archive-edu.com » EDU » T » THEOLOGY.EDU

Total: 197

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Logic: Theories of Knowledge
    Objective idealism The objective world is mental but objective i e independent of the human knower alone because it belongs to an absolute knower or world mind 4 Critical or representative realism Critical or representative realism epistemological dualism ascribes a critical role to mind in the formulation of knowledge Unlike pure objectivism it distinguishes between sense data and the objects they represent epistemological dualism But the objects or things known are independent of mind or the knower in the sense that thought refers to them no merely to sense data or to the ideas of the knower Ideas represent objects a representative realism Ideas represent or correspond to the objects of an independent world Objective or primary qualities of objects elicit subjective or secondary qualities Together they comprise knowledge Democritus Galileo Kepler Descartes Locke Macintosh Descartes argument for representative realism 1 God exits i e the clear and distinct idea we have of God implies his existence just as the idea of a triangle implies three sidedness 2 God by definition is perfect i e he is benevolent 3 A benevolent God would not leave us without a way to know the world 4 This way is reason i e intuition and deduction 5 If ideas are clear and distinct then they are true 6 If ideas are true they are about what exits 7 An external world having none but primary qualities is amenable to mathematical analysis and can be clearly and distinctly understood 8 Therefore the external world has nothing but primary qualities b critical realism Material objects are known via sense data In Santayana e g knowledge of independently real material things is possible through the joint participation of the knower and things known in the senses Material things are known indirectly by the act of animal faith Santayana Lovejoy Sellars 5 Personalism Personalism or personal idealism is an epistemological dualism combining elements of objectivism realism and idealism In Brightman e g there is the dualism of situation experienced and situation believed in 6 Neo Thomism According to Mascall Maritian Gilson Copleston sense data are the means through which the intellect grasps in a direct but mediate activity the intelligible extramental reality which is the real thing 7 Intuitionism Intuitionism stresses the immediacy of knowledge or the self evident character of certain ideas Whenever a whole response of the knower to the whole of things is suggested intuition is usually implied As the theory of knowledge of mysticism intuitionism teaches the inseperateness of knower and thing known Realism separates object and knower idealism holds that all objects belong to some knower mysticism intuitionism holds that the objects and the knower belong to each other they are one More characteristic of Eastern than Western theories of knowledge intuitionism seeks knowledge of the indefinable or nonanalyzable Yet there may be attempted expression in symbols or poetry Concerning the communication of knowledge Lao tze observed one who knows does not talk One who talks does not know 8 Pragmatism Primarily

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/logic/logic16.htm (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Logic: What is Logic
    statement concerning the percentage of things of one sort that are another One example of a statistical statement is the statement that 67 percent of the cats of Dibar are rabid This statement may be a hypothesis of an argument inferred from the evidence of observation It may also be used as evidence for some conclusion about the health of a cat whose health is undetermined Two forms of argument that could be employed are induction by enumeration and statistical syllogism b Induction by enumeration X per cent of the examined members of A are B Therefore X percent of the members of A are B c statistical syllogism X percent of the members of A are B X being greater than 50 O is an unexamined member of A Therefore O is a member of B The following two arguments instantiate these forms 67 percent of the examined cats of Dibar are rabid Therefore 67 percent of the cats of Dibar are rabid and The cat that bit me is an unexamined cat of Dibar Therefore The cat that bit me is rabid These two arguments illustrate very familiar forms of inductive statistical argument It is apparent that the hypotheses inferred from the evidence are not validly deducible from them It is logically possible that what we have observed to be true of a certain percentage of the cats in a sample is not characteristic of the same percentage of cats in the total population of Dibar and it is logically possible that what is characteristic of a certain percentage of cats of Dibar is not characteristic of a particular unexamined cat There is one exception that should be noted If we have a statistical syllogism in which the evidence is that 100 percent of the members of A are B and is a member of A unexamined or not then of course it follows deductively that O is B However except for this extreme case we must add other restrictions to render plausible the claim that arguments of these forms are inductively cogent The foregoing argument illustrates a typical problem confronting the attempt to provide argument forms for inductive logic There is an underlying difficulty that generates the problem It is natural to assume that just as a valid deductive argument is one in which if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true so a cogent inductive argument is one in which if the evidence statements are true then the hypothesis is probable Probability even high probability will not suffice for inductive cogency In both induction by enumeration and statistical syllogism we may suppose that the inferred hypothesis is probable even highly probable on the basis of the evidence Thus one inclined toward the idea that the argument form is cogent But this natural line of reasoning leads directly to inconsistency A more general argument is available to show that probability even very high probability of a hypothesis on the basis of evidence does NOT

