Frank

Chris, as regards your critique of Cheryl and Don concerning the irrationality of their distinction between Paul and the false teachers Alexander and Hymaneus–that Paul sinned against the truth in ignorance and unbelief, while the others deliberately perverted aspects of the Gospel to promote their heretical views and were therefore subject to greater condemnation–I would have to say that you are in error. First of all, you neglect the full context of 1 Tim. 1:12-14, which we know from both Acts and Paul’s others letters (e.g., Philippians), clearly reveal that Paul was a strict and devout Pharisee who viewed the Nazrene sect and its teaching about Jesus the Messiah and the Kingdom as a threat to all he held dear about Israel, the Temple, and the Mosaic Law. And that is why he was so hell-bent on eradicating what he considered a dangerous and heretical sect. It was not until he had his life-changing encounter with the Risen Christ, and took time to rethink his understanding of Messiah, the identity of God’s people in connection with Messiah, etc., that Paul comes to view his former life and actions as he describes them in 1 Tim. 1:12-14.

Secondly, in Acts 20, before his imprisonment in Rome, Paul had met with the elders of the Ephesian church and then given them this prophetic warning, “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers…I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among and will not spare the flock. EVEN FROM YOUR OWN NUMBER SOME WILL ARISE AND DISTORT THE TRUTH IN ORDER TO DRAW AWAY DISCIPLES AFTER THEM. So be on your guard!” (Acts 20:28-31, TNIV, italics mine) Sadly, before his final imprisonment and martydom in Rome, to which 2 Timothy refers, Paul lived to see this prophecy fulfilled in the Ephesian church, sent Timothy to silence the heretical teachers, which included such elders as Alexander and Hymenus who, violating their faith and own conscience, were leading themselves and their followers to destruction (cf. 1 Tim. 1:18-20 with 5:17-22), and sent the letter we know as 1 Timothy to explain to Timothy the proper way to discipline the erring leaders and set things right. And Paul surely would have agreed with Peter who, dealing with other similar heretical teachers, wrote, “If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in [sin] and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them” (2 Pet. 2:20-21, TNIV).

As for the appeal to Gordon Clark and the application of his teaching on logic. I knew Gordon Clark, though not intimately; and I am familiar with a number of his works, including his Handbook on Logic. I think he would argree with me that a sylogism may be formally true, but if the premise or any of the arguments flowing from it, are false, then the sylogism itself is false. And there are problems with your sylogism, because both your premise and several logicisms (if that is the right term for them), as far as I can tell, are based on ill-founded assumptions or misrepresentations of your opponents’ arguments. I am not impressed.