Apodictic and Causuistic

It appears to me no forward progress on moral law can be gained as long as the issue DHK has raised remains unexamined. DHK posted the following post: DHK:

Further more, DHK has stated his comments are fact.

Of a truth there are many words that have been coined by almost every denomination and cults alike to represent certain ideas or concepts they desire to highlight. Because there is such a word, or that a certain group, individual or biblical translation has given definitions for the words they use, by no means adds credence to the notion itself. As the old saying goes, if the shoe cobbler desires to say that he is the best shoe cobbler in town, he needs to produce evidence that such is the case. The cobbler claiming that he is the best in town by no means establishes the notion of his claims in and of itself.

The same goes for words and given definitions. Just because there is a word that someone states it is defined as such and such, by no means establishes the fact that it is true, or that the manner in which it is applied is true. This should need no supporting evidence to understand and should be clear to all.

What I am looking for is supporting evidence, from Scripture, reason, or experience, that law is, or should be, separated or divided as DHK has suggested it should be. Once again, we will be looking for issues denoted by Scripture, etc. as ‘law,’ with and without penalty. One might ask, what makes law what it is stated to be, a law? What distinguishes a law from mere good advice or counsel?

One point that needs also to be addressed, is just how one would apply the distinctions DHK has set forth for us, what value such distinctions might have, and how do these distinctions affect other issues in ones theology?

 

Both of these terms are in essence GK to me having never studied philosophical and ethical issues like DHK evidently has. I have tried to focus my studies on the Word of God. :saint:

Since DHK has chided me for being "woefuly ignorant," why don’t we start by learning to spell the words correctly. From what I have gathered so far, DHK has misspelled both words on occasion which has frustrated my efforts to research the issues. IF I am not mistaken, the word DHK spells as “apoditic” should be spelled “apodiCtic.” The word DHK spells as “causuistic” is in reality what appears to me as a sort of made up pseudonym of or related to notions of “casuistry.”

Now I am not trying to hammer DHK for spelling errors, for I am certainly no one to cast the first stone on that issue, but rather it would seem to me that because DHK spells them precisely how they are spelled in the quotes he made I wonder just how well in reality he understands the issue himself. He has placed himself as a teacher on the issues, yet seems to me nothing more than one able to cut and paste from the works of others without having a clear understanding of the issues themselves…….all the while chiding others for their ‘ woeful ignorance.” I may be wrong. We shall see as we go along just how well he understands the issues. For starters, I will allow DHK to clear up the spelling inconsistencies and tell us how the terms he uses are in actuality spelled.