was educated by Morey, and I dedicated my book to him, and got a job at WTS would you say that "The credo baptists finally have someone on the faculty of WTS." ? Seems ridiculous, huh?

Are you equating the man Morey with the servants of the Pope that historically were formed, and to this day continue, to undo the Protestant Reformation via the intellectual takeover at the university level? Have you reduced the entire scope and mission of the Jesuits to an exegetical theological understanding of Christian baptism? How does that compare?

I'm comparing the *logic* of the critique.

As Moreyites should know, if a critique is valid, you can plug in *whatever* premises you want, and the conclusion still should follow. If the premises are true, then the conclusion will be.

If you're saying that the *form* of Morey's argument doesn't always preserve the truth of the conclusion, then you've just admitted that Morey offered an invalid argument.

*That* is what I was driving at.

Morey's argument:

[1] If S is trained by and in the tradition of T, and S dedicated a book to T, and S gets on staff at sholarly institution I, then T "finally has someone on the faculty" of I.

[2] DVD was trained by Jesuits, and dedicated a book to Jesuits, and got on staff at WTS.

[3] Therefore, the Jesuits "finally have someone on the faculty of WTS.

That was Morey's argument. A simple modus ponens.

Now, lets recast it:

(Assume for reductio that I was trained by Morey, dedicated a book to him, and got picked up by WTS)

[1] If S is trained by and in the tradition of T, and S dedicated a book to T, and S gets on staff at sholarly institution I, then T "finally has someone on the faculty" of I.

[2*] PM was trained by Morey the credo baptist, and dedicated a book to Morey, and got on staff at WTS.

[3*] Therefore, the credo baptists "finally have someone on the faculty of WTS."

So, if you're premises are *true,* then you conclusion follows.

We know that [2] is true, so if [1] is then [3] follows.

Now, we assumed that [2*] was true. So, if [1] was true, then [3*] would follow.

But, [3*] is absurd, as even you intimate.

Therefore, one of the premises must be false.

That premise is [1].

Thus, you must admit that Morey is a hack here.

No, you're wrong. Moreyites, which I will accept as a deragatory term, assuming it was meant to be one, believe that logic has to do with the validity of the form of an argument. It declares whether or not the structure of an argument is valid. It cannot say whether or not the premises or conclusion are true. That is why we horrible Moreyites believe that an argument can be logically valid and false at the same time.

Uh, you didn't get my point.

Yes, validity has to do with the form, i.e., the truth *preserving* structure of the argument.

If two arguments have the *same form,* then, if both arguments have true premises, then the conclusins would both be true.

One couldn't preserve the truth of the conclusion while the other did not.

So, I was pointing out that since my *form* was the same as yours, and if the premises were true in both arguments, then the conclusion would also be true.

But, if you denied my conclusion, and if the form was valid, and if my premises were essentially the same as yours, then a premise had to be false.

In this case, I proved that it was premise [1].

This means, and you agreed, that you denied Morey's argument.

So, I wasn't wrong.

Please re-read my post. I'm sure you can get it.

(btw, Moreyite = follower/disciple/pupil of Morey; which I assume you are.)

Originally Posted by biblicalthought

No, you're wrong. Moreyites, which I will accept as a deragatory term, assuming it was meant to be one, believe that logic has to do with the validity of the form of an argument. It declares whether or not the structure of an argument is valid. It cannot say whether or not the premises or conclusion are true. That is why we horrible Moreyites believe that an argument can be logically valid and false at the same time.

Man! Doesn't it stink when somebody is speaking derisively of a person based on their associations? What makes it worse is when they are a bit sloppy in their attributions! Wouldn't you agree?

If two arguments have the *same form,* then, if both arguments have true premises, then the conclusins would both be true.

This is why I questioned you regarding your premise.

Please, PM, re-read my question regarding your premise.

Man! Doesn't it stink when somebody is speaking derisively of a person based on their associations? What makes it worse is when they are a bit sloppy in their attributions! Wouldn't you agree?

No, it doesn't stink. I understand why he called me that. He clarified it in his last post.

i.e.,

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

Thus in my argument, if the premises were true, the conclusion couldn't be false.

You intimated that my conclusion was false.

Thus one of the premises *had to be false.*

That was [1].

Thus you would be bound to agree that Morey's argument was *unsound.*

Originally Posted by biblicalthought

If two arguments have the *same form,* then, if both arguments have true premises, then the conclusins would both be true.

This is why I questioned you regarding your premise.

Please, PM, re-read my question regarding your premise.

I have read your post.

You simply don't understand my argument.

I showed that I gave an argument *with the same form* and *with the same numer of true premises*, but you rejected my conclusion.

So, you can't say my argument was invalid---since it was an instance of MP.

So, you must say I had a false premise.

Since [2*] was stipulated true, then [1] must be the false premise.

