# Christianity and logic



## Scott

What is a brief description of how and why Christianity supports logic?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> What is a brief description of how and why Christianity supports logic?



God created Logic and thinks in a Logical fashion. We think in a manner that is in the likeness of how God thinks, but with succession and contemplation (God does not have to think successive thoughts nor contemplate). We are to think logically and recognize that there is an invariant, transcendental universal known as "Logic" or the "Laws of Logic," as being the manner of rational thought created by God Himself.


----------



## natewood3

Did God create logic or is logic part of God's eternal nature? If God created logic, was there a time when A and not-A were the same thing at the same time?


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Did God create logic or is logic part of God's eternal nature? If God created logic, was there a time when A and not-A were the same thing at the same time?



Since God is eternal there never was a time when there was God and there was not God.


----------



## Scott

> God created Logic and thinks in a Logical fashion. We think in a manner that is in the likeness of how God thinks, but with succession and contemplation (God does not have to think successive thoughts nor contemplate). We are to think logically and recognize that there is an invariant, transcendental universal known as "Logic" or the "Laws of Logic," as being the manner of rational thought created by God Himself.


Thanks. That is a good summary. 

Why do we believe that Christianity teaches this?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> God created Logic and thinks in a Logical fashion. We think in a manner that is in the likeness of how God thinks, but with succession and contemplation (God does not have to think successive thoughts nor contemplate). We are to think logically and recognize that there is an invariant, transcendental universal known as "Logic" or the "Laws of Logic," as being the manner of rational thought created by God Himself.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. That is a good summary.
> 
> Why do we believe that Christianity teaches this?
Click to expand...


Scripture is logically coherent, and does not contradict itself (contrary to Liberalism). Scripture is God's revealed Word.


----------



## Magma2

> God created Logic and thinks in a Logical fashion. We think in a manner that is in the likeness of how God thinks, but with succession and contemplation (God does not have to think successive thoughts nor contemplate). We are to think logically and recognize that there is an invariant, transcendental universal known as "Logic" or the "Laws of Logic," as being the manner of rational thought created by God Himself.



If logic is created then was there a time prior to its creation when God did not think logically?


----------



## BobVigneault

God's thinking is best described as hyper-logic of which logic as we know it is a shadow or extenision of God's hyper-logic. Hyper-logic takes place in an infinitely multi-dimensional environment which is the mind of God. Logic was indeed created for the specific purpose of revelaton. Hyper-logic however is the reasoning of God and is pre-eternal.

I made all of this up. I'm calling dibs on 'hyper-logic'. Perhaps I'll right the book.

[Edited on 5-10-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## Laura

It seems that things get pretty messy when we say that God created logic...why not simply say that the laws of logic are like a pattern after the form in which God thinks (eternally)?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Is this what is meant by "reasonable soul"

Shorter Catechism Q 22
Q: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,1 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her,2 yet without sin.3


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Laura_
> It seems that things get pretty messy when we say that God created logic...why not simply say that the laws of logic are like a pattern after the form in which God thinks (eternally)?


----------



## Arch2k

Logic is "how" God thinks. He did not create it, for it is part of his nature.

We believe in logic, because the Bible is not only logical, but so are we, as creatures made in the image of God.

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding. 



> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter IV
> Of Creation
> II. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female,[4] with reasonable and immortal souls,[5] endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image;[6] having the law of God written in their hearts,[7] and power to fulfill it:[8] and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.[9] Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God,[10] and had dominion over the creatures.[11]
> 
> 4. Gen 1:27
> 5. Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 12:7; Luke 23:43; Matt. 10:28
> 6. Gen. 1:26; Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24
> 7. Rom. 2:14-15
> 8. Gen. 2:17; Eccl. 7:29
> 9. Gen. 3:6, 17
> 10. Gen. 2:17; 2:15-3:24
> 11. Gen. 1:28-30; Psa. 8:6-8



This is contra the beasts who are said to be "brute" which in the greek actually means "without reason."

Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like *brute* beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. 

2Pe 2:12 But these, like natural *brute beasts* made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 

G249
Î±Ì“ÌÎ»Î¿Î³Î¿Ï‚
alogos
al'-og-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G3056; irrational: - brute, unreasonable.

G249
Î±Ì“ÌÎ»Î¿Î³Î¿Ï‚
alogos
Thayer Definition:
1) destitute of reason
2) contrary to reason, absurd
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer´s/Strong´s Number: from G1 (as a negative particle) and G3056
Citing in TDNT: 4:141, 505

Psa 32:9 Do not be like the horse or like the mule, *Which have no understanding,* Which must be harnessed with bit and bridle, Else they will not come near you. 

Pro 30:2 Surely I am more stupid than any man, And do not have the understanding of a man.


----------



## Laura

That's very helpful, Jeff, thanks. I had no idea about the Greek root. The mention of absurdity reminds me: I as thinking awhile back that for even my Christian friends, what most amuses them is _nonsense_. I mean imagining situations that are utterly senseless, plotting ridiculous schemes just for the fun of it, etc. I'm not saying that it is in itself always reprehensible, but it's definitely something worth considering. Looking back a hundred years ago to what was considered humorous, it's telling how we've evolved. Then, comedy tended to make sense at the least, and was tasteful and intelligent at best. Now the weirder something is, the funnier; not merely in the sense of ironic, as in something you wouldn't expect, but things that have only the minimal basis in reality. Not to mention the more and more typical appeals to the basest desires of humanity for humor. I guess when we are in a world that seems increasingly to hate reason--except when it helps make the weaker argument appear the stronger, a la Sophist rhetoric--that's to be expected.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> God's thinking is best described as hyper-logic of which logic as we know it is a shadow or extenision of God's hyper-logic. Hyper-logic takes place in an infinitely multi-dimensional environment which is the mind of God. Logic was indeed created for the specific purpose of revelaton. Hyper-logic however is the reasoning of God and is pre-eternal.
> 
> I made all of this up. I'm calling dibs on 'hyper-logic'. Perhaps I'll right the book.



Maybe when you write that book you'll explain what hyper-logic is and how you know God thinks in these mysterious and unexplained forms? Also, what does pre-eternal mean? Sounds like an oxymoron. :bigsmile:


----------



## BobVigneault

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> God's thinking is best described as hyper-logic of which logic as we know it is a shadow or extenision of God's hyper-logic. Hyper-logic takes place in an infinitely multi-dimensional environment which is the mind of God. Logic was indeed created for the specific purpose of revelaton. Hyper-logic however is the reasoning of God and is pre-eternal.
> 
> I made all of this up. I'm calling dibs on 'hyper-logic'. Perhaps I'll right the book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe when you write that book you'll explain what hyper-logic is and how you know God thinks in these mysterious and unexplained forms? Also, what does pre-eternal mean? Sounds like an oxymoron. :bigsmile:
Click to expand...


No definitions are necessary Sean. My target audience will be young pastors who want to make a quick name for themselves. "Hyper-logic" and "Pre-eternal" are buzzwords, or rather the new fad is to call them 'nuances'. These young theologs will use these nuanced words and never define them. They will put down anyone who calls for definitions by accusing the inquisitors of 'a lack of sophistry' and 'pharisaical heresy hunting'. I will point out that Augustine, Calvin and even Paul himself used these hellinistic concepts but never actually named them.

Don't stop me now Sean, there is a bundle of cash to be made here. So watch who you call an 'oxymoron'. I'm a hyper-moron!


