Does OSAS contradict free will?

That is, does the doctrine of  "once saved, always saved" contradict
the doctrine of libertarian free will?

Now, of course, I won't leave the answer at that.  I'll try to give you some actual reasons here.  But first, before I attempt to prove what I am trying to prove, I will clarify what I am not trying to prove.  I am not trying to prove either that the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" is true.  I am also not trying to prove that that people have free will.  The only thing I am addressing here is the question of whether, in theory, both could be true.

What is free will? At it's core, free will means that a person is the determinant of his or her own choices. It means that a person experiences choices, and has the actual capability of picking which option to take (as opposed to the illusion that the opposite could have been picked). It does *not* imply any physical power, though.

For example, some people try to argue against free will in the following manner: "People don't have free will, because after all, they cannot do X." Well, sure. People can't heal themselves or fly like birds, but that's not an aspect of the *will,* that's an aspect of what physical *power* they have.

To summarize, humans have:

• Limited power = can't fly like a bird.
• Free will = can still choose to jump off the roof and try to fly.

Thus, the doctrine of free will does not imply limitless power. To give another example, those who believe in free will believe that humans do not have the power to save themselves from sin and hell; humans do not have the power to justify or to regenerate themselves. Those are things that God alone can do.

So, just like humans do not have the power to save themselves, the doctrine of OSAS teaches that humans do not have the power to un-save themselves, to take themselves out of the Father's hand, to separate themselves from the love of God, to rid themselves of the Holy Spirit that they are sealed with, or to cast themselves into hell. Those are things that only God can do.

Therefore, a doctrine that holds to both free will and also to OSAS would hold that a person is free to choose to try to get un-saved (just like they are free to try to fly), but they do not have the power to actually achieve the effects that they seek.

God is willing to save people, but if He is not willing to un-save people, then the net effect is that it's possible for a person to get into something they can't get out of.

________________________________________________

I can think of a physical contraption that works in a similar way... It's called a roller coaster.

You see the coaster, and it looks like a blast, and so you decide to get on.  Of your own free will.  Everything is going well, you put the restraints on, and probably a worker comes by to check and make sure that you are actually buckled in.  And then you hear that ominous phrase:  "You will be locked in on the count of three. 1-2-3. (click)  You are now locked in...   Enjoy your ride."

Now at that point, you might feel just a twinge of something that I like to call "terror."  Because right as they say that, you realize that you are completely trapped throughout whatever is going to happen next, and no matter how bad it gets, there's no way out. 

Okay, I'm no longer so sure about this idea...

And then, suppose it proceeds to get scary to the level that you think you are going to die before this ride ends, and would be willing to bribe the ride operators all of your earthly possessions to let you off:

I'VE CHANGED MY MIND!
OH GOD, MAKE IT STOP

Obviously, she isn't going to be able to get off the ride until the end.  Does that point to the fact that she does not have free will?  No.  She is free to choose to try to get off the ride all she wants.  But she simply does not have the power to stop the ride immediately, unlatch the restraint, and get herself off. It's a lack of power, not a lack of free will.

This analogy is not to say that Christians are going to be desperate to leave Christ like that little girl is desperate to leave the ride, rather it's to say that according to the OSAS, it's easier to get off a roller-coaster mid-ride than it is get out of salvation.  And that in both cases, free will remains unharmed - the limitation is your amount of power, not your will/choice function.

According to OSAS, if you are born-again and indwelt with the Holy Spirit, you are now locked in. Enjoy the ride.  :D

Unlimited Atonement

The Calvinist says that Jesus died only for some, the Arminian says that Jesus died for all. It's a very short summary of both positions, and such a short summary often leads to misunderstandings about the full meaning. Spelled out a little more clearly, the Arminian position can be summed up this way:

Every drop of Jesus' blood fully fulfilled both of Christ's atonement goals: to provide salvation for all, and to procure salvation for the elect.

This is very important, because it dispels many of myths believed about the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement. The statement above refers to a combination of three specific beliefs:

(1) Every drop of Jesus' blood fully fulfilled both of Christ's atonement goals:
(2) to provide salvation for all, and
(3) to procure salvation for the elect.

Whose sin was covered by Christ? Only the elect. Those to whom the blood of Christ is applied are those who are saved. Only the elect receive the salvific benefits of the atonement. In this manner, it can be said that Arminians also limit the extent of the atonement:

A - Christ limits the provision of salvation to only provide for those in the human race,

B - and He limits the application of salvation to only cover those who are the elect, those who believe.

In that sense, then, to sum up the doctrine as “unlimited atonement” is also a language shortcut that leads to misunderstandings.

Permit me to offer an analogy to make the Arminian concept of the atonement clear:

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:14

The serpent, being lifted up, provided a way of healing for all who were bitten. It was sufficient for the healing of all of them. However, not all of them received the benefit of that offer. Only those who looked upon the serpent were healed. The serpent was sufficient for the healing of all, but only efficacious for the healing of those who looking upon it. The serpent was lifted up for all those who were suffering from snake bites, but only those who looked on it were granted the healing offered by the Lord.

To summarize, this is the difference between the Calvinist and Arminian understanding of the intent and scope of the atonement:

Calvinist: The atonement procures salvation only for the elect.

Arminian: The atonement procures salvation only for the elect, and also provides salvation for everyone.

__________________________________________________

So now that I've laid out a clear statement of the Arminian position, let's look at some of the misunderstandings that I have heard about this view:

The Claim: #1 Arminians limit the power of the atonement

Now, obviously, a mere moral cannot limit God's power. What the Calvinist means by this statement is that the Arminian view paints the atonement as less powerful than it actually is.

