Originally Posted by Meta4
Sorry, Pilgrim and Tom, but I think Robin is correct as far as his illustration is concerned.

Pilgrim, it seems to me that you are saying that we deduce that Spot is a normal dog, because he has four legs. In effect, you are saying that the facts are that all dogs have four legs, and that Spot has four legs. Therefore we deduce that Spot is a normal dog. That would indeed be a deduction, rather than a fact, because although Spot has four legs, he may be other than normal in many other ways.

But in fact, what Robin said (Robin, please correct me if I err) is that Spot is a normal dog; it is a given fact. The other given fact is that all normal dogs have four legs. Therefore, and this is not deduction but fact, Spot has four legs. If he did not have four legs, he could not be a normal dog, making the given fact to be false.

In mathematical terms, given:
a = 1
and
b = a,
then
b = 1.

That is not a deduction, but a law of mathematics.
Sorry Meta4 but I must without hesitation disagree with the above, including your mathematical illustration since it is irrelevant to what Robin wrote:

Originally Posted by Robin
It doesn't require deduction to conclude that the bible teaches the Tri-unity of God.

To put it allegorically, if a passage says

Quote
all normal dogs have four legs

And another says,

Quote
Spot is a normal dog.
Then it is necessarily true that Spot has four legs. The facts are contained in the book without any need for "deduction." Reformed Baptists are Trinitarian because the Scriptures contain all the statements that make His tri-unity necessarily true.
Robin's conclusion is fallacious and contradictory to the very definition of what a Deduction is...

In Logic: Deduction is a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.

The 'premise' is: [if] All normal dogs have four legs.

AND: Spot has four legs.

Therefore: [deduction]: Spot is a normal dog.

The verity of the deduction is directly dependent upon the verity of the premise itself. As I wrote before, the doctrine of the Trinity is a deduction based upon certain premises found in Scripture.

Premise: There is only one God.

AND: There are 3 persons who are named God.

Therefore: The 3 persons are the one God.

1. Robin's presupposition is apparently that if the phrase used in the WCF "or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." is erroneous, then the doctrine of paedobaptism is of necessity erroneous since it is a doctrine based upon deduction.

2. The fact is there are a number of doctrines we hold dear which are based upon sound logical deduction based upon incontrovertible biblical facts, give the presupposition that the Scriptures are divinely inspired and thus (deduced) that they are infallible and inerrant.

3. Both paedobaptism and credobaptism have been debated for centuries because neither doctrine is based upon incontrovertible propositional statements in Scripture.

4. Credobaptism mainstains that "immersion" is the only proper mode of baptism. But there is not one single text in the entire NT that teaches that "baptism=immersion". This view is nothing more than someone's 'deduction' which has no factual premise.

Therefore, to reject the validity of reasoning and deduction is to reject an essential method which even God Himself uses in Scripture, e.g., Isaiah 1:18; Acts 17:1ff.

So, here we are again getting into a debate over baptism which in the past in 100% of the cases has turned ugly. Ironically, when I studied at a Baptist seminary, I was not assualted verbally, ridiculed, etc. There were many irenic discussions between the lone paedobaptist (me) and the rest of the faculty and student body. Methinks (deduction), the reason was because most of their arguments didn't apply to my view of paedobaptism, which was the result of my doing a major theological paper for my theology class when I was at Westminster Seminary (Philly). I also had the opportunity to publicly debate John Reisinger on the topic of baptism many years ago. That too was a very pleasant experience. We agreed to disagree on the subjects for baptism and the mode, but we were in total agreement on how children of believers should be raised and taught, much to his surprise. grin

Okay, just a long way of saying that IF this thread starts to go sour, I am going to lock it down without any further notice. I will NOT allow what has always happened before happen again here. The Admins may be out numbered by Baptists, but I've got the bigger gun... rofl


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]