Various Thoughts on Apologetics, Science, Philosophy and Theology.
Saturday, February 22, 2020
Is the Bible Relevant? Aron Ra vs Reformed Christian Apologist Aron Ra is an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus as reported in the NT, as true God and true man. He insists critical biblical scholarship has established Jesus either did not exist, or if Jesus did exist, he was not the God-man of Christianity. Some evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ outside the bible -
1) The Fatima miracle of the dancing of the sun in 13 October, 1917, where about 70,000 thousand people observed the miracle, predicted by three children. The miracle also co-incided with a vision of hell granted to the three children and the promise of heaven. From this one miracle, we know that Mary, the mother of Jesus has a power of God over nature. As the mother of Jesus exists from heaven, then Jesus as true God and true man also exists. Therefore Jesus really did exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyIpE1_qIFM
2) The miraculous Tilma of Guadalupe converted millions of natives converted to the Catholic faith. The tilma has many miraculous features, including the associated apron full of roses consistent with the royal Aztec poetry about a flower kingdom. The miraculous roses are a strong indication of the woman from the other kingdom, represented by Mary, the mother of Jesus. Again, as Mary exists and has power over nature, then Jesus is true God and true man. Therefore Jesus existed.
3) Jesus has spoken to many saints throughout church history such as St Faustina, St Thomas Aquinas, and many others. The Jesus of miracles is the Jesus of the NT, as the true God/man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01FESJ_2fjg
Current historical critical scholarship ignores the connection between the OT and NT to the many events in church history concerning Mary and Jesus interventions to few and many, for the many. Critical scholarship of the historical Jesus which denies Jesus existed, or denies Jesus is true God and true man is false scholarship that compartmentalises the biblical text from church history.
4) The conversion of pagan Europe of the Roman Empire into the Catholic Holy Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire and Hapsburg Empires is evidence for the Divinity of the historical Jesus. For if Jesus was a fraud, the conversion of violent pagan Europe to Christendom as through the power of God, and many martyrdoms of Christian would not be properly accounted for.
5) The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem as predicted by Jesus is a proof that Jesus was true God. For the Temple was the place God dwelt prior to Jesus. And His ascension into heaven as true God and true man is the true temple of God, replacing the Jewish temple.
6) The OT points to the NT, and the NT refers back to the OT. The Bible points to Church history and the reverse is also true. The interdependence of the two parts of the bible with church history provides strong support for the existence and divinity of Jesus. The OT predicts the Messiah who will be divine. The NT fulfills the OT promises and the church history lives out the life of the divine Messiah. Evidently Jesus existed and was true God and true man.
Some reasons why you do not know the size or age of the universe.
1) The models used to explain the origin and development of the universe are evolutionary models, which are in principle, always bottom up models. The bottom up models are more from less,something from nothing models which are impossible. As the models are not real, the modeled size and age of the are always only ever of a fictitious universe.
2) The models make assumptions about the nature of physics which cannot be universally verified. As the verification of say, the speed of light, the nature of light, the mechanism and effects of gravity is impossible, the models only ever conclude to a size and age of the universe which of a real universe, which can only ever produce an agnostic outcome. An agnostic outcome infers the size and age of the universe can never be known through science alone.
3) The models are restricted to an enclosed set of parameters which define the model. For example, a Newtonian universe assumes gravity as mass attraction, absolute space, absolute motion, and inertia caused by the mass of a body. All of these and the other assumptions within the model are enclosed within the model and cannot be examined to be true or false only from within the model. Therefore whenever a model is used to determine the size and age of the universe, the model only produces results, based upon unverifiable assumptions. In other words, because every model is enclosed on itself, there is no external means to double check the model.
Similarly, when a model has a set of assumptions working together it may be very difficult to verify which assumptions are false and which are true within a complex model that accounts for several physical properties and any observations. The difficulty of determining the truth value of the combination of assumptions concludes to the agnostic value of the size and age of the universe.
4) All models make assumptions and must assert truths whilst the model maker knows there are always several known unknowns and perhaps many other unknown unknowns. The apparent success of the models cannot fully account for the unkowns. Therefore models must always conclude to the agnostic value of the size and age of the universe.
5) The current standard big bang model always involves assuming the universe is in accordance with relativity theory. But the assumption of relativity of the universe is never proven. Therefore the standard model and must always conclude to the agnostic value of the size and age of the universe.
