We might not be able to say, “someone is king of the Venetians” based on the fact “King Philip is not king of the Venetians.” But it is reasonable to say, “it’s possible for someone to be king of Venetians.” In other words, given that there is a throne of the Venetians, which currently isn’t occupied by King Philip, it’s possible for someone to sit upon it as king. But that it’s possible for them to be forgiven of sins in this life is clear.Ĭonsider this example. Whether other sins in this life are in fact forgiven is a separate issue: someone must in fact repent. This logic is no different than saying that since the sin against the Holy Spirit can’t be forgiven in this life it’s reasonable to conclude that some sins can be forgiven in this life-that’s to say, it’s possible. But it is reasonable to go from “X is not forgiven in the next life” to it’s possible that “some Xs are forgiven in the next life,” and that’s all the Catholic interpretation implies. It’s true that you can’t reason from “X is not forgiven in the next life” to “some Xs are forgiven in the next life” in fact. Protestant apologists Norman Geisler and Ralph McKenzie pose a similar challenge when they ask “How can the denial that this sin will ever be forgiven, even after death, be the basis for speculating that sins will be forgiven in the next life?” They seem to be saying that you can’t go from “X is not forgiven” to “some Xs are forgiven.” This clearly is fallacious reasoning because the throne of the Venetians may be vacant for a time when King Philip is not king of the Venetians. The Catholic interpretation seems to affirm that sins will be forgiven in the next life because Jesus says the sin against the Holy Spirit can’t be forgiven in the next life.Īs Peter Martyr argued in the sixteenth-century, that would be like saying King Philip is not king of the Venetians, and therefore someone else is King of the Venetians. Some say the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 12:32 is flawed because it entails bad logic, since it posits an affirmation based on a negation. In a previous article, I responded to one of the reasons why they think this. But some Christians don’t think this passage supports Purgatory.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |