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?
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.
Logic is kind of the middle ground, or connecting point, between math and language. Sometimes it seems more like one than the other. Nevertheless, Logic does have rules which if followed have mathematical levels certainty. That said, where Logic and math differ is whether everyone accepts the premises as true. For the most part if have 4+4=8 there is no one really going to raise issue. If I say “Children of Christians are in the covenant and should be baptized” I have two component parts “Children of Christians are in the covenant” and “Christian children should be baptized” each part of that compound statement is either true or false but, obviously, people disagree. If we can get to a point where everyone agrees about the truth value of those statements then we can move forward as directly as we would 4+4=8.
Obviously people make mistakes in math and in logic, especially the higher we go in math and logic as it gets more complicated. But in theory, if we are on the same page as to the truth value of a given proposition then we can move forward with certainty using the rules and laws of logic.
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?
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.
Hi John,
Logic is kind of the middle ground, or connecting point, between math and language. Sometimes it seems more like one than the other. Nevertheless, Logic does have rules which if followed have mathematical levels certainty. That said, where Logic and math differ is whether everyone accepts the premises as true. For the most part if have 4+4=8 there is no one really going to raise issue. If I say “Children of Christians are in the covenant and should be baptized” I have two component parts “Children of Christians are in the covenant” and “Christian children should be baptized” each part of that compound statement is either true or false but, obviously, people disagree. If we can get to a point where everyone agrees about the truth value of those statements then we can move forward as directly as we would 4+4=8.
Obviously people make mistakes in math and in logic, especially the higher we go in math and logic as it gets more complicated. But in theory, if we are on the same page as to the truth value of a given proposition then we can move forward with certainty using the rules and laws of logic.
Thanks, I believe that answers my question. Things are never as black and white as I hope them to be. lol
I