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> God created Logic and thinks in a Logical fashion. We think in a manner that is in the likeness of how God thinks, but with succession and contemplation (God does not have to think successive thoughts nor contemplate). We are to think logically and recognize that there is an invariant, transcendental universal known as "Logic" or the "Laws of Logic," as being the manner of rational thought created by God Himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If logic is created then was there a time prior to its creation when God did not think logically?
Click to expand...


Two points/questions,

1)For your objection to have teeth, you would have to believe that time is eternal and God did not create it. I should hope that no one here believes such. If one believes that time is created, then bringing logic in at the same time is not a problem.

2)What does thinking logically mean when applied to God?


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Is this what is meant by "reasonable soul"
> 
> Shorter Catechism Q 22
> Q: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
> A: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,1 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her,2 yet without sin.3



No one has an answer for a simple question?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> God created Logic and thinks in a Logical fashion. We think in a manner that is in the likeness of how God thinks, but with succession and contemplation (God does not have to think successive thoughts nor contemplate). We are to think logically and recognize that there is an invariant, transcendental universal known as "Logic" or the "Laws of Logic," as being the manner of rational thought created by God Himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If logic is created then was there a time prior to its creation when God did not think logically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two points/questions,
> 
> 1)For your objection to have teeth, you would have to believe that time is eternal and God did not create it. I should hope that no one here believes such. If one believes that time is created, then bringing logic in at the same time is not a problem.
> 
> 2)What does thinking logically mean when applied to God?
Click to expand...


 Thank you. The trigger happy heresy hunt can move along.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Is this what is meant by "reasonable soul"
> 
> Shorter Catechism Q 22
> Q: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
> A: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,1 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her,2 yet without sin.3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has an answer for a simple question?
Click to expand...


If I understand your question correctly, then yes.


----------



## Magma2

> If logic is created then was there a time prior to its creation when God did not think logically?
> 
> Two points/questions,
> 
> 1)For your objection to have teeth, you would have to believe that time is eternal and God did not create it. I should hope that no one here believes such. If one believes that time is created, then bringing logic in at the same time is not a problem.
> 
> 2)What does thinking logically mean when applied to God?



1. That doesn't follow. If logic is created then there was a _point_ when it was not. As for time, I would say that it is the experience of thoughts as they pass through the minds of men -- and other created beings I suppose (although I have doubts about my dog) -- as they exist in the eternal mind of God. Consequently, I fail to see how a question of time impacts the question of whether or not the forms of logic, without which all rational thought and communication would be impossible, are created? 

2. I would think it means the same thing as when applied to men. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Magma2

> No definitions are necessary Sean. My target audience will be young pastors who want to make a quick name for themselves. "Hyper-logic" and "Pre-eternal" are buzzwords, or rather the new fad is to call them 'nuances'. These young theologs will use these nuanced words and never define them. They will put down anyone who calls for definitions by accusing the inquisitors of 'a lack of sophistry' and 'pharisaical heresy hunting'. I will point out that Augustine, Calvin and even Paul himself used these hellinistic concepts but never actually named them.
> 
> Don't stop me now Sean, there is a bundle of cash to be made here. So watch who you call an 'oxymoron'. I'm a hyper-moron!



 It's all very Dooyeweerdian. But if you can make a buck, who am I to complain.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Laura_
> It seems that things get pretty messy when we say that God created logic...



No they don't.


----------



## BobVigneault

Gabe,
I've heard many a teacher refer to the Logos as the 'logic' of God. They speak as if the revelation of God in Christ is synonymous with 'The Logic". Is there a speck of truth in that? Is it good exegesis or is it just wishful thinking?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> If logic is created then was there a time prior to its creation when God did not think logically?
> 
> Two points/questions,
> 
> 1)For your objection to have teeth, you would have to believe that time is eternal and God did not create it. I should hope that no one here believes such. If one believes that time is created, then bringing logic in at the same time is not a problem.
> 
> 2)What does thinking logically mean when applied to God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That doesn't follow. If logic is created then there was a _point_ when it was not. As for time, I would say that it is the experience of thoughts as they pass through the minds of men -- and other created beings I suppose (although I have doubts about my dog) -- as they exist in the eternal mind of God. Consequently, I fail to see how a question of time impacts the question of whether or not the forms of logic, without which all rational thought and communication would be impossible, are created?
> 
> 2. I would think it means the same thing as when applied to men.
> 
> Hope that helps.
Click to expand...


I think it would be best to address the second issue first. How can a finite creature thinking be the same as the an infinite all-knowing being who knows everything and the relationships between everything all at once?

Your only hope is to say that the differences are unimportant. But to say there are no differences is nonsense.

CT


----------



## Magma2

> Thank you. The trigger happy heresy hunt can move along.



I don't see why you have to be so touchy? As for my part I was just trying to press you to see the kinds of problems that arise if you say logic is created. John 1:1 tells us that the eternal Logos or Logic was God, so it would seem that logic is uncreated. 

As to the other question from LadyFlynt and what is a rational soul as it's applied to the incarnate Christ? I would think it means that as a man Jesus thought as a man. Meaning thoughts passed through His mind as they do in ours. Of course, being sinless Jesus would only think true thoughts in conformity to His Father's will. But I'm only guessing as to what the Confession writers actually meant.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Gabe,
> I've heard many a teacher refer to the Logos as the 'logic' of God. They speak as if the revelation of God in Christ is synonymous with 'The Logic". Is there a speck of truth in that? Is it good exegesis or is it just wishful thinking?



Well, the word Logos in philosophy is a rather loaded word. I think we have to be careful to ascribe any "absolute" meaning to the word, when it is found in John 1. I'm not prepared to make a decision on that yet, either. I recognize the fact that I'm a 23 year old college student, not the next John Owen. I depend upon my Church Fathers of the Reformed tradition for exegesis, not my own intuitions. That said, it does seem possible that Logos is referring to logic, but more probable that it is simply referring to Christ as God's creating Word, another meaning of the word Logos.


----------



## Scott

> 1)For your objection to have teeth, you would have to believe that time is eternal and God did not create it. I should hope that no one here believes such.


If time had a starting point, would it be proper to say that God existed before time began? That seems plblematic b/c "before" is a word related to time. If not, then how does one accurately describe the situation?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. The trigger happy heresy hunt can move along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why you have to be so touchy? As for my part I was just trying to press you to see the kinds of problems that arise if you say logic is created. John 1:1 tells us that the eternal Logos or Logic was God, so it would seem that logic is uncreated.
Click to expand...


I'm reacting tongue-in-cheek to the touchy-ness of the several posters on this thread who seemed to ascribe "dangerous theology" to what I said. Logic, as we understand it, could not be eternally existing. God doesn't think the same way we do, because He uses no succession or syllogisms in His thought. All He thinks simply is. There are no premises and conclusions, deduction or induction, etc. within God's thought. So, like I said, God created Logic, the way in which we, as creatures, think in the likeness of God, who is completly rational - but on an altogether different level.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> 1)For your objection to have teeth, you would have to believe that time is eternal and God did not create it. I should hope that no one here believes such.
> 
> 
> 
> If time had a starting point, would it be proper to say that God existed before time began? That seems plblematic b/c "before" is a word related to time. If not, then how does one accurately describe the situation?
Click to expand...


Time is conventional. Speaking in "time language" does not prove time, nor imply that one is presupposing time to exist. It is simply how we relate to our existence and one another within such existence.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> God doesn't think the same way we do, because He uses no succession or syllogisms in His thought. All He thinks simply is. There are no premises and conclusions, deduction or induction, etc. within God's thought. So, like I said, God created Logic, the way in which we, as creatures, think in the likeness of God, who is completly rational - but on an altogether different level.



I've provided scriptural support for my view. Do you care to share where you find this in scripture?

If God is to have any thoughts at all, we had better hope they be logical ones.


----------



## Scott

> _Originally posted by Laura_
> That's very helpful, Jeff, thanks. I had no idea about the Greek root. The mention of absurdity reminds me: I as thinking awhile back that for even my Christian friends, what most amuses them is _nonsense_. I mean imagining situations that are utterly senseless, plotting ridiculous schemes just for the fun of it, etc. I'm not saying that it is in itself always reprehensible, but it's definitely something worth considering. Looking back a hundred years ago to what was considered humorous, it's telling how we've evolved. Then, comedy tended to make sense at the least, and was tasteful and intelligent at best. Now the weirder something is, the funnier; not merely in the sense of ironic, as in something you wouldn't expect, but things that have only the minimal basis in reality. Not to mention the more and more typical appeals to the basest desires of humanity for humor. I guess when we are in a world that seems increasingly to hate reason--except when it helps make the weaker argument appear the stronger, a la Sophist rhetoric--that's to be expected.


Laura: The good news is that scientists have it all figured out: see here.


----------



## Magma2

> I'm reacting tongue-in-cheek to the touchy-ness of the several posters on this thread who seemed to ascribe "dangerous theology" to what I said. Logic, as we understand it, could not be eternally existing.



Why not? Why can't the law of contradiction, excluded middle not to mention identity be eternal? God did after all tell Moses to tell the people that "I Am" has sent him which is as good an expression of the law of identity as any I can think of. 



> God doesn't think the same way we do, because He uses no succession or syllogisms in His thought.



Seems to me that you are confusing logical sequence with temporal sequence. 



> All He thinks simply is. There are no premises and conclusions, deduction or induction, etc. within God's thought.



How do you know? So God doesn't know the implication of any premise since you say there are no premises in God's thought? How can that be? 



> So, like I said, God created Logic, the way in which we, as creatures, think in the likeness of God, who is completly rational - but on an altogether different level.



How do these different levels apply to the law of contradiction for example? Does LC apply to men but not to God? Is that what you're saying?


----------



## Scott

> Time is conventional. Speaking in "time language" does not prove time, nor imply that one is presupposing time to exist. It is simply how we relate to our existence and one another within such existence.


It is more than language. I can't conceive a time not being. I think Bahnsen made a point like this in his series on Revelation.

BTW, I am not saying affirming one position or another. I just don't know how to think about what it mean for time to have a starting point.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Is this what is meant by "reasonable soul"
> 
> Shorter Catechism Q 22
> Q: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
> A: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,1 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her,2 yet without sin.3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has an answer for a simple question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand your question correctly, then yes.
Click to expand...


Thank you...we just studied this question in afternoon class at church a coupld of weeks ago...it seemed to apply, but wanted to make certain I was making the right connection.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I've provided scriptural support for my view. Do you care to share where you find this in scripture?
> 
> If God is to have any thoughts at all, we had better hope they be logical ones.



Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Do you really think God "thinks" in succession? That He - anthropomorphically speaking - sits around and rationalizes out things before acting, contemplating premises and conclusions, avoiding fallacious thought, etc? God's thinking simply IS. There is no process to it. This is common Reformed and Christian Dogmatic theology.



> The knowledge of God may be defined as _that perfection of God whereby He, in an entirely unique manner, knows Himself and all things possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act_.
> 
> [...]
> 
> The knowledge of God differs in some important points from that of men. It is _archetypal_, which means that He knows the universe as it exists in His own eternal idea previous to its existence as a finite reality in time and space; and that His knowledge is not, like ours, obtained from without. It is a knowledge that is characterized by _absolute perfection_. As such, it is _intuitive_ rather than demonstrative or discursive. It is _innate_ and _immediate_, and does not result from observation or from a process of reasoning. Being perfect, it is also _simultaneous_ and not successive, so that He sees things at once in their totality, and not piecemeal one after another.
> 
> *Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology, p. 66.*



If you still find me to be unScriptural (by implication of your statement above, which is most uncharitable), then so be it. I'm simply using Philosophy and Reformed Dogmatics in order to articulate my position, which is of course founded on the revelation of Holy Scripture. Otherwise, I wouldn't be propagating it, unless you find me to be a "dangerous" thinker.



> Job 12:13 With God are wisdom and might; he has counsel and understanding.
> 
> Isa 40:28 Have you not known? Have you not heard?
> The Lord is the everlasting God,
> the Creator of the ends of the earth.
> He does not faint or grow weary;
> his understanding is unsearchable.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> Time is conventional. Speaking in "time language" does not prove time, nor imply that one is presupposing time to exist. It is simply how we relate to our existence and one another within such existence.
> 
> 
> 
> It is more than language. I can't conceive a time not being. I think Bahnsen made a point like this in his series on Revelation.
> 
> BTW, I am not saying affirming one position or another. I just don't know how to think about what it mean for time to have a starting point.
Click to expand...


Can you show me where Time exists? What is it? Can you buy it at the store? That is what I'm getting at.


----------



## Magma2

> Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
> 
> Do you really think God "thinks" in succession? That He - anthropomorphically speaking - sits around and rationalizes out things before acting, contemplating premises and conclusions, avoiding fallacious thought, etc? God's thinking simply IS. There is no process to it. This is common Reformed and Christian Dogmatic theology.



Again, in my opinion you confuse temporal succession with logical order. Does God _immediately_ (hopefully this immediately makes you feel better) know every implication to every premise and is the architecture of His mind logic or is it not? I would think it would have to be if God can said to be the truth. But it seems to me that based on what you've said God is beyond logic, hence it would follow that God is not a rational being. in my opinion there are many problematic implications to such a position and while it's not particularly "dangerous" it just doesn't make much sense nor does it have any biblical warrant that I know of. I'm just asking you to rethink your position. If you're just unwilling, that's fine with me too.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
> 
> Do you really think God "thinks" in succession? That He - anthropomorphically speaking - sits around and rationalizes out things before acting, contemplating premises and conclusions, avoiding fallacious thought, etc? God's thinking simply IS. There is no process to it. This is common Reformed and Christian Dogmatic theology.



Here you are confusing time with logic. A logical order does not imply a chronological order. True that there is not process with regards to time in God's thought, but there is a logical order to it. His Covenantal nature implies as much. But just because God thinks logically does not mean that he has to go about a "œprocess" like we do. It simply means that the he thinks with a logical effect as his "œpurpose." God has purpose for his creation. He never acts without an intended result. This too implies logical deduction.



> _Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English Language_
> PUR'POSE,v.t. To intend; to design; to resolve; to determine on some end or object to be accomplished.
> 
> I have purposed it,I will also do it. Isa 46. Eph 3.
> 
> Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem. Acts 19.





> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> If you still find me to be unScriptural (by implication of your statement above, which is most uncharitable), then so be it.



I believe you are jumping the gun in calling my statement "uncharitable." I am simply asking you to back up your beliefs using scripture! That's not too much to ask is it? Relying on Berkhof isn't enough, unless you can show Berkhof is what scripture teaches as well.



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> Job 12:13 With God are wisdom and might; he has counsel and understanding.
> 
> Isa 40:28 Have you not known? Have you not heard?
> The Lord is the everlasting God,
> the Creator of the ends of the earth.
> He does not faint or grow weary;
> his understanding is unsearchable.
Click to expand...


Understanding also implies logical thought.



> _Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English Language_
> Understanding
> UNDERSTAND'ING, ppr.
> 
> 1. Comprehending; apprehending the ideas or sense of another, or of a writing; learning or being informed.
> 
> 2. a. Knowing; skillful. He is an understanding man.



Other passages of God reasoning:

Exo 9:16 "But indeed for this purpose  I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth. 

Job 42:2 "I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. 

Ecc 3:1 To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven: 

Ecc 3:17 I said in my heart, "God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, For there is a time there for every purpose and for every work." 

Isa 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason *together*," Says the LORD,  "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

2Th 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

Heb 2:11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inher


----------



## Scott

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Is this what is meant by "reasonable soul"
> 
> Shorter Catechism Q 22
> Q: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
> A: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,1 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her,2 yet without sin.3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has an answer for a simple question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand your question correctly, then yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you...we just studied this question in afternoon class at church a coupld of weeks ago...it seemed to apply, but wanted to make certain I was making the right connection.
Click to expand...

Technically, I think the quote reads to the effect of "yes, no one has an answer for a simple question."


----------



## Scott

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> Time is conventional. Speaking in "time language" does not prove time, nor imply that one is presupposing time to exist. It is simply how we relate to our existence and one another within such existence.
> 
> 
> 
> It is more than language. I can't conceive a time not being. I think Bahnsen made a point like this in his series on Revelation.
> 
> BTW, I am not saying affirming one position or another. I just don't know how to think about what it mean for time to have a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me where Time exists? What is it? Can you buy it at the store? That is what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

I don't follow. I am not saying time is physical.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Likewise, saying God has a purpose does not need to mean that God thinks syllogistically. It could be an eternal purpose and not a purpose that was inferrred from prior premises.



What does purpose mean if not thinking syllogistically?


----------



## Arch2k

Can God be illogical? 
If not, must God then conform to something outside of himself? 
What "something" would that be?
Is logic part of the image of God in man?
If so, then can "logic" be considered an anthropomorphism?

These are questions that need consideration.


----------



## Arch2k

> E. The Wisdom of God.
> 
> *Wisdom* and knowledge are intimately related. *The former is manifested in the selection of proper ends, and of proper means for the accomplishment of those ends.  * As there is abundant evidence of design in the works of nature, so all the works of God declare his wisdom. They show, from the most minute to the greatest, the most wonderful adaptation of *means to accomplish the high end of the good of his creatures and the manifestation of his own glory*. So also, in the whole course of history, we see evidence of the controlling power of God making all things work together for the best interests of his people, and the promotion of his kingdom upon earth. It is, however, in the work of redemption that this *divine attribute * is specially revealed. It is by the Church, that God has determined to manifest, through all ages, to principalities and powers, his manifold wisdom.
> 
> *Of course those who deny final causes deny that there is any such attribute as wisdom in God.* It is also said that the use of means to attain an end is a manifestation of weakness. It is further urged that it is derogatory to God, as it supposes that He needs or desires what He does not possess. Even Schleiermacher says: "Bei Gott is Allwissenheit und Weisheit so ganzlich einerlei, dass die Unterscheidung keinen Werth hat, die Weisheit ware nichts als auch wider absolute Lebendigkeit der Allmacht, also Alwissenheit." Wisdom is omniscience, omniscience is omnipotence, omnipotence is simply causality of all that is. Thus God sinks into the mere cause or ground of all things. It is not thus the Scriptures speak. We are called on to worship, "The only wise God." "O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast Thou made them all," is the devout exclamation of the Psalmist. (Ps. civ. 24.) And in contemplation of the work of redemption the Apostle exclaims, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" (Rom. xi. 33.)
> 
> Hodge, Charles. _Systematic Theology_, (Hendrickson, 2003), p. 401.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> God created Logic and thinks in a Logical fashion.



If God thinks in a logical fashion, then did God really _create_ it? I am in agreement with the latter portion of the statement, but not the former.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I never said God didn't "reason" or that He was "illogical." He just does so in a different way than we do, with succession and so forth. His "reasoning" is immediate and eternal. He doesn't contemplate, etc.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Likewise, saying God has a purpose does not need to mean that God thinks syllogistically. It could be an eternal purpose and not a purpose that was inferrred from prior premises.



Exactly my point. Thank you. God purposes, and He reasons and is reason-able, but He does not think in either Logical OR Temporal succession, nor does He think in premise-conclusion fashion, nor does He "wait around" for a situation to present itself before He "thinks about it." All that God knows is eternal, and His reasonable-ness is eternal. The Logic that came forth in the creation and which man has "discovered" over time, including people like Aristotle, etc., is the rationality and logic of God brought into "temporality" or our perception of such. God does not think Logically in the same way we think Logically. Both God and man can be (in God's case always IS) logical, but not in the same way or by the same means or process.

God's reasonable-ness is eternal, infinite, immediate, while man's is successive, finite, and limited by our lack of omnipotence.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> God created Logic and thinks in a Logical fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God thinks in a logical fashion, then did God really _create_ it? I am in agreement with the latter portion of the statement, but not the former.
Click to expand...


Of course He created the Logic we use, because He doesn't think Logically in the same manner as men. It was not a necessity for the Trinity in eternity prior to the creation of all things to have syllogisms or premises and conclusions. All thought in and within the Godhead is eternal and immediate.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I never said God didn't "reason" or that He was "illogical." He just does so in a different way than we do, with succession and so forth. His "reasoning" is immediate and eternal. He doesn't contemplate, etc.



I think I would agree with everything you've said here. I agree that God does not go through a process of learning conclusions from their premises. That being said, I think his thought is perfectly logical. If this is what you say, then I think we agree.


----------



## Don

It seems to me that two different things are being discussed: laws of logic as laws and applying the laws of logic to our thinking. 

I would say that God does not need to do the latter in the manner that Gabe was speaking (premises, conclusions, etc) since he knows everything immediately. But would you guys say that God created the law of noncontradiction itself?


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Hey Don, I don't know if God "created" the law of non-contradiction itself. I think it just "is". Logic and the laws of logic just "exist" in the same way math exists. It may not have been created as much as it was discovered. It's just a byproduct of an orderly universe, I think.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Don_
> It seems to me that two different things are being discussed: laws of logic as laws and applying the laws of logic to our thinking.
> 
> I would say that God does not need to do the latter in the manner that Gabe was speaking (premises, conclusions, etc) since he knows everything immediately. But would you guys say that God created the law of noncontradiction itself?



Don,

I tend to agree with your assessment. Thanks.


----------



## Magma2

> Of course He created the Logic we use, because He doesn't think Logically in the same manner as men. It was not a necessity for the Trinity in eternity prior to the creation of all things to have syllogisms or premises and conclusions. All thought in and within the Godhead is eternal and immediate.




Are you saying avalid argument for men may be invalid for God and visa versa? 2+2=4 for men, but for God it might be 11?


----------



## Magma2

> But would you guys say that God created the law of noncontradiction itself?