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/logic/logic18.htm (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Logic: Deductive Arguments
    Figure 2 and Camenop in Figure 4 in which a merely particular conclusion is drawn although the premises would warrant our going further and making the conclusion universal the subaltern moods The Ramists added special moods involving singulars if we write S and N for affirmative and negative singulars we have ASS and ESN in Figure 1 ANN and ESN in Figure 2 and SSI and NSO in Figure 3 It may be noted that every syllogism must have at least one universal premise except for SSI and NSO in Figure 3 the so called expository syllogisms Example Enoch is not mortal Enoch is a patriarch Therefore Not every patriarch is mortal Moreover every syllogism must have at least one affirmative premise and if either premise is negative or particular the conclusion must be negative or particular as the case may be The conclusion follows the weaker premise as Theophratus put it negatives and particulars are considered weaker than affirmatives and universals c Reduction The mnemonic verses serve to indicate how the valid moods of the later figures may be reduced to those of Figure 1 that is how we may derive their conclusions from their premises without using any syllogistic reasoning of other than the first figure type This amounts in modern terms to proving their validity from that of the first figure moods taken as axiomatic In the second figure mood Cesare for example the letter s after the first e indicates that if we simply convert the major premise we will have a pair of premises from which we can deduce the required conclusion in Figure 1 and the initial letter C indicates that the first figure mood employed will be Celarent An example of a syllogism in Cesare EAE in Figure 2 would be No horse is a man Every psychopath is a man Therefore No pyschopath is a horse This conclusion may eqully be obtained from these premises by proceeding as follows No horse is a man s No man is a horse Every psychopath is a man Every psychopath is a man Therefore No psychopath is a horse Here the right hand syllogism in which the first premise is obtained from the given major by simple conversion and the second is just the given minor unaltered is in the mood Celarent in the first figure Festino reduces similarly to Ferio and Datisi and Ferison in the third figure reduce to Darii and Ferio though in the third figure cases it is the minor premise that must be simply converted Darapti and Felapton reduce to Darii and Ferio by conversion of the minor premise not simply but per accidens this is indicated by the s of the other moods being changed to p Camestres Figure 2 and Disamis Figure 3 are a little more complicated Here we have not only an s for the simple conversion of a premise but also an m indicated that the premises must be transposed and a further s at the end because the transposed premises yield in Figure 1 not the required condlusion but rather its converse from which the required conclusion must be obtained by a further conversion at the end of the process An example of Disamis would be the following Some men are liars All men are automata Therefore Some automata are liars If we convert the major premise and transpose the two we obtain the new pair All men are automata Some liars are men From these we may obtain in the first figure mood Darii not immediately the conclusion Some automata are liars but rather Some liars are automata from which however some automata are liars does follow by simple conversion Baroco and Bocardo are different again In both of them neither premise is capable of simple conversion and if we convert the A premises per accidens we obtain pairs IO and OI and there are no valid first figure moods with such premises in fact no valid moods at all with two particular premises We therefore show that the conclusion follows from the premises by the device called reductio ad absurdum That is we assume for the sake of argument that the conclusion does NOT follow from the premises i e that the premises can be true and the conclusion false and from this assumption using first figure reasoing alone we deduce impossible consequences The assumption therefore cannot stand so the conclusion does after all follow from its premises Take for example the following syllogism in Baroco AOO in Figure 2 Every man is mortal Some patriarch viz Enoch is not mortal Therefore Some patriarch is not a man Suppose the premises are true and the conclusion is not true Then we have 1 Every man is mortal 2 Some patriarch is not mortal 3 Every patriarch is a man This is contradictory of the conclusion But from 1 and 3 in the first figure mood Barbara we may infer 4 Every patriarch is mortal However the combination of 2 and 4 is impossible Hence we can have both 1 and 2 only if we drop 3 that is if we accept the conclusion of the given second figure syllogism It is possible to reduce all the second figure and third figure moods to Figure 1 by this last method and although this procedure is a little complicated it brings out better than the other reductions the essential character of second figure and third figure reasoning Figure 1 is governed by what is called the dictum de omni et nullo the principle that what applies to all or none of the objects in a given class will apply or not apply as the case may be to any member or subclass of this class As Kant preferred to put it first figure reasoning expresses the subsumption of cases under a rule the major premise states some affirmative or negative rule Every man is mortal No man will live forever the minor asserts that something is a case or some things are cases to which this rule applies Enoch and Elijah are men and the conclusion states the result of applying the rule to the given case or cases Enoch and Elijah are mortal Enoch and Elijah will not live forever Hence in Figure 1 the mjor premise is always universal that being how rules are expressed and the minor affirmative Something IS a case Second figure reasoning also begins with the statement of a rule Every man is mortal but in the minor premise DENIES that we have with a given example the result which the rule prescribes Enoch and Elijah are NOT mortal Enoch and Elijah WILL live forever and concludes that we do NOT have a case to which the rule applies Enoch and Elijah cannot be men It combines in effect the first figure major with the contradictory of the first figure conclusion to obtain the contradictory of the first figure minor compare the reduction of Baroco A second figure syullogism in consequence must have a universal major premises opposed in quality and a negative conclusion Its practical uses are in refuting hypotheses as in medicine or detection Whowever has measles has spots and thich child has no spots so he does not have measles Whoever killed X was a person of great strength and Y is not such a person so Y did not kill X In the third figure we begin by asserting that something or other does not exhibit the result which a proposed rule would give Enoch and Elijah are NOT mortal Enoch and Elijah WILL live forever go on to say that we nevertheless DO have here a case or cases to which the rule would apply if true Enoch and Elijah ARE mn and conlcude that the rule is not true Not all men are mortal Some men do live forever A third figure syllogism consequently has an affirmative minor the thing IS a case and a particular conclusion the contradictory of a universal being a particular its use is to confute rashly assumed rules such as proposed scientific laws This rather neat system of interrelations first clearly brought out by C S Peirce concerns ONLY the first three figures it was not until the later Middle Ages in fact that a distict fourth figure was recognized The common division of figures assumes that we are considering completed syllogisms with the conclusion and its subject and predicate already before us however the question Aristotle originally put to himself was not Which