I will give two reasons why this idea is false. The first reason is that the Arminian claims not that the atonement did less, but that the atonement did more. As you may recall, the Arminian believes that Jesus' death accomplished both (A) the provision of salvation to all and (B) the application of salvation to the elect (believers). The Calvinist only belives that Christ's death accomplished (A) and not (B).

The second reason is that only God can limit Himself; there are no external limitations. Any limitations on salvation are placed by God Himself. The Arminian claims that the atonement accomplished the intent of the atonement. Christ wanted to provide salvation for all, and He achieved that. Christ wanted to procure salvation for the elect, and He accomplished that. Where is the limit of power? God demonstrated the power to achieve all of His objectives here.

The Claim: #2 In Arminianism, in fact, the atonement is potential, but made actual when one believes.

If you remember point (1) from the beginning of this blog, you will recall that the Arminian belief is that “Every drop of Jesus' blood fully fulfilled both of Christ's atonement goals.” There is nothing potential about “fully fulfilled.” When Christ died on the cross, His blood actually covered the sins of past, present, and future believers. His covering of our (us Christians) sins was actual before we believed.

Looking at point (2) next: Christ intended to provide salvation for all, and He DID actually provide salvation for all. Intent accomplished.

Look at (3) now: He intended to save the elect (those who believe) and He DID actually save the elect. Intent accomplished.

You might begin to see a pattern. The pattern is that every intent of Christ was accomplished. This is why Jesus cried out “It is finished!” Which means, it was accomplished.

There is nothing potential here. Both intents were ACTUALLY (and not potentially) fulfilled.

The Claim: #3 In Arminanism, the blood of Christ doesn't actually cover the sins of anyone.

This is an obviously false claim. All Arminians believe that they are going to heaven, they believe on Christ as Savior, and they believe that His blood actually covers their sin; that's how they believe they will avoid hell. See point (3), “to procure salvation for the elect.” The shed blood of Christ fully fulfilled this intention, and when Jesus died, His blood covered the sins of the elect.

So, given that we claim that Christ's blood actually covered the sins of the elect, it would be impossible for us to also believe that Christ's blood didn't actually cover the sin of anyone. This is the point of agreement between the Arminian and the Calvinist: That when Christ died, His atonement covered the sins of, and procured salvation for, the elect (believers).

The Claim: #4 If Jesus died for all, and it's not just potential, then you are left with universalism.

To say that “Jesus died for all,” in this case is confusing, because it does not specific whether the writer is speaking of Christ's providing salvation or procuring salvation. We will look at the statement using both possible meanings:

“If Jesus died to provide (but not procure) salvation for all, and it's not just potential, then you are left with universalism.”

You can see why this is false. If Jesus died to provide salvation for all, and it's not potential, then it means that all were actually provided for, not that all were saved. Salvation, in this case, was not procured for all.

“If Jesus died to procure salvation for all, and it's not just potential, then you are left with universalism.”

That would be true. But we don't believe that Jesus died to procure salvation for all. He wanted to procure salvation only for the elect. His atonement only covers the sins of the elect. Therefore, it's not universalism.

The Claim: #5 In Arminanism, some of Jesus' blood was wasted

A calvinist told me that according to my beliefs, " some blood is wasted because the blood that is provided for all, does not actually save all."

However, it's not like some blood was put toward providing salvation for all, and a different portion of blood was put toward procuring salvation for the elect. Each drop of blood (see point 1) was accomplishing both purposes. Every drop of blood actually covers the sin of the elect. How is that a waste? It's not. Every drop of blood, in addition to covering the sins of the elect, gives the provision of salvation to everyone in the world. Does accomplishing more make it a waste somehow? Certainly not.

Again, I would remind the reader, the Arminians believe that the atonement accomplished the same thing that the Calvinist believes: Namely, it accomplishes the salvation of the elect.

This is not a waste. The Arminian also believes that, in addition to that intent, the atonement provided salvation for all men:

“This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.” (John 1:7)

“For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves...” (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,” (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

“For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” (1 Timothy 4:10)

“But we see Jesus, who... by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.” (Hebrews 2:9)

John 17: Why did Jesus pray for the Elect only? Part II

Possible reason #2 - Christ was praying for specific blessings upon those who were His; obviously He wouldn't do X-and-such spiritually blessing to those who don't believe.

This actually seems pretty plausible. There any many blessings (and salvation!) that are offered only to believers. Paul, in fact, here in Ephesians, prays specifically for blessings upon believers only:

“For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” (Eph. 3:14-19)

Yet, this does not mean or imply that Paul did not also care about and pray for non-believers at other times:

“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior...” (1 Tim. 2:1-3)

In His prayer for the blessings of joy and sanctification, Jesus specifically says that He is praying for His disciples and not for the world. Later, though, He prays that the world might believe that He is from the Father; He did pray for the whole world, then, just not in the context of those specific blessings. How could a non-believer be sanctified, or experience unity with God? Those blessings are reserved for believers.

Possible reason #3 - The Lamb of God has an extra special love for those who are His, and still cares about those who He was not praying for at the time.

Given that the church is the bride of Christ, it is certain that He has a special love for them. All others will be cast into hell, but those who believe in Christ are one with Him, and He blesses them richly in this life and the next, working together all things for good for them. Special love:

“I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.” (John 17:23)

But one can have a specific love for one, while still caring for others. I have a special love for my husband, but I still agape-love all other men, and would rescue one if I saw him dying and was able to save Him. As my little brother said, on this topic, “Just because I send a letter to my family (special love) does not mean I don't care about everyone else.”

Paul pronounced and prayed for many special blessings solely on believers, and yet also cared and prayed for everyone. Does God also care for everyone? According to the Bible, yes.