6) The standard model is a self creation myth. Therefore the standard model and must always conclude to mythical value of the size and age of the universe.
I predict the post will be deleted shortly due to the non conformist problems within the models.
Professor Dave Destroys Kent Hovind Some problems were posted in the comments section of Professor Dave's debate, which at the time of 20 Feb, 2020, have been deleted. Without having watched the entire debate I have an objection to evolution.
All biological systems are comprised of causes and effects.
An effect is dependent upon a cause.
What is dependent upon a cause, participates in the cause.
The effect which participates in the cause is less than the cause.
The cause is greater than the effect.
Greater and lesser is a top down system.
A system of causes and effects is a top-down system.
All biological systems are top-down.
The evolutionary tree of life is bottom-up.
All biological systems within the evolutionary tree of life are top-down.
A system that is both top-down and bottom-up is a system comprised of causes and effects both greater and lesser than each other.
What is both greater and lesser than each other in the same respect is a contradiction.
The tree of life is composed of greater and lesser than each other in the same respect.
Therefore the tree of life is composed of many contradictions.
A system of contradictions is impossible.
The tree of life is impossible.
As the tree of life is impossible, evolution from a common ancestor never happened.
Comment - a similar problem occurs in the big bang theory, which is also a bottom-up model. All systems within the big bang are top-down, within a bottom up model. Therefore the model is composed of many contradictions. Therefore the big bang never happened.
Second Post -
Top down follows from cause and effect. A cause has more being than the effect. Hence any system of causes and effects is top down. Or again, cause and effect is - less is from more. Less from more requires all systems to have more and less, which is to have top-down. A system is either top-down or bottom-up. If bottom up, then more from less, and something from nothing, which is impossible. If a system is top down, less is from more and something from something. All systems are top down.
The evolutionary tree of life begins with the common ancestor and moves through tansitionals to the tree tips. The common ancestor is X, the tip is Z=X+Y, where Z>X. The evolutionary tree of life is bottom-up, which is reducible to more from less, or something from nothing. The evolutionary tree of life requires the emergence of biological life to be an impossible superstition. Same problem with the big bang theory and the evolution of the universe. The so called evidence for evolution always requires the entire system to be superstitious in principle. Therefore, no mater how much apparent evidence there is for evolution, such as speciation, natural selection and mutations, the entire system is always false in principle from the false principle of more from less.
Evolution cannot account for sexuality. Biological evolution is modification through descent from a common ancestor. Descent infers a functioning sexuality in a functioning organism. Biological evolution is thereby dependent upon sexuality, which did not evolve. As sexuality is always integrated into the heterogeneous organism with diverse body parts, sexuality always exists within a functioning organism. If a functioning sexuality exists without evolution, the organism with all of its parts also began without evolution. Therefore evolution cannot account for any organ of any biological system.
Evolutionists claim the universe evolved, so everything that exists underwent a process of gradualism. And yet the so called evolving universe is composed of may parts that never evolved, such as mass, gravity, light, space, electricity, magnetism, time, energy, proton, neutron, electron and so on. The eclectic, just so universe of the evolutionists is a universe of selective gradualism created by the evolutionists to do what is required to have gradualism, but ignore gradualism where gradualism is dependent upon statism.
The creation-Evolution debate is reducible to a creation-creation debate. The creationist claims the universe came from the divinity who created all things from nothing, through the infinite power of God. The evolutionist claims the universe evolved through gradualism, which is more from less, and something from nothing. The evolutionist imitates the creation event, but substitutes the divinity for nothing. Evolutionism is thereby a closet creationism without any real creator. Or in other words, evolution is a self creation myth.
Many other objections can be made to evolution which are never given any robust response. For example,
1) irreducible complexity is contrary to gradualism.
2) Mutations are a single cause of evolution common to all organisms which are very diverse. The singularity and diversity of outcome are contrary to each other. 3) Natural selection only acts to reduce biological diversity contrary to the claims of gradualism.
4) The evolutionary theory is set up so no scientist can ever observe evolution at any time, due to the long time required for evolution to have occurred.
5) Evolution requires the support of dating theory which assumes the decay rates are constant over long times, whilst holding that all physical things evolved over time.
6) The fossil record is used to support the theory, whilst the record cannot be known to be in accordance with evolution due to the many unknowns associated with the record.
7) Biological evolution is biological alchemy, causing all biological systems to be a morass of biological monsters not evidenced in the natural world of the beautiful.