I wouldn't. LC is part and parcel of the architecture or structure of God's mind and as such LC is uncreated. A is eternally A and not non A. God is the Lord God of Truth so how could it be otherwise?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

As far as the "laws" of Logic, I believe God "created" those as part of the temporal, corporeal creation, as immaterial, transcendental universals which man subsequently "discovered" through the reason which God projected into the minds of men in that creation.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I never said God didn't "reason" or that He was "illogical." He just does so in a different way than we do, with succession and so forth. His "reasoning" is immediate and eternal. He doesn't contemplate, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I would agree with everything you've said here. I agree that God does not go through a process of learning conclusions from their premises. That being said, I think his thought is perfectly logical. If this is what you say, then I think we agree.
Click to expand...


Sorry I was unclear.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> As far as the "laws" of Logic, I believe God "created" those as part of the temporal, corporeal creation, as immaterial, transcendental universals which man subsequently "discovered" through the reason which God projected into the minds of men in that creation.




So then is it your view that the laws of logic (not sure why you put law in quotes) apply to man and not to God? Am I understanding you correctly? If I am, then why call the laws of logic "transcendental universals"?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> As far as the "laws" of Logic, I believe God "created" those as part of the temporal, corporeal creation, as immaterial, transcendental universals which man subsequently "discovered" through the reason which God projected into the minds of men in that creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then is it your view that the laws of logic (not sure why you put law in quotes) apply to man and not to God? Am I understanding you correctly? If I am, then why call the laws of logic "transcendental universals"?
Click to expand...


The "laws" of Logic apply to man, because we think according to those laws, or at least should. The reason they don't "apply" to God is because God's rationality is different than ours, as finite men. We think with succession, and in a finite manner, while God's thoughts are immediate, eternal. God does not need to "rationalize" something, using the "laws of logic" because God IS reason. The "laws" of Logic are what is communicated to us from God in Creation, so that we, as His creatures, can attempt to think rationally as God thinks, but in a different manner (that is, finite and with succession). Rationality is a communicable attribute, but, as with the others, it is communicated to us in a way that is different than how God employs such.

I call the laws of logic transcendental universals because ... they are universal and transcendent. I'm not sure what you mean by this. They are immaterial and are given to us by God. However, we are not on the same "level" as God, roughly speaking. So, no matter what is communicated to us by God, it is not going to be the "same thing" to us as it is to God, on a finite level. Applied to this discussion: God is rational. Man is rational. God is not rational in the same MANNER that man is, because God is eternal and man is finite.


----------



## Magma2

> Are you saying avalid argument for men may be invalid for God and visa versa? 2+2=4 for men, but for God it might be 11?
> 
> no, that, Sean, is an invalid inference from what Gabe said.




That was certainly my hope Paul, but given Gabe's recent follow ups I'm not convinced that you are correct.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying avalid argument for men may be invalid for God and visa versa? 2+2=4 for men, but for God it might be 11?
> 
> no, that, Sean, is an invalid inference from what Gabe said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was certainly my hope Paul, but given Gabe's recent follow ups I'm not convinced that you are correct.
Click to expand...


Why?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

P1: God uses logic.
P2: God created man in His image.
___
.: Man uses the logic of God.

I think this is what Sean's position would be, but I'm not sure.


I'm saying:

P1: God is eternal, and all He does and is is therefore to be understood as eternal and "immediate."
P2: God created man after His image, but man is finite.
P3: God is logical.
___
.: Man is logical, after the image of God, but in a finite manner.


----------



## Arch2k

Can we agree that God does not _rationalize_, but his thoughts are _rational_?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Can we agree that God does not _rationalize_, but his thoughts are _rational_?



Yes, about 40 posts ago. :bigsmile:


----------



## Magma2

> The "laws" of Logic apply to man, because we think according to those laws, or at least should. The reason they don't "apply" to God is because God's rationality is different than ours, as finite men. We think with succession, and in a finite manner, while God's thoughts are immediate, eternal. God does not need to "rationalize" something, using the "laws of logic" because God IS reason.
> The "laws" of Logic are what is communicated to us from God in Creation, so that we, as His creatures, can attempt to think rationally as God thinks, but in a different manner (that is, finite and with succession). Rationality is a communicable attribute, but, as with the others, it is communicated to us in a way that is different than how God employs such.



While I want to agree with the above I still would like to know if we´re on the same page. Is rationality defined as being in conformity with the laws of logic (for Paul´s benefit, Aristotelian) or do you mean something else entirely? If you mean being in conformity with the laws of logic then when you say God is reason (minor point; I think you might have meant reason is God) wouldn´t this be the same as saying logic is God? If not, why not? Finally, if logic is God and this is a communicable attribute then wouldn´t logic be eternal and not created? Which brings me to your next point:



> I call the laws of logic transcendental universals because ... they are universal and transcendent. I'm not sure what you mean by this. They are immaterial and are given to us by God. However, we are not on the same "level" as God, roughly speaking. So, no matter what is communicated to us by God, it is not going to be the "same thing" to us as it is to God, on a finite level. Applied to this discussion: God is rational. Man is rational. God is not rational in the same MANNER that man is, because God is eternal and man is finite.



Forgive me if I was not clear, but you said:

"œAs far as the "laws" of Logic, I believe God "created" those as part of the temporal, corporeal creation, as immaterial, transcendental universals which man subsequently "discovered" through the reason which God projected into the minds of men in that creation."

Above you seem to be saying that logic (if that´s what you mean by rationality) is a communicable attribute. If that´s what you mean then I would agree, but if an attribute then the laws of logic are not created. The way I understood what you wrote above is that the laws of logic are created by God and are something men discover by virtue of also being created beings. It´s as if the laws of logic exist external from God out in the ether somewhere and on the other hand they are an attribute of God which are communicated to men by virtue of being created in His image. I don't see how you can have it both ways? 

And, just so we´re clear (and because Paul is evidently getting paternal)  I´m not "œjumping" on you nor have I been. If it seems that way I apologize.


----------



## ChristianTrader

I think that thinking about the incarnation could help some. Jesus, the second member of the trinity took on certain characteristics that were not essential to him. (He would still have been fully God if he never came down to earth). So one would have to acknowledge at least the possibility of created attributes that can be taken on, that are not essential.


----------



## Magma2

> Yes, but I think you're failing to *want* to understand him and take the time to get everything all precise before you jump on him.
> 
> You should lay out his position, and have him agree to it, and then proceed to argue against him, if it even needs to go that far.
> 
> Definitions are priority, why waste time debating for 4 pages all to find out you've been having a definitional dispute.



The dispute has been over the idea that logic is created. I don't think this is a definitional dispute. But your thinking that I'm "failing to *want* to understand" Gabe is imputing motives to me which you can't possibly know. I have chosen to ask him questions for clarification as we proceed. I agree I could have laid out his position, or what I thought was his position, and have him agree to it and the argue against him, but I chose not to do this since I get the impression that he isn't particularly clear on what his position is. In this case I think your preferred tactic might been perceived as trying to fabricate a straw man at best or bullying at worst. I'm not trying to trap the guy after all.

Of course, if you think this is a waste of 4 pages then perhaps you should bow out. From what I can tell we seem to be making progress and we might yet be of one mind on this point. OTOH you may be right and this is just a waste time and 4 pages.

[Edited on 5-11-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Don

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> P1: God uses logic.
> P2: God created man in His image.
> ___
> .: Man uses the logic of God.
> 
> I think this is what Sean's position would be, but I'm not sure.
> 
> 
> I'm saying:
> 
> P1: God is eternal, and all He does and is is therefore to be understood as eternal and "immediate."
> P2: God created man after His image, but man is finite.
> P3: God is logical.
> ___
> .: Man is logical, after the image of God, but in a finite manner.




Gabe, 

A few questions: You said that God created the "laws" of logic. Is God eternally logical (P3)? Did God create the Law of Noncontradiction when He ushered in the temporal order (metaphysically created)? 

Don


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Don_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> P1: God uses logic.
> P2: God created man in His image.
> ___
> .: Man uses the logic of God.
> 
> I think this is what Sean's position would be, but I'm not sure.
> 
> 
> I'm saying:
> 
> P1: God is eternal, and all He does and is is therefore to be understood as eternal and "immediate."
> P2: God created man after His image, but man is finite.
> P3: God is logical.
> ___
> .: Man is logical, after the image of God, but in a finite manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gabe,
> 
> A few questions: You said that God created the "laws" of logic. Is God eternally logical (P3)? Did God create the Law of Noncontradiction when He ushered in the temporal order (metaphysically created)?
> 
> Don
Click to expand...


Yes, God is eternally logical, or - better put - rational. He is not insane or contradictory, in other words. However, God does not "reason" using the "laws of logic" as finite human beings do, and must, because we must think in a finite, successive way. I wouldn't say God created the "Law of Noncontradiction" per se, but God communicated reason to man in the Creation, and we have "discovered" how to be reasonable; namely, in the form of the laws of logic, math, etc. Don't get me wrong, the laws of logic are not conventional, but they weren't written down in Scripture, either. While both God and man are rational, we do not use the same processes for rationality. God is eternally and immediately rational, while man must rationalize in succession and with finititude (is that a word?) -- in other words, the laws of logic. If we could be logical or rational the way God is ... well ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> I agree I could have laid out his position, or what I thought was his position, and have him agree to it and the argue against him, but I chose not to do this since I get the impression that he isn't particularly clear on what his position is.



So, basically, you'd rather be uncharitable, by not only *not* having a clear understanding of my position prior to engaging in this debate, but also resorting to ad hominem (I'm not clear on my own position, i.e. I'm stupid) against me?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> Above you seem to be saying that logic (if that´s what you mean by rationality) is a communicable attribute. If that´s what you mean then I would agree, but if an attribute then the laws of logic are not created. The way I understood what you wrote above is that the laws of logic are created by God and are something men discover by virtue of also being created beings. It´s as if the laws of logic exist external from God out in the ether somewhere and on the other hand they are an attribute of God which are communicated to men by virtue of being created in His image. I don't see how you can have it both ways?



Rationality is a communicable attribute, in the sense that man can acquire and use knowledge in a rational - logical - way. See Berkhof's chapter on the communicable attributes of God (which I quoted from above) for more detail of what I'm intended to convey. However, the "laws of logic" were not part of the Godhead, nor are they necessary for God to be rational. Why is this the case? As I have said and tried to emphasize, along with Berkhof who I find to be a reliable source of orthodox Reformed theology, God is eternal, and His rationality is immediate, eternal and non-successive. He does not need the laws of logic to be reasonable. Man, as finite and receiving the rationality after the image of God in Creation needs the laws of logic in order to be rational. We cannot just actualize reason in an eternal sense. It isn't just IS for us. We must think in succession, with finite limits, and this is expressed for us in what man has labeled the laws of logic. To think logically and non-contradictor-ally (I invent words, sorry) is to think how God in His very being IS, but we must do so within our own limits, necessitating the laws of logic. So, prior to the Creation (whenever THAT was), there was no necessity for the laws of logic, nor do I believe they "existed" just as there was no Algebra or Scientific Method in eternity prior to the Creation. God has no use for such things, being eternal.


----------



## Don

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> Above you seem to be saying that logic (if that´s what you mean by rationality) is a communicable attribute. If that´s what you mean then I would agree, but if an attribute then the laws of logic are not created. The way I understood what you wrote above is that the laws of logic are created by God and are something men discover by virtue of also being created beings. It´s as if the laws of logic exist external from God out in the ether somewhere and on the other hand they are an attribute of God which are communicated to men by virtue of being created in His image. I don't see how you can have it both ways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationality is a communicable attribute, in the sense that man can acquire and use knowledge in a rational - logical - way. See Berkhof's chapter on the communicable attributes of God (which I quoted from above) for more detail of what I'm intended to convey. However, the "laws of logic" were not part of the Godhead, nor are they necessary for God to be rational. Why is this the case? As I have said and tried to emphasize, along with Berkhof who I find to be a reliable source of orthodox Reformed theology, God is eternal, and His rationality is immediate, eternal and non-successive. He does not need the laws of logic to be reasonable. Man, as finite and receiving the rationality after the image of God in Creation needs the laws of logic in order to be rational. We cannot just actualize reason in an eternal sense. It isn't just IS for us. We must think in succession, with finite limits, and this is expressed for us in what man has labeled the laws of logic. To think logically and non-contradictor-ally (I invent words, sorry) is to think how God in His very being IS, but we must do so within our own limits, necessitating the laws of logic. So, prior to the Creation (whenever THAT was), there was no necessity for the laws of logic, nor do I believe they "existed" just as there was no Algebra or Scientific Method in eternity prior to the Creation. God has no use for such things, being eternal.
Click to expand...



Gabe, 

I mostly agreed with your post directed at me but then this one confused me. It still seems like you are equating the "laws of logic" with deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. I don't think that God would have to reason ded., ind. or abductively due to the fact that He is omniscient. Thus it seems that these would not be necessary for God. 

However, the "laws of logic" (Identity, LNC) seem to be necessary ontological states of affairs in all possible worlds (I would view these as being based on God's nature). Could God violate the laws of logic? Is He not subject to them (as I have defined them in the preceding sentence)? 

Don


----------



## Arch2k

Ok guys, I think we're starting to make some headway, but let's please not let this discussion turn into personal attacks etc. Let's stick to the issue. I am interested in everyone's comments so far.

Don,

I appreciate your comments, I think your interaction on this thread has been helpful.

Paul,

I agree that people have not been using the terminology the same. Can we get some definitions on some of these terms? BTW, where exactly do YOU stand on this issue? I don't know that I can make it out from what you have posted (just guesses).

Gabriel,

I personally, would like to see some clarification on your post (especially the underlined portion):



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> He does not need the laws of logic to be reasonable. Man, as finite and receiving the rationality after the image of God in Creation needs the laws of logic in order to be rational. We cannot just actualize reason in an eternal sense. It isn't just IS for us. We must think in succession, with finite limits, and this is expressed for us in what man has labeled the laws of logic. To think logically and non-contradictor-ally (I invent words, sorry) is to think how God in His very being IS, but we must do so within our own limits, necessitating the laws of logic. So, prior to the Creation (whenever THAT was), there was no necessity for the laws of logic, nor do I believe they "existed" just as there was no Algebra or Scientific Method in eternity prior to the Creation. God has no use for such things, being eternal.



Sean,

Would you argree that God does not think successively?


----------



## Magma2

> Would you argree that God does not think successively?



Of course. I´ve said as much.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Would you argree that God does not think successively?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. I´ve said as much.
Click to expand...


Sorry.


----------



## Magma2

> 1. The motives of man's heart are evil, continuously.
> 
> 2. Sean has a man's heart.
> 
> 3. Sean's motives are evil, continuously.
> 
> Scripturalism, at its finest!