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

So reason number #3 is also Scripturally plausible. Christ not only reserves specific blessings for those who believe, but also has a special love for His own.

Possible reason #4 - Jesus was about to die, and was looking forward to the joy set before Him: His own glorification and the salvation, oneness with, and blessing upon those who would benefit from the cross: the elect, the bride of Christ.

Now, most of the other possible reasons don't look specifically at the timing of this prayer. Jesus was sweating drops of blood that night. The next day, He would experience an excruciating death, the weight of the sin of the world, and separation from His beloved Father. How did He get through this time? This mystery is revealed for us in Hebrews:

“...looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:2)

Now, if Jesus died to provide salvation for all, and only to procure salvation for the elect (just like the serpent in the wilderness which provided healing for all who were bitten, but only enacted healing toward those who looked at all, see John 3), in which part is the joy found?

Is the joy the glorification and the unity, joy, and sanctification of those who would benefit from the cross? Or is the joy found in those who would reject the provision and wind up justly in hell?

I would say, without a doubt, that the joy would be found (in addition to His glorification) in His bride, in the ones who would benefit and be saved. The joy would not be found in those who reject the work and die eternally – there is justice there, but not joy. Jesus prayed for the world to believe, but that was one statement. The majority of the chapter was focused on Christ's glorification in general, and on blessings for and unity with His elect. That was His focus.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense that as Jesus approached His death, He focused on and looked forward to the JOY set before Him, which was not found in those who would never believe, but would be found in His multi-fold glorification, in the joy and sanctification of His disciples, and of the love and unity between Him and the Father and all future believers – the bride of Christ.

There is the joy that He looked forward to, as He approached the cross. This reason is more than plausible, it is confirmed by Hebrews, which explains Christ's focus on that difficult night.

And if two reasons are found to be plausible, and one is found to be confirmed, then the claim that the first reason is the “only possible” reason must be entirely false.

.

The John 6:44 Argument

The first time I heard this argument, it seemed so obviously flawed that I just replied directly to the person and thought that I wouldn't hear of it again. However, I have heard that same argument used several more times, so I realized that I actually need to address it once and for all.

First, there is the verse:

John 6:44

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Then, the argument goes like this:

• Everyone who the Father draws comes to Christ.

• Everyone who the Father draws is raised up at the last day, and obviously that only included those who have come to Christ.

• Therefore, whichever way you look at it, everyone who the Father draws comes to Christ and is raised up at the last day.

The trouble is, that isn't what the verse actually says. Perhaps God only draws those who end up being saved, but THIS verse doesn't say that... maybe other verses do, but this one definitely doesn't. I'll explain. First, I'll break up the verse into components and examine each part and show how it fits together, and then I will give an example of similar sentence structure.

Here are two basis statements made in this verse:

• No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him

• Christ will raise [him] up at the last day

The first part says that without the drawing of the Father, humans are unable to come to Christ. Without X, no one can do Y. This is similar to saying that without having hands, you cannot drum your fingers on your friend's head.

It does NOT follow that everyone who has X actually goes on to do Y. Without X, no one can do Y. With X, a person may or may not do Y... that isn't addressed. For example, if you have hands, you may or may not drum your fingers on your friend's head.

Without the drawing of the Father, humans are unable to come to Christ.

Without X, no one can do Y.

With the drawing of the Father, humans... ? [Are able to come? Will come?]

With X, a person [may or may not do Y...?]

To know what happened with X in place, to all people, we would need further information. However, we do get some information from the next part. Christ will raise “him” up at the last day. Who? The one who comes to Christ: A human cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws that human, and Christ will raise that human [the same one who was drawn and came to Christ] in the last day.

From this, we learn that there are people who are drawn by the Father who also come to Christ. We learn that whoever falls under that category is raised up on the last day. What category? The category of those who both

A) Come to Christ

B) Were drawn by the Father

Obviously, no one can be in category A without also being in category B – since the first part of the verse says so. So those who come to Christ fit BOTH categories, and are raised up in the last day. However, the verse didn't say whether someone could be in category B without being in category A. It didn't address that.

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

This does NOT say that all those who are drawn come. It says that all who come were drawn.

It does not say that all who were drawn are raised. It says that those came and were drawn are raised.

Analogy:

No one can murder his brother unless God first gives him existence; and the American law will send him to jail.

This does NOT say that all who are given existence murder their brother. It claims that all those who murder were given existence.

It does not say that all who were given existence are sent to jail. It claims that those who murder and were given existence are sent to jail.

Logic, people. Logic.

.

Following the Strongest Desire

“Not only will we always choose according to our strongest desires, we must always choose according to our strongest desires.”

R.C. Sproul

“In summary of Edwards’ view of free will, he believes that man is free in that he can and does choose according to his strongest inclinations — his desires.”

W. Tullian Tchividjian

I don't agree with these claims, but it's hard to argue with it when the argument is generally presented in a circular fashion. I've debated it briefly with some Calvinists before, and it usually goes like this:

"You always choose based on your strongest desire."

"How do you know what someone's strongest desire was?"

"It was the one that they chose.”

If you define "strongest desire" as "the one that matches the choice made," then you can prove that the choice made always matches the strongest desire. But as soon as you get down to "what non-circular definitions of strongest desire can you give?"

If you define "strongest desire" as "the desire that pops to mind most frequency in the minutes before you take the action," then hypothetically a person could disprove it and say "No, I had X desire pop to mind 50 times in 5 minutes, but I also wanted to do righteous action Y, which came to mind 2 times in that period. Then I prayed about it and within 15 seconds took action Y."

If you define "strongest desire" as "the choice that you usually make in this situation," then a person taking a new path would disprove it.