8) Evolution is generally based upon naturalism, materialism, rationalism and scientism which are all false world views.
9) Evolutionism always concludes to a false understanding of man as a material thing, when man is actually a composite of body and spiritual soul. The spirituality of the human soul is not accountable within evolutionary theory.
10) Gradualism is sophistry of something from nothing hidden under mutations.
11) Evolution is only a belief without reference to other systems of philosophy and theology that show evolutionism to be false.
12) Evolutionism is reducible to something will change into something diverse from itself through gradualism. And yet according to Aristotle natures are singular and never change from nature to another nature. For example, man has always been and will always be a man, and never anything other than a man.
If you wish to enter into a more robust world view, I invite you to engage the philosophy and theology of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. Go to the Gregorian and the Angelicum in Rome and get an education that is more well rounded.
I don't expect an coherent response to any of the above statements simply because evolutionism is an incoherent, inconsistent, sophistic world view that is against science, philosophy, theology and the nature of man. -------------------------- Further comment (21 Feb 2020) A seed is less than a tree. The growth involved to bring the seed to the tree is a process of nourishment and growth which is top down. Every system is top down. If there is an apparent more from less, the process only ever occurs in a top down system simply because a bottom up system is impossible.
The tree of life however is not apparent, but a real assertion of more from less, without any mechanism to provide the more. The tree of life is a fiction according to the false principle of more from less. In fact the tree of life is so poor that the entire universe is against it. For the universe is real and the real is always less from more, or top down. Every biological population within the tree of life is top down, whilst the tree of life is bottom up. As top down and bottom up are in contradiction to each other, evolution is a theory containing many contradictions.
Furthermore, if a bottom up system process is admitted to conform to evolution, the effect is greater than the cause and the effect is not longer entirely dependent upon the cause. A bottom up system always destroys the definitions of cause and effect and makes the entire system unintelligible. If evolution is true, then all systems are unintelligible and science which seeks to explain the physical world of causes and effects also becomes unintelligible.
Response to the Papacy arguments - If the early church understood Matt 16 as Peter or his faith without reference to successors, why then did the church claim to have successors to St Peter in the Papacy? Why does the early church writings have to clearly state doctrines that are later held in church history? Cannot the Holy Spirit guide the church over time to have a deeper appreciation of the biblical texts? Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit to guide the church into all truth. Cardinal John Henry Newman's understanding of church history on the development of doctrine may assist you in this regard.
Response to the Saints - Jordan rejects the papacy based upon no early church witness, but he also rejects praying to the saints when there is an early church witness. Jordan's criteria for rejecting the Catholic church is clearly not based upon any witness or lack of witness in the early church.
Praying to the saints is not worship, but dulia as honor. Correct worship of God is latria through sacrifice. Jordan claims prayer to the saints leads to idolatry, but Catholic teaching clearly distinguishes between prayer to the saints and the worship of God, thereby preventing idolatry. Jordans lack of support from scripture is irrelevant because the Catholic church does not follow the false theory of sola scriptora.
Sacrifice of the Mass - Hebrews does discuss the resurrected Christ acting as a priest in the order of Melchizedek who offers gifts and sacrifices in the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews does speak of the ongoing activity of Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice (Heb 9:23) to cleanse the sanctuary, which consistent with the mass. If there is no more sacrifice after the cross, how does Jesus continue to act as a priest forever as Hebrews says? What are yo to make of the gospel accounts of the institution of the Eucharist and the historical witness of Christ in the Eucharist? Why believe anything Luther taught about the Eucharist when he had no authority and came up wit many novel doctrines about all things Christian?
Infallible Magisterium - Jordan Rome is not the same by comparing Bellarmine and Karl Rahner. But Rahner has no athority in the church at all other than a theologian. Rome position does not change because Rahaner taught something different to Bellarmine or Trent.
Trent's claims account for the development of doctrine, which means Trent did take into account changes over time within the church on matters of doctrine. Rome can make statements to explain church doctrine in diverse ways to account for different aspects of doctrine and doctrinal development.
Justification - Faith alone theology is only an eisegesis of a select number of passages which has many problems. Justification is really i a covenant setting and any reference to a judgement must be understood within the covenant between the Father and humanity through Jesus as the mediator.
St Paul repeatedly speaks of being in Christ as transformational language.
The gospel is the new Exodus, new creation, new covenant, restoration of Israel and the ingathering of the nations to Zion, focussed on the church as the new Israel with the Eucharist at the centre. The gospel is not justification by faith alone -
Faith is not an instrument, but a habit and an act.
There never was any imputation of man's sins to Christ's account.
There is never any imputation of Christ's merit to the sinners account.
There never was any great exchange which involves any legal fiction.
Faith is always an act that infers a union with hope and love, contrary to Luther's doctrine.
Works of the law refer to covenant works, or any work of grace. If so, faith alone theology is false, for faith is a work of grace, excluded by faith alone theology. Rom 4 refers to both faith (Rom 4:3) and hope (Rom 4:18) and Davids (Ps 32) conversion as a resurrection to new life. This is hardly the language of faith alone and extrinsic righteousness.
1) SS cannot establish the canon of scripture, for every method that uses evidence from the text such as prophecy, the truth of the text, or the witness of miracles always concludes to a circular argument. The text records prophecy, therefore the text is inspired, because the text is inspired, the text records prophecy.
2) SS infers private interpretation of the text, which is against the nature of public revelation.
3) SS always ends in denominationalism which is against church unity.
4) SS ignores the binding authority of the church as recorded in Acts 15 and church history and makes the believer the final arbiter of the meaning of divine revelation.
5) SS requires the arbitrary construct of God breathed inferring only the scriptures are infallible, whilst ignoring the many evidences for infallibility of the church in the scriptures. The church is the spotless bride (Eph 5), so the church cannot sin. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), so she cannot teach error on faith and morals. And the church has the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:18-19, 18:18). The church must then bind and loose without falling from the truth and committing sin. The biblical church is infallible, impeccable and indefectable. Such is the church of history not found in the Lutheran denomination invented 1500 years after Christ.
6) SS infers an exegetical method not taught in scripture. Therefore SS does not contain any method to understand the text contained within SS. Therefore SS always concludes to an agnostic text without much value.
7) Church history is against SS, for the resolution of doctrinal controversies involves the use of scripture, tradition and the authority of church councils.
8) If SS is contained with scripture SS involves a self referencing fallacy. SS is true because the scriptures teach SS. And the scriptures are true because SS is true.
9) SS is not contained within scripture, SS involves the fallacy of a disproportionate authority outside scripture to establish the scriptures as the ultimate authority. References to the church or the fathers to establish SS only means external witnesses are appealed to, to point to a higher authority. Yet the lower authority cannot ever establish a higher authority, but only a higher can establish the lower.
10)SS cannot be established from within or without the scriptures, therefore the doctrine is always never established.
11) The definition of SS is always false because SS is always false. Jordan's explanation of SS is merely his own private understanding of a false doctrine. SS is not taught in scripture, for scripture cannot teach a false doctrine.
12) SS as taught by Jordan requires no infallible authority other than the scriptures because the scriptures are God breathed. And yet the gospel was given as a tradition by preaching and letter (2 Thes 2:15) in a binding way for believers. Scriptures participate in the gospel tradition which is binding, and as such, tradition must also be infallible. For if tradition is not infallible, then St Paul was binding believers to an oral and written tradition which was fallible and may contain errors. And if the letters do not contain errors and are binding, then the oral tradition must also not contain errors and also be binding. Both the oral preaching and the letters are from the same tradition which is both binding on believers. If one element of the tradition is infallible as the word of God, and the other is the word of God, then the other element of the same tradition is also infallible. Sola Scriptora (SS) is false because it excludes the infallibility of tradition, but requires the infallibility of tradition from Christ. SS is dependent upon the infallibility of oral tradition because the gospel was first taught by Jesus who is the infallible God who always teaches the truth. Scripture is itself always dependent upon the original oral tradition from Christ. Therefore scripture can only be infallible if tradition is infallible.
The entire new testament is based upon the person, work and teaching of Christ, and the consequent oral tradition from Christ and the apostles. Only after the gospel was preached, were some gospels and letters written. If the oral tradition which preceded the written text was fallible, the written texts, based upon fallible oral tradition are also fallible. One may object and say the scriptures are God breathed and infallible, regardless of the fallibility of tradition. But oral tradition is also God breathed because oral tradition is from Jesus who is the God man who spoke the gospel.
Any reference to the exclusive nature of scripture as god breathed must exclude the God breathed nature of Jesus's oral teachings. SS includes the problematic proposition that scripture is without error, but Jesus teachings were not infallible. Such an error is open to the charge of making Jesus teach error, when as God He cannot teach any error.