If [1] was false in my argument, it was false in my portrayal of Morey's argument,

Thus Morey's argument was unsound.

Please, re-read my post, if you've studied logic you should understand it. read it a couple times if you need to.

Thus in my argument, if the premises were true, the conclusion couldn't be false.

You intimated that my conclusion was false.

No. I asked you about the premise.

Originally Posted by biblicalthought

Thus in my argument, if the premises were true, the conclusion couldn't be false.

You intimated that my conclusion was false.

No. I asked you about the premise.

You either agree or you do not agree that it would be ridiculous to say that "the credo baptists finally have someone on the faculty of WTS." That is, you either agree with [3*] or you do not.

If you do not agree then there's not much else to talk about. I can't force people from holding to absurd beliefs. To think that "the credo baptists finally have someone on staff at WTS just because I graduated under a credo baptist, at a credo baptistic "seminary" (institution), and then dedicated a book to my credo baptist teacher," is absurd. it is aburd as was alos pointed out by Dr, Clark. Says Clark: "The Jesuits have a man on our faculty? Well, on that reasoning then so do the pagans, the latitudinarians, the evangelicals, and other groups since our faculty members have taken PhDs from institutions from a variety of backgrounds."

This if you believe these absurd conclusions, then you *must* agree that Morey's argument is unsound. I'll let you see the reasoning pattern all the way through by way of constructive dilemma.


If you do agree then [1] is false and you have been reduced to saying Morey's argument is unsound.

Thus, you either hold an absurd belief or you must admit Morey's argument is unsound.

It doesn't matter if I'm talking about Roman Catholic's or credo baptists. It doesn't matter because both those premises are true (i.e., [2] and [2*], it's just that [2*] was stipulated true for reductio).

There's not much else I can do to help you out here. I think I've been sufficiently clear. I would paste in the "you can lead a horse to water, but..." emoticon, but they don't have that one...

Also, much of this is superfluous since I showed Morey's "review" to be sophomoric, and dishonest at best.

It's a red herring and you know it.

Do you think I would have questioned your premise if I found fault with your form?

All those married in the LDS temple will become gods.
My wife and I were married in the LDS temple.
Therefore, we will become gods.

About as tight as it gets.

The problem is with your false premise.

Originally Posted by biblicalthought

It's a red herring and you know it.

Do you think I would have questioned your premise if I found fault with your form?

All those married in the LDS temple will become gods.
My wife and I were married in the LDS temple.
Therefore, we will become gods.

About as tight as it gets.

The problem is with your false premise.

Right, you got it! Finally. I used a false premise. And so if I did, so did Morey.

(And, you didn't know what the form was until I laid everything out for you.)

If you look above, you'll notice numerous times I said a premise had to be false.

So you're not telling me anything new. In fact, that's what I've been telling you (cf. my posts). I'm led to believe you're not reading before responding.

And, the false premise was [1]. This was Morey's premise. You just said Morey was wrong.

I'll quote myself for your convenience:

Morey's argument:

[1] If S is trained by and in the tradition of T, and S dedicated a book to T, and S gets on staff at sholarly institution I, then T "finally has someone on the faculty" of I.

[2] DVD was trained by Jesuits, and dedicated a book to Jesuits, and got on staff at WTS.

[3] Therefore, the Jesuits "finally have someone on the faculty of WTS.

That was Morey's argument. A simple modus ponens.

Now, lets recast it:

(Assume for reductio that I was trained by Morey, dedicated a book to him, and got picked up by WTS)

[1] If S is trained by and in the tradition of T, and S dedicated a book to T, and S gets on staff at sholarly institution I, then T "finally has someone on the faculty" of I.

[2*] PM was trained by Morey the credo baptist, and dedicated a book to Morey, and got on staff at WTS.

[3*] Therefore, the credo baptists "finally have someone on the faculty of WTS."

So, if you're premises are *true,* then you conclusion follows.

We know that [2] is true, so if [1] is then [3] follows.

Now, we assumed that [2*] was true. So, if [1] was true, then [3*] would follow.

But, [3*] is absurd, as even you intimate.

Therefore, one of the premises must be false.

That premise is [1].

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

no doubt some non-Christian somewhere donated money to Baylor University and its publishing wing and that makes Dr. VanDrunen an unbeliever . . .

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Casey, if you are still here among this drivel,

You can say that about R.S.Clark since you're his pastor!

Bombadil [one of my favorite Tolkien characters],

I didn't call Dr. Clark's comments "drivel," but this entire thread which has nothing to do with Casey's original question . . . typical of discussion boards with the Reformed version of "every-man ministry" with "every-man theologian."

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Casey, if you are still here among this drivel,

You can say that about R.S.Clark since you're his pastor!