If you define "strongest desire" as "the one which effects your physical/mental chemistry most negatively before you take the action (which relieve the negative chemical balance)," then a drug addict who stops using would have chosen against their "strongest desire."

But as long as we accept the definition of "strongest desire" as "that which motivates your action," it is indisputable that "your actions are always motivated by your strongest desire." It's true by definition in that case. For myself, I do not buy into this circular definition, though. I don't find it true, helpful, or useful in debating larger concepts like free will.

Ponderous Ponderings

____________________________________________________

Where do we start when we look for the most basic unit of knowledge?

Well, Descartes’ famous maxim was “I think, therefore I am” but I believe there’s a better starting point. Namely:
“I perceive, therefore I am.”

Perception does not necessarily require thought, and therefore is a more basic starting point.

So what does it mean to say “I perceive”? First, we note the subject is “I.” This is critical, because this limits the scope of the argument. “I”, as the subject, have direct knowledge of perception, so this is not saying you perceive nor does it say I can perceive what you can perceive. So this is very limited in scope, but it is essential.

Secondly, what is it to perceive? We might say that it is using our senses to take in sensory data. But this is not an accurate definition to begin with, for there is no way for us to know yet whether or not what we perceive is valid or real. It is, after all, possible that the entire external world that I perceive is a hallucination, albeit a very convincing one. Thus, the existence of perception does not actually prove that we have senses nor that the sensory information we perceive is valid.

Nevertheless, the simple fact of perception requires that there be something to perceive such a perception; in this case, the subject “I.” And this leads us to the same place Descartes started from—proof of some kind of existence. For it is the case that if I exist in order to perceive something (and I have direct access to this knowledge since I am the subject and I do, in fact, perceive) then something exists. We do not yet know what my attributes are, other than that I have some kind of existence. It is possible that I exist immaterially, as a spirit who is deluded into thinking the physical world is real. It may even be possible that I exist as a self-aware thought in the mind of some higher being, such as God. Or it could be that I exist exactly as I perceive myself to exist—as a physical being with an immaterial mind.

None of those things can, as of yet, be proven. But for the sake of understanding the most basic unit of knowledge, my direct experience of my own perceptions proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that something does in fact exist. And because something does exist, by the brute fact that what exists cannot not exist, we have established two logical truths as being necessary:

1. Identity. A is A. That is, whatever exists, exists. We can go further and say that while we do not know what attributes to apply to me, we do know that whatever attributes are a part of my existence do, are in fact attributes of my existence. If I have an attribute X, then it is the case that I have the attribute X.

And this brings us immediately the corollary

2. The law of non-contradiction. A is not ~A. That is, whatever attributes I do not have are, in fact, attributes I do not have. I cannot both have and not have the same attribute at the same time and in the same relationship.

So we see very quickly that the two foundational laws of logic are established simply by virtue of the fact that I exist in order to perceive something. And if these two attributes of logic exist, then we can begin to probe logic itself to see what it is that logic must require in order for logic to be valid.

As we’ve seen, logic is established by existence. In this case, the only thing I know exists (at this point) is myself. And as you read this, the only thing you’ll know exists is yourself. We cannot prove to the other person that we exist, for we do not have direct access to others’ perceptions.

_______________________________________________
But we can still learn important information. If we are to assert that logic is a meaningful tool to probe the rest of reality, then we know that logic must be grounded in something. If it is grounded in existence, then logic is only valid insofar as existence “exists” (for lack of a better word). Now, existence itself cannot exist; rather, objects have the property of “existing.” So to say that existence “exists” is really to say that there must be some kind of existing object. And, as I’ve stated, if that is the grounding for logic, then the scope of logic is identical to the scope of the existing object.

If, therefore, we are to say that logic is universal, then we must stipulate that there is a universal existence. That universal existence must transcend all other existing objects, and indeed must be the basis for which other existing objects have their existence. There must be something that is transcendent, such that if you and I both exist as separate objects then we both have the same rules of logic we must obey. If that assumption is true, then logic is grounded in an existence that is bigger than either of us individually. We must seek the transcendent.

This path also seems reasonable when we consider that our own existence, which we know is real for we have perceptions, must either be a self-existence or a derived existence. That is, whatever it is that makes me exist must be either something that exists with the essence of being within itself (hence, self-existent) or else whatever makes me exist must come from some other more foundational form of existence. Yet it is clear that if there is a more foundational form of existence, then either that foundational form is self-existent, or else derived from another even more foundational form of existence. Yet the cycle cannot be infinite, for that would cause an infinite regress fallacy, which would violate the very standards of logic we are trying to establish. Therefore, my existence proves something must be self-existent. And that something must be either myself, or something more foundational than myself; and if it is more foundational then myself, then it is transcendent once again.

_______________________________________________
So we see that either I am the sum of all existence, or else there is existence that transcends me. What else can we demonstrate?

Well, obviously the issue of time comes to mind. And this can present some real conundrums. For instance, when it comes to being there are two different classical strains of thought: Whatever is, is; and whatever is, is becoming. The first sense gives us a static universe; the second gives us one which is never the same (yet, ironically, it becomes static in its ever changing nature—that is, if it always changes then it never doesn’t change, which means it’s always the same after all). In any case, the questions that result from this discussion are fundamentally based in a concept of time.

Time cannot be infinite, for the same reason that we cannot have an infinite number of more foundational existence. It causes a regress fallacy. If time is not infinite, then it had to have a beginning. Regardless of how we come down on the topic of “whatever is, is” and “whatever is, is becoming” it seems plain that time must exist as soon as there is physical existence.