completed syllogisms are valid but Which pairs of premises will yield a syllogistic conclusion Starting at this end we cannot distinguish major and minor premises as those containing respectively the predicate and subject of the conclusion Artistotle distinguished them in the first figure by their comparative comprehensiveness and mentioned what we now call the fourth figure moods as ood cases in which first figure premises will yield a conclusion wherein the minor term is predicated of the major Earlier versions of the mnemonic lines accordingly list the fourth figure moods with the first figure ones and since the premises are thought of as being in the first figure order give them slightly different names Baralipton Celantes Dabitis Fapesmo Frisesomorum d Distribution of Terms Terms may occur in A E I and O propostions as distributed or as undistributed The rule is that universals distribute their subjects and particulars distribute their predicates but what this means is seldom very satisfactorily explained It is often said for example that a distributed term refers to all and an undistributed term to only a part of its extension BGut in what way does Some men are mortal for example refer to only a part of the class of men Any man whatever will do to verify it if any man whatever turns out to be mortal Some men are mortal is true What the traditional writers were trying to express seems to be something of the following sort a term t is distributed in a proposition f t if and only if it is replaceable in f t without loss of truth by any term falling under it in the way that a species falls under a genus Thus man is distributed in Every man is an animal No man is a horse No horse is a man Some animal is not a man Why Because these respectively imply say Every blind man is an animal No blind man is a horse No horse is a blind man Some animal is not a blind man On the other hand it is undistributed in Some man is keen sighted Some man is not disabled Every Frenchman is a man Some keen sighted animal is a man since these do NOT respectively imply Some blind man is keen sighted Some blind man is not disabled Every Frenchman is a blind man Some keen sighted animal is a blind man In this sense A and E propositions do distribute their subjects and E and O propositions their predicates John Anderson pointed out that the four positive results above may be established syllogistically given that all the members of a speices using the term widely are members of its genus in the given case that all blind men are men From Every man is an animal and Every blind man is a man Every blind man is an animal follows in Barbara with the second example the syllogism is in Celarent with the third in Camestres with the fourth in Baroco Note however that the mere prefixing of every to a term is not in itself sufficient to secure its distribution in the above sense for example man is not distributed in Not every man is disabled since this does not imply Not every blind man is disabled For a syllogism to be valid the middle term must be distributed at least once and any term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in its premise although there is no harm in a term s being distributed in its premise but not in the conclusion Many syllogisms can quickly be shown to be fallacious by the applications of these rules Every man is an animal Every horse is an animal Therefore Every horse is a man The above syllogism fails to distribute the middle term animal and it is clear that any second figure syllogism with two affirmative premises would have the same fault since in the second figure the middle term is predicate twiche and affirmatives do not distribute their predicates Oteher special rules for the different figures such as that in Figures 1 and 3 the minor premise must be affirmative can be similarly proved from the rules of distribution together with the rules of quality that a valid syllogism does not have two negative premises and that a conclusion is negative if and only if one premise is Logicians have endeavored to prove some of these rules from others and to reduce the number of unproved rules to a minimum e Euler s diagrams One device for checking the validity of syllogistic inferences is the use of certain diagrams attributed to the seventeenth centruy mathematician Leonhard Euler although their accurate employment seems to date rather from J D Gergonne in the early nineteenth century From the traditional laws of opposition and conversion it can be shown that the extensions of any pair of terms X Y will be related in one or another of five ways Alpha every X is a Y and every Y is an X That is their extensions coincide Beta every X is a Y but not every Y is an X That is the X s form a proper part of the Y s Gamma every Y is an X but not every X is a Y That is the Y s form a proper part of the X s Delta Some but not all X s are Y s and some but not all Y s are X s That is the X s and Y s overlap Epsilon No X s are Y s and so no Y s are X s That is the Sy s and Y s are mutually exclusive Every X is a Y A is true if and only if we have either Alpha or Beta Some X is not a Y O if and only if we have either Gamma or Delta or Epsilon No X is a Y E if and only if we have Epsilon Some X is a Y I if and only if we have either Alpha or Beta or Gamma or Delta From these facts it follows that A andO are in no case true together and in no case false together and similarly for E and I that I si true in every case in which A is and also in two cases in which A is not and similarly for O and E that A and E are in no case true togethert but in two cases are both false and that O and I are in no case both fasle but in two cases are both true After working out analogous truth conditions for the forms with reversed terms we will see that they are the same for the two I s and the two E s showing that these are simply convertible but not for th two A s and the two O s showing that these are not Given which of the five relations holds between X and Y and which between Y and Z we can work out by compounding diagrams what will be the possible relations between X and Z For example if we know that every X is a Y and every Y a Z then we must have either Alpha XY and Alpha YZ or Alpha XY and Beta YZ or Beta XY and Alpha YZ or Beta XY and Beta Yz that is we must have Inspection will show that for X and Z we have in every case either so in every case every X is Z Hence Barbara is valid When employing this procedure it is essential to consider all the possible cases involved Barbara is not validated for example by donsidering case iv alone as popular expositions of this method sometimes suggest f Polysyllogisms enthymemes and induction 1 Polysyllogisms In an extended argument the conclusion of one inference may be used as a premise of another and the conclusion of that as premise of a third and so on In presenting such an argument we may simply omit the intermediate steps and list all the premises together For example the sequence of categorical syllogisms Every X is a Y Every Y is a Z Therefore Every X is a Z Every Z is a T Therefore Every X is a T may be condensed to Every X is a Y Every Y is a Z Every Z is a T Therefore Every X is a T Such a condensed chain of syllogisms is called a polysyllogism or sorites The theory of chains of two syllogisms was thoroughly studied by Galen as reported in an ancient passage recently unearthed by Jan Lukasiewicz Galen showed that the only combinations of the Aristotelian three figrues that could be thus used were 1 and 1 1 and 2 and 1 and 3 and 2 and 3 His discovery of these four types of compound syllogism was misunderstood by later writers as an anticipation of the view that SINGLE syllogisms may be of four figures 2 Enthymemes Even when it is not a conclusion from other premises already stated one of the premises of an inference may often be informally omitted for example Enoch and Elijah are men Therefore Enoch and Elijah are mortals Such a truncated inference is often called an enthymeme This is not Aristotle s own use of the