1. Only God is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 

2. Paul Manta is not God

3. Paul Manta is not able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 



> iii. My preferred tactic was to get you to understand Gabe's position, and not go all "Robbins" on him:
> 
> Quote:
> From the Sudduth Philosophical Lexicon:



Not sure what that means, but I suppose anything is to be preferred to Van Tilian newspeak. 

As for Sudduth, hasn´t he stopped whining yet?



> vi. At any rate, I would say if you don't care about my attempts to make sure you're understanding a position, and not jumping the gun (an instantiation of the universal, "robbinessing a position"), then continue on the same path.



Yes, I don´t care about your attempts to make sure I´m understanding Gabe´s position, but I´m quite sure you´re endless Van Tilianese should have his head spinning at any moment. For what it's worth I´ve read some of your blogs and Dr. Robbins at his most terse and acerbic has nothing on you. Isn´t it funny that the things we dislike most in others often are feature most prominent in us. Sin is that way too. What was that you were saying about the heart? 



> As it stands, the post started out with Gabe saying that God does not think in a proces, but is eternally omniscient and others denied that.



Would you care to provide a couple of quotations from "œothers" who have denied the eternal omniscience of God? I´ve been following this thread pretty closely and I can´t believe I missed them?



> Thus, unless our senses are deceiving us,



Senses have a tendency to do that. Maybe you should rely less on them.


----------



## Magma2

> So, basically, you'd rather be uncharitable, by not only not having a clear understanding of my position prior to engaging in this debate, but also resorting to ad hominem (I'm not clear on my own position, i.e. I'm stupid) against me?



Being unclear on one's own position and being stupid are two different things. I don´t think you´re stupid, but I still think your position is confused. Further, I don´t think I´ve been in the least bit uncharitable toward you. I´ve asked you questions in the hope that you might clarify your position, but, as I´ve mentioned, you have said things that certainly appear contradictory. Since I don´t play the Van Tilian mind-meld game where apparent contradictions magically disappear on the basis of nothing more than their say so (like a Van Tilian magic wand), some of the things you´ve said appear -- and still appear -- contradictory. To say that I don´t think you are clear on your own position is not an argument to the man, but to your position. 

Here is another example of what I mean:



> Rationality is a communicable attribute, in the sense that man can acquire and use knowledge in a rational - logical - way . . . However, the "laws of logic" were not part of the Godhead, nor are they necessary for God to be rational. Why is this the case? As I have said and tried to emphasize, along with Berkhof who I find to be a reliable source of orthodox Reformed theology, God is eternal, and His rationality is immediate, eternal and non-successive. He does not need the laws of logic to be reasonable. . . To think logically and non-contradictor-ally (I invent words, sorry) is to think how God in His very being IS, but we must do so within our own limits, necessitating the laws of logic. So, prior to the Creation (whenever THAT was), there was no necessity for the laws of logic, nor do I believe they "existed" just as there was no Algebra or Scientific Method in eternity prior to the Creation. God has no use for such things, being eternal.



In order to calm Paul let me try and repeat back what you´ve just said in my own words. But first how about a definition so that Paul will be both calm and happy:

Logical; (1) : of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic (2) : skilled in logic b : formally true or valid : ANALYTIC, DEDUCTIVE:

To think logically is to think like God thinks. To think logically necessitates the laws of logic. So far so good. The thoughts of God´s mind do not conform to the laws of logic. However, God is rational, but the laws of logic are not part of His eternal and immutable mind. OTOH, God´s rationality is a communicable attribute, but rationality in the Godhead does not necessitate the laws of logic. Therefore, I have no idea what this attribute is which is supposedly communicated to man? 

OTOH I quite agree that God has no use for the scientific method since, while obviously useful for man, it is a tissue of logical fallacies and can provide no knowledge of anything at all. I guess you can say, no fallacy is of the truth. Or, to put it another way, if God has expressed his mind to us in Scripture by means of logical fallacies would we have any warrant to call God the Truth?

Don asks; "œCould God violate the laws of logic? Is He not subject to them . . . ?" It would seem He is. The Scriptures tell us that God cannot lie and no lie is of the truth. Further, since Paul is calm now (and presumably happy, although after this citation I´m sure he won´t be), let me provide a quote from Gordon Clark´s piece, God and Logic:



> In thinking about God, Calvinists almost immediately repeat the Shorter Catechism and say, "God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable." Perhaps we do not pause to clarify our ideas of spirit, but hurry on to the attributes of "wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." But pause: Spirit, Wisdom, Truth. Psalm 31:5 addresses God as "O Lord God of truth." John 17:3 says," This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God...." 1 John 5:6 says, "the Spirit is truth." Such verses as these indicate that God is a rational, thinking being whose thought exhibits the structure of Aristotelian logic . . . To repeat . . . Logic is fixed, universal, necessary, and irreplaceable. Irrationality contradicts the Biblical teaching from beginning to end. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not insane. God is a rational being, the architecture of whose mind is logic. [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=16]



Anyway, I do think your position is still unclear, but since you seem to be taking this way too personal, and in my opinion Paul has sufficiently fanned that fire, I think I had better stop now. Again, I am sorry you thought I was being uncharitable toward you. That wasn´t my intent. My intent was to be helpful.


----------



## Don

> "The law of contradiction, therefore, as we know it, is but the expression on a created level of the internal coherence of God's nature. [...] Christians should employ the law of contradiction, whether positively or negatively, as a means by which to systematize the facts of revelation." -Van Til, systematic theology




Exactly... much better than how I stated...


----------



## Magma2

> Good stuff G.H. Clark!



It is good stuff. Amen. I did say I would bow out in my discussion with Gabe. You´re another story.  in my opinion you´re a smart man, but you would do well to spend less time reading your own blogs and read more Clark. Clark is easily the most important Christian thinker in modern times, arguably longer than that, and he was head and shoulders above his contemporaries in defending truth. Given your recent musings my guess is that you´d rather give that title to someone like Richard Pratt who also brings into doubt, with similar Vantilianese double-speak, whether or not the law of contradiction is an attribute of God´s mind revealed to us in Scripture and argues for limits in applying the law to theology. Pratt asserts; "œthe conformity of [some] biblical teachings to the law of contradiction may never be discerned by finite minds" [see, "œDoes God Observe the Law of Contradiction . . . Should We?"]. Of course, Pratt has no way of knowing this, but his point is clear, sometimes the law of contradiction must be abandon and logic must be curbed. Pratt continues:



> We are called upon to believe the teachings of Scripture despite their mysterious nature [mystery here is defined as an apparent contradiction - SG] . . . It is insufficient simply to say, "œI believe we should always accept the results of applying our understanding of the law of contradiction." At times, pursuing this line of thought will actually lead us into error.



Notice, applying the law of contradiction to the Scriptures, at times, "œwill actually lead us into error." Further, it is our understanding of the law that will, per Pratt, inevitably fail us. Or, to put this same idea in Van Til´s own words, we are to "œembrace with passion the idea of the apparently contradictory." A better prescription for complete intellectual and theological suicide would be hard to find. There can be little doubt as to the root cause of the current justification controversy now plaguing P&R churches. 

Regardless, this has been helpful for it seems clear from your remarks that you too think the laws of logic are the result of man made systems which may and often do contradict themselves (which explains why you were so gung-ho about charging the beach in defense of Gabe - can I hear a "œhoorah"!) . So let me ask, since you are correct and the various systems run into paradoxes and contradictions, which system do you employ when coming to the Scriptures? Would the answer be; whichever one enables you to reach your desired conclusion?