Jordan's version of SS has absolutely no chance of success at all.
Jordan's statement about the early church infers the church of the early church does not currently exist. Every current tradition in Christianity is a branch of the early church. Therefore according to Jordan's view, no Christian can know what to believe from Christ in its entirety because there is no single denomination that has all correct doctrine and practice. Jordan's position collapses to an agnosticism within his own understanding of Christianity.
Jordan claims the early church did not have the same view of the Papacy the modern Catholic church has. Therefore the early church was not catholic. But the conclusion does not follow, simply because church doctrine develops over time through the assistance of the holy spirit. There is a large witness to the prominence of the chair of St Peter in Rome in church history which is a very strong witness against any denomination of the reformation, like Lutheranism.
Jordan claims we are all from that early church, but he never demonstrates his claim other than to reference a unity in creeds from the early church. The only true church has apostolic succession from Christ and the apostles. No reformed tradition can establish any succession from Christ and the apostles, so all reformed denominations have their origin in men such as Luther, or Calvin.
The 1054 split over the filioque and the Papacy involved both sides having apostolic succession and thereby maintaining holy orders for the Eucharist. The split does not compare to the reformation where apostolic succession was ignored and denominations were invented by men such as Luther.
A reformation split within the church infers the church is unknowable, for the Catholics do not believe what the Lutherans believe and so on. Jordan's version of the church implies an agnosticism concerning the content of divine revelation.
Luther did break from Rome and was excommunicated for his many heresies. The claim of doctrinal error within the church is against the nature of the church which is the spotless bride of Christ (Eph 5:27), the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) and has the power to bind and loose (Matt 16:18-19).
The Lutheran church does not have any authority to bind and loose simply because no reformed denomination has apostolic succession from Christ and the apostles through ordination to bishop or priest.
There are very good reasons not to be a reformed Christian, such as the following.
1) Luther had no authority to challenge Rome with her doctrines on faith and morals.
2) Lutheranism and Calvinism are only formative of denominations which are against the nature of divine revelation. The scriptures condemn denominationalism (1 Cor 1:13-15) and promote the one church (John 17:11).
3) The reformation is fundamentally an agnostic movement which tends towards a secular state. No denomination has the truth, so Jesus has failed to deliver the fullness of divine revelation.
4) The five solas are all human inventions not found in scripture and all of which are mutually exclusive of each other. The five solas are all false.
5) Sola scriptora cannot establish the cannot of scripture without an infallible authority in the church. Yet the scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith within sola scriptora. Therefore sola scriptora is false.
6) Sola scriptora assumes the scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and therefore the canon is only a fallible collection of infallible texts. As the fallible collection may be in error there is no way to establish the content of the canon is infallible.
7) Sola scriptora nullifies the claim of Sola scriptora, concerning the scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith. For Sola scriptora requires fallible, private interpretations of the texts which are prone to error. Therefore Sola scriptora always infers denominationalism, with its tendency towards agnosticism and secularism. Sola scriptora is a faith based statement that always tends towards unbelief.
8) Faith alone is contradicted by many passages such as St Paul's sin list which exclude one from the kingdom (Gal 5:19-21), indicating many virtues are required to enter heaven. Mark 16:16 require belief and baptism to be saved, contrary to faith alone.
9) Denominations come and go, indicating denominations are not from God and the reformation is a human invention.
10) Denominations do not have the four marks of the church as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, so they are all only human inventions.
11) Lutherans cannot give any compelling account for the meaning of the keys given to St Peter, which fulfill the role of prime minister in Davids kingdom (Isa 22:22).
12) Private interpretation of the scriptures is contrary to the nature of divine revelation as public. Public revelation requires the church have the authority to bind and loose and protect the sacred deposit from false doctrines. Denominations only ever refer to private interpretation of the text to support their doctrines, which always infers a false understanding concerning the nature of divine revelation. Denominations claim to refer to creeds and council's but also ignore evidence for councils that are ignored. Denominations must therefore place all authority in private interpretation of a text, against the nature of divine revelation, as public.
13) Lutheran ministers are not ordained, for the Lutheran denomination does not have apostolic succession from Christ and the apostles.
Mike's arguments are sophistic for the following reasons. x
1) Mike is always arguing from his sola Scriptura and sola fide (faith alone) position, which is in turn based upon the principle of private interpretation. As private interpretation is against the nature of public revelation, Mikes position is always fallacious. Public revelation from the OT and Christ and the apostles is always through the church Christ founded. As the OT church was Israel, which had the authority to teach divine revelation, so too, the NT church also has the same authority. That church in the NT is the same church in church history as the Catholic church comprised of Popes and Bishops in union with the Pope.