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/logic/logic19.htm (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Logic: Validity
    argument is valid All women are cats All cats are men Therefore All women are men This argument has false premises and a false conclusion This brings out the hypothetical character of validity What the validity of these arguments amounts to is that it assures us the conclusion must be true IF the premises are true If an argument can be valid and yet have a preposterously false conclusion what good is validity Why should we be concerned with validity at all The answer is that a valid argument is truth preserving Truth in the premises of a valid argument is preserved in the conclusion Of course if the premises are not true to begin with then even a valid argument cannot ensure that the conclusion is true But ONLY valid arguments are truth preserving An analogy might help clarify this point Roughly valid arguments preserve truth like good freezers preserve food If the food you place in a freezer is spoiled to begin with then even a good freezer cannot preserve it But if the food placed in a good freezer is fresh then the freezer will preserve it Good freezers and valid arguments preserve food and truth respectively

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/logic/logic22.htm (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Logic: Logical Fallacies
    Fallacy of Interrogation The question asked has a presupposition which the answerer may wish to deny but which he she would be accepting if he she gave anything that would count as an answer Any answer to the question Why does such and such happen presupposes that such and such acutally happens Examples 1 Yes or no have you stopped beating your wife 2 Which dress should I buy the red one or the blue one 3 Do you want to give the babies a bath or fix dinner l Ignoratio elenchi An argument that is supposed to prove one proposition but succeeds only in proving a different one Ignoratio elenchi stands for pure and simple irrelevance It is a non sequitar Example A man is being tried for murder and the lawyer proves that murder is a horrible crime m argumentum ad antiquitam A fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is old that is because that s the way it s always been n argumentum ad crumenam A falacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness that those with more money are more likely to be right o argumentum ad lazarum A falacy assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier This is the opposite of argumentum ad crumenam p argumentum ad naseum The incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard An argumentum ad naseum is one that employs constant repitition in asserting a concept q argumentum ad novitam A fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer than something else Or that something is better because it is newer This type of fallacy is the opposite of the argumentum ad antiquitam fallacy r argumentum ad numeram A fallacy that asserts that the more people who support or believe a proposition then the more likely that the proposition is correct it equates mass support with correctness s bifurcation Also referred to as the black and white fallacy Bifurcation is the presentation of a situation or condition with only two alternatives whereas in fact other alternatives exist or can exist t Coverting a conditional If P then Q therefore if Q then P u False analogy An analogy is a partial similarity between the like features of two things or events on which a comparison can be made A false analogy involves comparing two things that are NOT similar Note that the two things may be similar in a superficial way but not with respect to what is being argued A has x B has x Therefore A is B Example In every country the communists have taken over the first thing they do is outlaw cockfighting John Monks Oklahoma State Representative arguing against a bill to outlaw cockfighting v Illicit process A syllogistic argument in which a term is distributed in the conclusion