Bombadil [one of my favorite Tolkien characters],

I didn't call Dr. Clark's comments "drivel," but this entire thread which has nothing to do with Casey's original question . . . typical of discussion boards with the Reformed version of "every-man ministry" with "every-man theologian."

Right, but "Biblical Thought" came in and publicly attacked DVD and Grabill in an uncharitable way through his quoting Robert Morey.

This needed public response, and Dr. Clark was part of that response.

You also do not mean to call the "entire thread" drivel as at least *some* of it is not, i.e., the OP!

So, the "entire thread" is not "drivel", it must be some of the "comments," then. Especially since "drivel" means "childish or silly talk." Now, if Clark's were not part of that "drivel," then I take it that the only thing that was "drivel" here was the quoting of *Morey's* drivel, and the *defense* of his drivel.

If that is so, I whole-heartedly agree with you!

Split thread off into an appropriately titled thread.

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Bombadil [one of my favorite Tolkien characters]

While we're at it, Rev. Hyde, I might as well note that Bombadil was probably the most annoying of Tolkien's characters.

Oh, I liked Bombadill. Never did figure out who he really was, though. The Blue Wizard perhaps? Sorry, off topic.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Bombadil [one of my favorite Tolkien characters]

While we're at it, Rev. Hyde, I might as well note that Bombadil was probably the most annoying of Tolkien's characters.

Oh, I better change my name, then. Pick one that fits my personality better!

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Bombadil [one of my favorite Tolkien characters]

While we're at it, Rev. Hyde, I might as well note that Bombadil was probably the most annoying of Tolkien's characters.

But Bombadil was annoying! Seems like he could have done more to help Frodo, he saved the them from a WILLOW TREE! How Lame! (Sorry Back to the Program)

Originally Posted by turmeric

Oh, I liked Bombadill. Never did figure out who he really was, though. The Blue Wizard perhaps? Sorry, off topic.

That's OK, this thread is sort of devoted to drivel at this point.

I've read somewhere that Tolkien never really liked the character. You can sort of tell he's sort of underdeveloped. It's sort of this weird anomoly of a guy that's "all powerful" within his whole realm. He's unaffected by the power of the Ring. It seems, in fact, that the ring would have been safe in his realm, beyond the power of Sauron and his forces. I guess later the Council was concerned he might lose it.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Bombadil [one of my favorite Tolkien characters]

While we're at it, Rev. Hyde, I might as well note that Bombadil was probably the most annoying of Tolkien's characters.

Oh, I better change my name, then. Pick one that fits my personality better!

You're asking for trouble Paul.

Oh, my goodness, Paul! You could end up with a...well, let's just say, an interesting name AND tagline! Just ask Bill Brown!

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by turmeric

Oh, my goodness, Paul! You could end up with a...well, let's just say, an interesting name AND tagline! Just ask Bill Brown!

Or me... I remember someone referring to swine and pearls at one time.

keep 'em coming! oink, oink!

Originally Posted by turmeric

Oh, my goodness, Paul! You could end up with a...well, let's just say, an interesting name AND tagline! Just ask Bill Brown!

How about

name: Barney

tag line: I love you, you love me, we're a happy family.

Morey's put together some scholastically sound materials in his day as well, "Death and the Afterlife" comes to mind as does his "Intro. to Apologetics" and "The Islamic Invasion".

Originally Posted by etexas

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Bombadil [one of my favorite Tolkien characters]

While we're at it, Rev. Hyde, I might as well note that Bombadil was probably the most annoying of Tolkien's characters.

But Bombadil was annoying! Seems like he could have done more to help Frodo, he saved the them from a WILLOW TREE! How Lame! (Sorry Back to the Program)

Not true. He also saved them from some sort of creatures that had them trapped. I can't remember the details but I think they were frozen or something.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by turmeric

Oh, my goodness, Paul! You could end up with a...well, let's just say, an interesting name AND tagline! Just ask Bill Brown!

Or me... I remember someone referring to swine and pearls at one time.

keep 'em coming! oink, oink!

How about Gadfly

Gandalf was of the opinion not that Bombadil had power over the ring; but that the ring had no power over him. But they discussed giving him the ring, and concluded that Bombadil alone could not have stood out against Sauron --perhaps due to his ADD (naturally that wasn't the term in the book). Tom also saved the hobbits from the Barrow Wights. But even in the Silmarillion I recollect no explanation for either Tom or Goldberry.

Originally Posted by py3ak

Gandalf was of the opinion not that Bombadil had power over the ring; but that the ring had no power over him. But they discussed giving him the ring, and concluded that Bombadil alone could not have stood out against Sauron --perhaps due to his ADD (naturally that wasn't the term in the book). Tom also saved the hobbits from the Barrow Wights. But even in the Silmarillion I recollect no explanation for either Tom or Goldberry.

ADD...