Mikes position of private interpretation replaces and supplants the historical church's power to teach, and bind and loose on all matters of faith and morals. As John Henry Newman has stated, the historical church is Roman Catholic, Mike has replaced the power and authority of Rome which is well recorded in church history with his own unfounded authority and his fallible and errant opinions. The Achilles heel of all of Mikes arguments is his anti-historical church position, with Mike's accompanied deformation of church authority as a public witness and protector of divine revelation. Mike's position reduces public revelation down to a large number of competing private opinions about the meaning of a large document that is thought to have been authored by God.
The Protestant usurpation of Catholic church authority as the only public authority to protect the meaning of divine revelation reduces Christianity down to a closet form of agnosticism. The Protestant Christian is confronted with the problem of each doctrine is contended for and doctrinal disagreements are encountered at every turn. Really the Protestants do not know the meaning of many texts, so they invent arguments to promote their own preferences and then claim they have the one true gospel. When in fact all they have is a collection of Catholic doctrines and their own ad hoc doctrines that cannot be proven from the text and cannot be integrated into any systematic theology, let alone be squared with the beliefs found in church history.
2) Mike ignores the practice of baptising babies in church history but wants us all to believe his own arguments from a man living 2,000 years after the text was written. Mike ignores the practice of Christian 500 years after Christ, but wants us all to embrace his own practices 2000 years after Christ. The inconsistency here is breathtaking to see. Mike ignores church history, and then invents his own version of church practice. Mike is the judge and inventor of church history. For all we know, 500 years from now another Mike Winger will emerge and take another spin and ignore all of church history and come up with yet another version of the baptismal controversy.
3) Mikes understanding of some Pauline texts about justification as excluding works is truncated and in error. St Paul uses the term "works" in more than one sense in the NT, which Mike seems to overlook. Mike then projects only one meaning into the texts and make a false claim that justification/salvation is without works. Mike must claim only one meaning to the word, "works", then conclude he has the gospel of faith alone, by grace alone in Christ alone.
4) The obvious fallacy of truncation is also connected to the mutual exclusion of the three alones stated above - faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone. for if justification is by faith alone, then faith excludes anything else, including the exclusion of grace and Christ. Similarly, the two other alones of grace alone and Christ alone also exclude each other. The mutual exclusion of all of the three alones infers Mikes version of Protestant Christianity is a jumbled collection of illogical slogans without any real content.
5) Because Mikes gospel of faith alone, grace alone, and Christ alone are all exclusive phrases and are not in the bible, nor church history, Mikes gospel is only a collection of phrases that are ahistorical, abiblical and illogical.
6) Mike has to assume the exact words used in scripture are the only way God has chosen to pass down divine revelation to Christians outside the apostolic age. For example, Mike cites a passage in Acts about the baptism of children and concludes infants are not included in St Peters speech. Yet, the same NT says many times, the gospel was preached which infers the apostles used many different ways to express the doctrine of baptism in relation to infants. Apparently, the reality of variability in preaching has no impact on Mikes understanding of a text. For, according to Mike we only have access to the text and church history must be ignored. And yet all the while church history, which is a recording to practice that followed from oral preaching includes infant baptism. Mikes approach to the NT texts is extremely wooden and thereby unrealistic.
7) Mike cites a number of texts which are at best ambiguous with regard to infant baptism. Mike fails to acknowledge the ambiguity within the text intentionally placed by the Holy Spirit to put believers to the test and thereby rely upon the church to teach, rather than their own fallible opinions of a number of texts.
8) Mikes position of private interpretation must ignore the above problems, which lead him towards an overconfidence in his own opinions. Mike then becomes the judge of the content and meaning of divine revelation. Such a position is untenable.
9) Paradoxically, Mikes position also leads towards a lack of confidence in the scriptures which have brought, and continue to bring more division and uncertainty within Protestant Christianity. Because of the adoption of the false principle of private interpretation, the believer tends to disregard the doctrinal content of the text and thereby conclude the text is of little significance at all. The falsity of private interpretation leads many Protestants to leave Christianity altogether and enter into a life of unbelief.
Prediction - the above points will be deleted because the points show the fallacies involved in Mikes positions.
