Table of Contents of Forthcoming Book:
- First Principle, God’s Revelation
- Nature of God’s Revelation (etc)
- Self-authenticating starting point
- Defective Starting points
- God’s Sovereignty/Decree
- Public Value
- Defective Metaphysics
- Defective Logic
- God’s Sovereign Command
- Defective Ethics
The Argument or Thesis: (Positive)
This is an deductive argument made from the 4 main chapters.
Here is the basic argument for the book, or thesis statement:
B.1. IF (A.) self-authentication first principle for all of life, (B.) and if this truth regards the world you live in, for all metaphysics, (C.) and if able to apply deduction to oneself, and (D.) God has defined what man is do, (E) THEN one knows God’s Will for them.
B.2. A. & B. & C. & D.
B.3. Thus, E.
This systematic book will be mostly on the basic level, with a strong emphasis on structure. The end section about “ethics,” after attacking cessationism, might end up just as much devotional to receive the supply of God’s grace, as it is simply teaching about it.
Recent Systematic Philosophy:
- Christian Epistemology – From Systematic Theology Book (1st Draft) - God's Revelation is our starting point for knowledge.
- “…I will Be YOUR GOD, & you will be MY PEOPLE…” - As Vincent points out the obvious (which I had not myself considered carefully), a contract is about avoiding the whole situation of a “case by case” issue.
- The Fluidness Of Fluidness - for fluidness to be true as a foundational standard, then the standard must also be fluid, so that fluidness might already mean to be rigidness.
- Logic & Jesus Christ: The Law of Non-Contradiction - Mark 12:37, "Therefore David himself calls Him 'Lord'; how is He then his Son?" If the LoC is not an immutable motion of thinking, then Jesus’ appeal to it would mean David’s son(Jesus) is not David's Lord and is David's Lord.
- Logic Lesson – Categorical vs. Hypothetical. James Creighton - In hypothetical reasoning, as in categorical, it is the presence of a universal principle which enables us to bring into relation two facts which formerly stood apart. Indeed, in many cases, it is a matter of indifference in which form the argument is stated.