Now time is inherently tricky to define. Ultimately, time cannot be defined except in relation to movement; yet movement is defined in relation to time. For instance, in physics we know that velocity is distance divided by time. And using math we could say that time is therefore distance divided by velocity. But that doesn’t give us a definition of time, because velocity requires time to define what velocity is! But in the end, this is the only satisfactory definition of time that we have. For instance, Einstein once quipped: “Time is that which clocks measure.” But all that essentially means is that time is defined by the rate in which one arm on a clock moves a certain distance. Thus, when one hand moves all the way around the clock face, it is said that 60 minutes have passed.

Since all definitions of time require movement, it seems most likely that “whatever is, is becoming” is the most accurate concept of being, even though paradoxically it leads to a different form of stasis (as I indicated above). This means that not only does time require existence, but also change. If something existed but never changed, there would be no time. But if time is the “space between changes” so to speak, then time cannot be eternal for if it were, there would have to be eternal change. And if there were eternal change, then we could trace it back an infinite distance. But if we traced it back an infinite distance, it would take an infinite amount of time to return to our present position. Which means if time began an infinity ago, the present would have never arisen—for we would still be an infinite number of years in the past.

On the other hand, time is also relative…and it is precisely relative in its relation to motion! Indeed, the faster an object moves, the slower time appears to go (from the perspective of someone not moving). More precisely, if only two objects exist, Adam and Mary, and they are moving away from each other, then Adam will perceive time move more slowly for Mary (for from his perspective, she is moving while he is standing still) while Mary perceives time moving more slowly for Adam (for from her perspective, he is the one moving while she is standing still). So the relative motion between objects gives us the rate of time. And yet this requires one to have a view from inside the universe, so to speak, which immediately begs the question: how fast does time go for the observer outside the universe who looks at the universe as we would look at an ant colony? If all motion is internal to the universe, then perhaps in the end “whatever is, is” becomes true after all—for if no motion escapes the universe, then from outside the universe, the universe itself is static.

So from all of that, we can come to this firm conclusion: time makes no sense.


In fact, I believe that the inconsistencies actually prove that time doesn’t exist, at least not in the way that we think it does. Therefore, the perception of time is an illusion, useful as it may be. Time is not transcendent. And therefore, in order to ground logic, we must step outside of time. The ground of logic itself must be atemporal.

_______________________________________________
Similarly, the existence that grounds logic cannot be physical existence either, for physical existence is tied up in the paradox of “whatever is, is” and “whatever is, is becoming” for the same reason that time is so fluky. Therefore, whatever grounds logic must be aphysical or, in this case: immaterial.

So by using simple logic, we’ve discovered that the grounds of logic must be transcendent, immaterial, and atemporal. These are three attributes that can only be found in divinity. Speculating further might give us more information, but in terms of identifying Who the divine is, that is something that cannot be grasped from these principals. Instead, we require Revelation from the divine.

And that is to be expected. For if we exist, and if we are not ourselves divine (as does not seem likely, although logically that has not been ruled out yet), then that means we were created. And if we were created, the very act of creation itself implies a purpose for creation. That is, there must be a reason for it. And if there is a reason for creation, then we ought to think that the One who created us may very well provide that reason to us.

Naturally, there are competing claims as to Who the divine creator is. Some say Yahweh, some Allah, some The Great Spirit. But it seems plain that atheism cannot be true. At least, not if we are to remain rational adherents to logic.








_______________________________________________
Important Note: I am not the author of this blog. This is a reposting of Peter Pike's thoughts on "The Basic First Principles of Knowledge." However, please know that this post may or may not accurately reflect his current opinion.

Nine Newly-Discovered Logical Fallacies

As I grew up, I learned what was logical and what wasn't, but I didn't really know any of the particular names of the fallacies themselves. This trend changed a couple years ago, when my Mom got a book called "The Fallacy Detective" to teach my siblings the different types of formal logical fallacies, and I got a change to read it just for fun. It's a very good book, by the way, complete with little comic strip illustrations. I was very happy to know the fallacies because, up to that point, when someone would try to prove something that didn't make sense, I was limited to saying "that's not logical." Now I can say a bit more illuminating, like "that's a red herring!" It's helpful to the conversation because if you simply reply to someone that they are not being logical, they will disagree. On the other hand, if you point out exactly what logical fallacy you claim they are using, you both can figure out objectively whether the accusation stands or falls, and the conversation actually gets somewhere.

First, I wanted to outline about 29 of the most well-known logical fallacies, but I realized that that would be a bit long for a note, and so instead I am including a link to this site:
Logical Fallacies
That site lists most of the usual fallacies people use, and if you click of the name of the fallacy, it gives you an explanation of what exactly it is. If you are unfamiliar with logical fallacies, I would recommend perusing that site. However, I was disappointed that the site did not include a description of the "special pleading" fallacy, and so here is another link which will explain that one in particular: Fallacy Files

This all brings me to the point of this particular blog. Now, over the years, I've also come across types of logical fallacies that people use now and then to prove a point that are not officially recognized. There are, of course, thousands of ways to be illogical, and it would be foolish to try to come up with a name for every single type of logical fallacy, but the more prevalent a fallacy is, the more helpful it is to have a name and explanation for it. While talking with my brothers, debating with them, and discussing other debated with them, I came up with a list of nine more tactics which are commonly used and that we think should really be named, have definitions, and be well-known as fallacious arguments. If nothing else, they are pretty interesting, and fun to spot in real life.

What's wrong with this picture?