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/logic/logic23.htm (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Logic: How the Mind Seeks Truth
    point of all this we have difficulty accurately recognizing random arrangements of events B Too Much from Too Little The misinterpretation of Incomplete and Unrepresentative Data I ve seen it happen You see it all the time I know someone who did C Seeing What We Expect to See The biased evaluation of ambiguious and inconsistent Data You have to believe in order to see He was out he was out by a mile Of course he was up to no good We re talking about xxx aren t we III Motivational and Social Determinants of Questionable Beliefs A Seeing What we want to see motivational determinants of belief We tend to believe what we want to believe Arguments about capital punishment and the selective use of data to support a given position Who wins in a given political debate How we think of ourselves Of course this capacity is constrained to some extent by reality B Believing What we are told the biasing effects of secondhand information Sharpening and leveling in story telling in relaying an event we pick out what we think is interesting or relavent and such choices are made on the basis of our biases When relaying a message or event it rarely comes verbatim C The Imagined agreement of others exaggerated impression of social support If we can find two people who agree with us or sometimes even one well then everyone agrees with me or everyone thinks this The Excessive Impact of Confirmatory Information Many of the beliefs we hold are about the relationships between two variables 1 belief that dreams come true relationship between dream content and real life 2 Belief that increased military spending by the US was partly responsible for the changes in the USSR and Eastern Europe relationship between US defense expenditures and Soviet internal and external policy Most of these relationships and the evidence necessary to assess their validity can be represented in the 2x2 table familiar to most social scientists Consider the common belief that infertal couples who adopt a child are subsequently more likely to conceive than those who do not The evidence relevant to this belief can be represented in the layout In this layout a represent the number of couples who adopt and then conceive b represents the number who adopt and do not conceive etc To adequately assess whether adoption leads to conception it s necessary to compare the probability of conception after adoping a a b with the probability of conception after not adopting c c d There is now a large literature on how well people evaluate this kind of information in assessing the presence or strenth of such relationships According to this research although people sometimes perform such covariation tasks with considerable accuracy there are as many or more occasions in which they perform poorly A major culpret in people s poor performance seems to be an over reliance on instances that confirm the existence of a relationship cells a and

