WELL: evangelical outpost presents an updated version of his argument on whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same God. I was displeased because his argument brought back unhappy memories of doing truth-trees for Symbolic Logic.
I think it's mostly a good argument, except that there seems to be an unstated premise that enters in between 4. and 6. The basic problem is that 4. needs to be an iff (if and only if) to make the rest of the argument flow (you could support this with "I am the way, the truth..." I think). Because there is nothing in the argument as written that prevents someone from theoretically having knowledge of the Father without Jesus. So even though the argument, as written, proves that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same God, it is possible that Muslims could claim that the argument doesn't cover their case.
Unless I'm missing something (which seems likely). Thoughts?
UPDATE: the link is actually to evangelical outpost now, and not the Dean 2004 blog. But I think my confusion between the two is understandable.
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
No comments:
Post a Comment