________________________________________________
The "If Only" Fallacy:
1 - Y happened, and X happened
2 - Y wouldn't have happened if X had not happened
3 - Therefore, Y caused X

This fallacy is often used in real life to assign responsibility or blame, but it's clearly not logical. Y did not necessarily cause X, even though it was the trigger or determinant of the situation. For example:
1 - You said that I was wrong, and I hit you
2 - If you hadn't said I was wrong, I wouldn't have hit you
3 - Therefore, you made me hit you

I actually wrote a whole blog about this fallacy: here's a link if you wish to read it:
If Only

________________________________________________
Chip/Milk Equivocation:
You may have heard of the normal equivocation fallacy, which is to switch the meaning of the word in the middle of an argument. "That's cool!" "No, it's warm, it just came out of the oven." The person has proven that it's not cold "cool" but has not proven that it's not awesome "cool." That type of equivocation relies on having a word that can mean more than one thing. On the other hand, "chip/milk" equivocation is equivocating two different words that still do not mean the same thing.
1 - (Underlying assumption that Chips are the same as Milk)
2 - You have chips.
3 - Therefore, you have milk.

How is this used in real life? It happens all the time, in a multitude of situations where a person thinks that two things are the same, when really they are not.
Example:
1 - (Goth is the same as Emo)
2 - You are Goth
3 - Therefore, you are Emo

Or, something I come across more often:
1 - (True total sovereignty is the same as decreeing every last detail)
2 - You believe that God does not decree sin
3 - Therefore, you are trying to deny that God is sovereign!

________________________________________________
Perspective Fallacy:
1 - Subjectively, X is true.
2 - Therefore, objectively, X is true.

This topic came up when Mom said that my brother was being too loud, and he said that she was wrong. Generally, "too loud," "too soft," "too hot," "too cold," and the like are all pretty subjective. Mom was correct that my brother was being too loud, because although the level of noise he was making was moderate, she was on the phone and had already asked him to be quiet for a few minutes. In refusing to be quiet and maintaining a level of noise that made it hard for her to hear the other person, he was being, in her subjective opinion, "too loud."

Here's the fallacy my brother followed:
1 - In his subjective experience, the level of noise he was creating was pretty normal, and not usually considered by most to be overly loud. To him, it was not too loud.
2 - Therefore, objectively, it was not too loud, and Mom was wrong in labeling it "too loud."

How can this be used in serious discussions? For one thing, I see it often used when people try to understand God based on their subjective view of what perfection is.
Given - God is good
1 - From my point of view, God would not be good if He sent people to hell
2 - Therefore, God, being good, does not send people to hell

You can see that it would make sense that if good objectively could not include sending people to hell, and if God is good, then we could conclude that God does not send people to hell. The mistake is made when the person mistakes what they subjectively perceive as good for objective good.

________________________________________________
Strongman Fallacy:
1 - If A and B are true, then C is true
2 - A is true, and B is true
3 - Therefore, C is true

As you can probably tell, that is actually logical. What is the problem with this train of thought? There isn't a problem with it. You commit the "Strongman fallacy" by being too logical. That is, by being more logical than your opponent would like you to be. But since, until now, there has been a name for this fallacy, no one will say to you "You just used the Strongman Fallacy!" Rather, they will say something like "you're being overly logical," or "you are relying too much on human logic."

It's not actually a fallacy, but people treat it like it is. So I gave it a name.
Example of Strongman Fallacy:
Person A: God cannot be self-contradictory. He cannot be sinless and sinful at the same time.
Person B: Yes He could. His ways are mysterious to us. We cannot ever hope to understand them with our puny human logic.

________________________________________________
The Fluff Fallacy:
1 - I am arguing that 2 X + 4 - ab = 2Y + 4 - ab
2 - I am not arguing that X = Y

As you can see, those two statements contradict each other. The reason for using such a fallacy is to avoid being proven wrong.

Example: (Given that X=4, and Y=9)
Tom: X plus 4 is the same as Y plus 4.
Tim: So you're telling me that 4 is 9
Tom: No of course not! That would be stupid!
Tim: But you said that X is Y!
Tom: No I didn't. I said that X plus 4 is the same as Y plus 4!
Tim: Dude. That's the same thing as saying that X is equal to Y!
Tom: You are strawmanning my position! I never claimed that X equals Y.

The Fluff Fallacy is when a person dresses up a simple argument in so much verbal "fluff" that the argument cannot be proven or disproven, and refuses to simplify his argument to the point where it would be possible to test it's accuracy. This is very possible and easy to do if you know a lot of long words that others don't know - using the fluff argument, a person can sound super-intelligent and make claims that no one else can disprove, even without putting forward any truth.

________________________________________________
The Little-Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Fallacy
1 - I disagree with you
2 - Therefore, you've committed a logical fallacy

Basically, this fallacy is just when a person keeps claiming that other people are using fallacies that the other people are not really using.
Example:
Tom: X plus 4 is Y plus 4
Tim: So you're saying that X is Y.
Tom: No! That is a strawman fallacy! You are misrepresenting my position!

Tom: I think that all girls only like guys with blond hair
Suzy: That can't be true, because I like guys with brown hair.
Tom: That's a red herring! Completely irrelevant!

Tom: You beat up Paul earlier. I know because he told me so.
Tim: But you know that Paul is notorious for lying!
Tom: That's an Ad Hominem attack! Just because he isn't perfect does not mean that his theory is incorrect!

After reading that, you can probably start to tell why I named this fallacy after the little boy who cried wolf...

________________________________________________
Argument by Lack of Argument:
1 - (I do not bring up a point, or else my point is successfully debunked)
2 - I claim that I've already proven that point

This fallacy is surprisingly common in internet debates. Every so often, when you question a point, they will claim that they're "already proven" something which they never actually addresses previously. And without a lot of searching, it's hard to prove them wrong. The best you can usually do is to call their bluff and say something like "Oh really? Where did you prove that? Link please?"

Example:
UserName1220 - Choices are hard, but I am glad that we have free choice
Some1Else - You're just going in circles. I've already proven that free choice doesn't exist

________________________________________________
A Double Standard of Evidence:
1 - For your point to stand, you must prove it true, and also prove my point of view false.
2 - For my point to stand, I do not need to offer any proof for it, or even prove your point of view false. I only need to show that any evidence against my argument might possibly be inconclusive

Example:
Guy: The government watches our every move. Even now. They are tape recording this conversation.
Girl: There's no reason to believe that
Guy: No, there is reason. I've read about them online!
Girl: The web doesn't give only true information, you know
Guy: You haven't proven that it's false information
Girl: I know this house like the back of my hand, and I've never found any hidden cameras or bugging devices
Guy: Well of course if they bug your house, they won't want to you find out about it!
Girl: You have no proof that they are watching us like that!
Guy: See, you're just proving me right because you've come up with every argument against it, and none disproves it! You're just ignoring the obvious conclusion because that's not what you want to believe.

________________________________________________
The Bluff Argument:
Premise - If A and B are true, then C is true
Version A:
1 - A is true
2 - B is true
3 - Therefore, Y is true!

Version B:
1 - A is shown false
2 - B is shown false
3 - Therefore, C is true!

As you can see, in both cases, 3 does not logically follow 1 and 2.

Simple examples:
1 - Brownies taste good
2 - You have to bake brownies
3 - Therefore, cake is not as good as brownies

Person: Eating a lot of chocolate every day will make it less likely for you to get sick
Person2: That's not what medical studies have shown...
Person: Also also, baking things gets rid of anything in them that could effect you negatively, similar to sterilizing needles
Person3: Actually, a lot of things that may not be good for you, like sugar, survive heat just fine
Person: And therefore, as you can all clearly see, we should all be eating more brownies!

You may think these arguments so ridiculous that they could never be taken seriously in real life, but you might be surprised! I've seen version B uses in debates between presidential candidates, or even used to win points and votes in the board game of "argue." One real life example that comes to mind is this one time when a particular fellow was trying to persuade people to reject the idea of free will/free choice.

He put forward that:
1 - According to Scripture, you and I do not have free will, and do not determine or make our own choices and decisions
2 - Those who teach that we do really make choices are teaching lies (that they know people want to believe)
3 - Therefore, "it is up to you, and it is up to me to choose to follow the truth" instead of following the lie of free will!

As you can see, the Bluff argument can go so far as to contradict itself. (IE We cannot make choices, and we must choose to believe that) The intriguing thing about the situation was that, among the perhaps 25 people listening to that lecture, I was the only one who noticed the inconsistency: the conclusion did not follow, and in fact contradicted the previous points established. Most everyone else bought into it. It's a powerful logical fallacy, apparently.

Interpreting Scripture

People make mistakes, but computers don't

Years and years ago, back in the day when computers were first making their debut, there was this idea going around that "humans make mistakes, but computers don't." Based on this idea, some people seemed to think that replacing human labor with robotic or computerized labor was an excellent idea not only because it could save money, but also because it would eliminate the possibility of human error.

Not everyone really "bought" the idea. In response to this idea, several movies were made, in which humans were replaced by computers because "computers don't make mistakes." Then, of course, things so wrong and in the end, the fate of the planet depends on the main characters stopping the mad computers! These movies seemed over-the-top, but the concepts were quite believable.

Now, it sounds rather logical to believe that humans make mistakes, and that computers cannot. Why is it, then, that computers do mess up? Why is it that we would not entrust the fate of the world to computerized machines? I think that the logical error is this: To say that humans make mistakes, but computers don't makes as little sense as saying that humans make mistakes, but programmers don't. Given that humans do make mistakes, we are can count on programmers making mistakes. So, as long as we can count on programmers making mistakes, we can count on computers messing up!

____________________________________________________

People can be wrong, but the Bible is never wrong

In a similar way, there is this idea that I heard from a few people at different points in time. The idea goes like this: Human logic is fallible, but the Bible is always true: Therefore we should never preach our opinions, but only preach what the Word of God says. The sounds pretty reasonable because first of all we know that as humans, we are wrong a lot, and also because we know that the Bible is completely accurate. However, it is incorrect to reason that "Human logic is fallible, but human interpretation of the Bible is always true." The Bible is always true, but our understanding of the Bible is rarely accurate and complete.

As long as we only quote Bible verses to one another, we are speaking truth. However, when it comes to understanding the Bible, we may get confused because of misunderstanding words, or misunderstanding concepts. If I am even to understand that "God is love," I must know what love is. Is it the same "love" that is tossed around so often in our culture? To comprehend that Paul was grieved, I must have some knowledge of what grief is. As soon as we not only quote verses, but go on to explain them or apply them to our lives, or to some topic, we are relying to some extend on our own human understanding and human logic. Because of this, we are all fallible in our understanding of Scripture.

A person may claim not to preach their own opinion, but only to preach what they see in the Word of God. However, when preaching what the "see" in the Word of God, they are speaking about what they believe it mean or logically implies, and are using their own fallible head. Unless a person only quotes the Bible word for word, without any comments or explanation, they are to an extend, preaching their own opinion.

All this is to say that although we know that the Bible contains ultimate truth, we should not give up the study of "human logic" or attempts to define words accurately. Without logic and understanding, we are practically guaranteed to interpret the Bible incorrectly. God is a God of logic, and never contradicts Himself. If we forsake logic, and read Scripture illogically, we will not truly understand what it says.