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/logic/logic24.htm (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A Brief Citation Guide for Internet Sources in History and the Humanities
    Internet addresses especially as Web sites are updated and expanded Even the best attempts at citing such material may lead subsequent researchers to a dead end This is a particular concern not just for humanists but also for information technologists No method of citation can overcome this particular problem which instead cries out for great foresight in planning Web sites in addition to careful explanations and Web links to materials which may be moved The use of an author s e mail address was also mentioned as a concern by some of those who commented on earlier versions of this Guide Such citations can indeed be problematic Please be considerate of those whose work you cite In this Guide the only addresses included are those which are a part of the public record for example listed at the WWW or gopher site in the citation or for which permission has been obtained Finally it should be noted again that this Guide is based upon citation principles contained in Turabian s Manual This has led to certain conventions which would not appear in other formats One of these is the representation of italics for book and journal titles These are indicated here by opening and ending asterisks in the belief that they are more distinctive on the computer screen than other possibilities such as opening and ending underscoring Some historians advocate using other basic citation principles and formats such as MLA or APA especially for electronic sources There are also a variety of questions raised for citations of CD ROM binary files and other electronic materials While these issues are not addresses in this Guide the bibliography below will lead to citation suggestions for some of these applications Bibliographic Citations Basic citation components and punctuation Author s Last Name First Name ltauthor s internet address if appropriate gt Title of Work or title line of message In Title of Complete Work or title of list site as appropriate ltinternet address gt menu path if appropriate Date if available Archived at if appropriate The samples below indicate how citations of particular electronic sources might be made Listserv Messages Curtin Phillip ltcurtinpd jhunix hcf jhu edu gt Goree and the Atlantic Slave Trade In H AFRICA lth africa msu edu gt 31 July 1995 Archived at ltgopher h net msu edu gt path H NET E Mail Discussion Groups H AFRICA Discussion Threads Goree and the Atlantic Slave Trade item number 465 Lobban Richard ltRLobban grog ric edu gt REPLY African Muslim Slaves in America In H AFRICA lth africa msu edu gt 4 August 1995 Archived at lt http h net msu edu africa archives august95 gt Walsh Gretchen REPLY Using African newspapers in teaching In H AFRICA lth africa msu edu gt 18 October 1995 World Wide Web Limb Peter Alliance Strengthened or Diminished Relationships between Labour African Nationalist Liberation Movements in Southern Africa lthttp neal ctstateu edu history world history archives limb l html gt May 1992 FTP Site Heinrich

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/QHST/Library/citation.htm (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Does God Have a Long Nose?
    the nature of translation and the question of canon Part Three General and Special Revelation basic guiding principles of Bible study and the theological method Part Four The value of knowledge wisdom and the two revelations of God Chapter Five Theology Proper The Doctrine of God Part One Introduction the holiness of god and the question of suffering Part Two The transcendence of God and the love of God Part Three The covenants of God how God expresses his love Part Four The Trinity Chapter Six Patriology The Doctrine of the Father Chapter Seven Christology The Doctrine of the Son Part One Messiahship Historical views Christ s Pre existence the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation Part Two The Offices of Christ Prophet Priest and King The baptism temptation transfiguration garden struggle death and resurrection of Christ Chapter Eight Pneumatology The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Chapter Nine Anthropology The Doctrine of Humanity Part One Who Am I Part Two Why Am I Here Part Three Where Am I Going Part Four Eschatology Chapter Ten Soteriology The Doctrine of Salvation Part One Introduction salvation in the Old Testament the sacrificial system and the age of accountability Part Two The nature of the Gospel Part Three Important terms reconciliation propitiation redemption faith repentance justification sanctification prayer and eternal security Also a summary of Armenianism and Calvanism Chapter Eleven Ecclesiology The Doctrine of the Church Part One Origin of the Church its purpose government historical overview membership ordinances and sacraments Part Two Church leadership discipline and the separation of church and state Part Three The relation of the Old Testament and New Testament the Church and Israel Chapter Twelve Angelology The Doctrine of Angels Demons and Satan Appendix One Apologetic Flowchart Appendix Two Usage of Hesed in the Old Testament Appendix Three The

    Original URL path: http://theology.edu/longnose.htm (2013-12-10)
    Open archived version from archive



  •