Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Karlsson's avatar

I see what you’re saying when it come to necessary and good consequences. I agree Zeus is not God and I believe in the Trinity. But when I look at the passages provided for infant baptism , I could infer a lot of things. If infants are baptized then they should be participating in communion and also be counted as member of the church and what a relief for the parents because they don’t have to worry about their kid’s salvation because once saved always saved …. If every biblicist would agree that Zeus is not God but not every biblicist would agree on infant baptism…. What has changed? Is the necessary and good consequences logic faulty or is it being miss applied in the infant baptism example? Why is not everyone coming to the same conclusion on infant baptism?

Expand full comment
John Karlsson's avatar

My question below is mainly a logic question. Is logic mathematical? And if so then there shouldn’t be a variance on logical conclusions because if properly applied we should all come to the same conclusion Zeus isn’t God……. Please know I’m just throwing out questions as a beginner in logic and on how to apply the necessary and good consequence formula not trying to get into a theological debate.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts