Originally Posted by Meta4
Pilgrim, I do hope that you do not think that the above is what I was doing. Please understand that I was not addressing baptism, the Trinity, or anything else other than the illustration of the dog.
nope no such implications toward you whatsoever. grin

Originally Posted by Meta4
Nevertheless, I do believe that what I wrote above was correct. You wrote
Quote
One de facto MUST deduce that Spot is a normal dog because he has four legs.
Which is what I was responding to when I wrote "Pilgrim, it seems to me that you are saying that we deduce that Spot is a normal dog, because he has four legs." I was pointing out that Robin said Given A, and Given B, then C; but that you apparently took it a Given A, and Given C, then B.
Yes, I incorrectly responded to what Robin wrote even when I quoted what he actually wrote. [Linked Image] although I reversed the second premise with the deduction to which I apologize, the schema is the same, i.e., First Premise > Second Premise > Deduction. My example of the Trinity should have made that clear:

1. There is only one God
2. There are 3 persons who are called God.
3. Therefore the 3 persons are the one God.

As I stated previously, the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from deduction since there is no one propositional statement to be found in Scripture that clearly states the Triunity of God. The doctrine is formulated by "good and necessary inference" which allows one to rightly deduce the doctrine of the Trinity. This process of reasonable deduction was the basis upon which the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were written.

If that isn't sufficient enough, then I agree that we should agree to disagree. giggle

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]