Perhaps one may think that it is an act of humility to believe the Bible (or more precisely, to believe their interpretation of the Bible) even when it seems to be illogical and contradictory. However, I would say that it is not the Bible that is illogical or contradictory, but their interpretation of the Bible. In that case, humility would be realizing that, and taking more time to question their own interpretation of the Bible.

People can be wrong, but the Bible can never be wrong. Human logic is fallible, and human interpretation of the Bible is not always true. The Bible is always true, but our understanding of the Bible is rarely accurate and complete.

____________________________________________________
There is no relation between the physical and spiritual realm

Building off of that, I have heard the idea that analogies between the physical and the spiritual realm are really quite pointless, because the spiritual realm is so different. However, I would say everything and anything we understand about the spiritual realm must be based off of our understanding of the physical realm! If I tell you that I have seen a glooflamder, you will have no idea of what that means, unless I explain in words you are familiar with how it is like things you already have experienced or understand. If something is entirely unlike anything you have experienced or have knowledge of, then you cannot understand it in the least bit! If I say "Я не понимаю, потому что я не говорю на английском языке," you will very likely not understand, because there are no understood concepts that you attach to those series of letters or sounds.

Throughout the Bible we learn by analogies between the physical and spiritual realm. God is a "rock" and a "fortress." We are all "like sheep" or "lost coins." Any analogy is sure to fall short, for no analogy is the same in every way as the concept being described. However, often an analogy will illustrate clearly one or two points being made. The spiritual and the physical realm are different, but are also similar. It is only in these similarities that we can understand that which is not tangible. This is why analogies and similes are so important, and can be found so frequently in the Bible.

To conclude, words, analogies, and human logic are not only important parts of reading and understanding the Bible, but are in fact inescapable parts of reading and understanding the Bible. The only question is whether or not you are accurate and truly logical in your reading and understanding of Scripture.

The "If Only" Logical Fallacy

I have a pretty awesome book called "The Fallacy Detective." It's a fun book to read, and it has familiarized me with a whole bunch of different types of logical fallacies. However, I sometimes stumble across logical mis-steps that I think are used often enough to deserve the title of "logical fallacy." Today, I wanted to write about one of these unofficial fallacies. I like to call it the "if-only" fallacy.
The basic fallacy states that X wouldn't have happened if Y hadn't happened. Therefore, Y caused X.

______________________________________________________________

The reason I call it the "if-only" fallacy is because this fallacy usually occurs after some sort of accident or tragedy, when some main character says to himself "IF ONLY I had done something different, this wouldn't have happened." And feels guilty about something that probably wasn't his fault.

Example:

• Five year old Laura is sitting in the living room watching television, and a stray bullet from a gun fight outside goes through the front window and hits Laura, instantly killing her.


• The mother feels very guilty and thinks to herself "if only I hadn't let Laura watch television today she wouldn't have gotten killed. Any sort of responsible mother wouldn't have let her daughter watch television! I should have been reading to her, or spending quality time with her! It's all my fault."

The fallacy is the assertion that if the mom hadn't let Laura watch television, Laura wouldn't have gotten shot, and therefore the mom caused Laura to get shot.

Obviously, this isn't true. It was not the mother's fault that the kid got shot. Hypothetically, you could say that the mother was responsible for her kid not being smart enough because of watching television, but you can't logically say that the mother caused or was responsible for the killing. There are plenty of other "if only" statements that could apply to the same situation:

• If only guns hadn't been invented... the invention of guns caused this


• If only they didn't move into that neighborhood... moving there caused this


• If only the mom had taken the daughter to the store instead of doing housework...


• If only the mom had kept her job, and put her daughter in daycare...


• If only Laura had been made to take a nap at that time...


• If only Laura had been allowed to stay with Aunt Mary that day... but nooo Aunt Mary was too "busy"


• If only...

The list could go on forever. Yet when you actually think about who is culpable for the crime, it is obvious that it was one of the people in the gunfight outside who was truly responsible for the death of the little girl.


______________________________________________________________
Another common use of this fallacy is when people try to shift blame to another person for their own actions.

Example:

• David yells at Daniel, and Daniel slaps David.


• Daniel then explains to his mom that it wasn't his fault: that if only David hadn't yelled at him, he wouldn't have slapped David. It's David's own fault, then, and not Daniel's fault.

The fallacy is in the assertion that if David hadn't yelled at him, Daniel wouldn't have become violent, and therefore David was the cause of the violence.

Obviously this isn't true. Daniel determines his own actions, whatever may influence him, and is responsible for what he himself determines to choose. In psychology, this is referred to as an "external locus of control." People like that view what controls them as outside of themselves. This type of person is always blaming others for their own bad decisions. On the contrary, people with an "internal locus of control" views themselves as capable to choose how to respond to their environment, and take responsibility for their own actions.


______________________________________________________________
So, to summarize, the "if only" fallacy states that X wouldn't have happened if Y hadn't happened. Therefore, Y caused X.

It is not always true. Most of the time, Y did not cause X, as in the examples above. However, sometimes it is true that Y caused X. For example, if only I hadn't dropped the egg, it wouldn't have broken. Dropping the egg caused the egg to break.

Therefore, saying that "if only" X hadn't happened, Y wouldn't have happened does not prove the point one way or another. I would also say that it's an important fallacy to avoid because, as you can see from the example I gave, it can lead to either false guilt or irresponsibility.


______________________________________________________________
From Get Smart:

*Max throws bomb out of the window, and it lands on Chief's car and explodes*
*Cut to Chief and Max, in Chief's office, discussing the incident*

Max: Thank goodness you're alright, Chief!

Chief: Yes. I would have been in the car, except I stopped to pick up a pack of cigarettes. Do you realize that that pack of cigarettes saved my life?

Max: And they say smoking is bad for you...!