> . . . What about modern symbollic logic? Boolian logic?



Since I agree G. H. Clark is "œgood stuff," why don´t I let Clark answer your question from the same piece I quoted above:



> If anyone objects to Aristotelian logic in this connection"”and presumably he does not want to replace it with the Boolean-Russellian symbolic logic [not so fast Clark, it seems we have a candidate here who does - SG] "”let him ask and answer whether it is true for God that if all dogs have teeth, some dogs"”spaniels"”have teeth? Do those who contrast this "merely human logic" with a divine logic mean that for God all dogs may have teeth while spaniels do not? Similarly, with "merely human" arithmetic: two plus two is four for man, but is it eleven for God? Ever since Bernard distrusted Abelard, it has been a mark of piety in some quarters to disparage "mere human reason"; and at the present time existentialistic, neo-orthodox authors object to "straight-line" inference and insist that faith must "curb" logic. Thus they not only refuse to make logic an axiom, but reserve the right to repudiate it. [Frame echoes the neo-orthodox in his, _Van Til the Theologian_; "œThus, a paradox remains for us, though by faith we are confident that there is no paradox for God. Faith is basic to the salvation of our knowledge as well as the salvation of our souls." - SG]. In opposition to the latter view, the following argument will continue to insist on the necessity of logic; and with respect to the contention that Scripture cannot be axiomatic because logic must be, it will be necessary to spell out in greater detail the meaning of Scriptural revelation.



I suggest you read the rest of Clark´s argument. Beyond that, I give you the last word.


----------



## Myshkin

Paul-

Have you given any in-depth critiques of Clark's view of John 1 regarding Christ as "logic"? If not, do you know of anyone who has. I have heard that in Clark's festschrift there was a response to it, but unfortunately it is out of print.

Thanks!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I'm a dangerous thinker.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Come on guys! Logic is just "fluff", lol. Paul, I watched your debate with Derek Sansone the other day and you dominated every aspect of it.


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I've not done any, but I've also not done any in-depth views dealing with refuting the promulgations made about little elves who live in trees and make fudge cookies, either.
> 
> I don't know of any "in-depth critiques" other than what you mentioned, but, likewise, I don't know of many "in-depth" critiques on the tooth fairy, either!



Paul-

I don't understand what you are saying; I guess you are being sly and suggesting Clark's view requires no in-depth view, since his view is as pointless as non-existent beings. I guess I am a little slow.

You may remember that I am not a Clarkian. I just thought you would have the resource I wanted. Thanks anyways.

Nice to see you back on the PB by the way; hope you are doing well.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...
> Well, Scripture should be our authority, and so we should never abandon its *clear* teachings. Does this mean that we do not try to resolve the apparent contradiction? No, I don't think so. But, at the end of the day, if we've tried our best, what do we do? Do we say that X or Y must go, so as to save "rationality?" Or, do we submit to the Lordship of Christ, the wisdom of God, and admit that His ways and thoughts are higher than ours. [
> ...



I haven't read through all this thread so if this has been addressed already, I apologize, but this is important point I want to make.

When we find an "apparent" contradiction in Scripture, we must resolve it. We can not "embrace" the contradiction.

By definition, a contradiction is two statements that can not be true at the same time. If one is true, the other MUST be false. 

When we have two proposition we determine are contradictory, then we have can not believe both at the same time. Either we believe one, or the other. If we believe they are a contradiction, we in fact are saying we do not believe only one of the statements is true. We may admit that we do not know _which_ is true, but we can not then say we believe both are true. 

We must not leave contradictions unresolved. All of the Word is true, therefore, no false statement is Scripture. If we have two contradictory statements, then one is not Scripture. So to know Scripture requires us to resolve contradiction.

So we can not believe contradictions, and we have a duty as Christians to to resolve "apparent" contradictions so that we may know God's Word. "The wisdom of God" does not contain contradiction.

[Edited on 5-15-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ... God is eternal, and His rationality is immediate, eternal and non-successive. He does not need the laws of logic to be reasonable. Man, as finite and receiving the rationality after the image of God in Creation needs the laws of logic in order to be rational. We cannot just actualize reason in an eternal sense. It isn't just IS for us. We must think in succession, with finite limits, and this is expressed for us in what man has labeled the laws of logic. ....



As a Clarkian, I make a distinction between the _laws_ of logic, and the _rules_ of logic (or more specifically, the rules of inference). The laws of logic are eternal forms of the state of things. It is "just IS" for us. The law of contradiction, excluded middle, identity, are the IS of logic. And that is the logic of God also, the same logic of man.

The rules of necessary inference has to do with the process of discovering eternal truths though rules of logical implication. This is the logic "that God does not need" in order to be rational. God still knows according to the "laws" of logic, but he does not employ the "rules of inference".

If all A is B, 
and all B is C, 
the necessary inference is all A is C. 

Well all A is C was true before we made the inference. Even if we did not "know" the inference before we used the "rules" of inference to discover it, the "laws" of logic dictates that it is eternally true.

When we are thinking logically, we are discovering the relationships between things. 

Creation uses the rules of inference to think logically - God does not reason in succession. He knows all A is C eternally. But the "laws" of logic are common to both God and man in order for man to think the things God already thinks. The "mode" of logic is different between God and man, but not the "laws" of logic.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...
> Well, Scripture should be our authority, and so we should never abandon its *clear* teachings. Does this mean that we do not try to resolve the apparent contradiction? No, I don't think so. But, at the end of the day, if we've tried our best, what do we do? Do we say that X or Y must go, so as to save "rationality?" Or, do we submit to the Lordship of Christ, the wisdom of God, and admit that His ways and thoughts are higher than ours. [
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read through all this thread so if this has been addressed already, I apologize, but this is important point I want to make.
> 
> When we find an "apparent" contradiction in Scripture, we must resolve it. We can not "embrace" the contradiction.
Click to expand...


Why not? Unless you wish to make the argument that unless we can resolve it then we must say that it is an "actual" contradiction. Unless that argument is forthcoming I do not see the reason for your plea.



> By definition, a contradiction is two statements that can not be true at the same time. If one is true, the other MUST be false.



Alright but first one must affirm that a contradiction exists. The tension in an apparent contradiction can be relieved either by showing that the two propositions are not in fact contradiction given the background info or by introducing new propositions. The issue is whether one has the right to assume that the christian worldview has a problem if one is unable to work out fully the apparant contradictions. The answer is no.



> When we have two proposition we determine are contradictory, then we have can not believe both at the same time. Either we believe one, or the other. If we believe they are a contradiction, we in fact are saying we do not believe only one of the statements is true. We may admit that we do not know _which_ is true, but we can not then say we believe both are true.



And sinse we do not determine that two biblical propositions are contradictory, but only apparently contradictory, we should not have a problem.



> We must not leave contradictions unresolved. All of the Word is true, therefore, no false statement is Scripture. If we have two contradictory statements, then one is not Scripture. So to know Scripture requires us to resolve contradiction.



Again your problem is with actual contradiction, since no one affirms that actual contradictions exist in scripture, we should have no disagreements.



> So we can not believe contradictions, and we have a duty as Christians to to resolve "apparent" contradictions so that we may know God's Word. "The wisdom of God" does not contain contradiction.
> 
> [Edited on 5-15-2006 by Civbert]



We cannot know contradictions, but that says nothing about knowing things that only look like contradictions. Again until you marshall an argument that we have to consider apparant contradictions as equivalent to actual ones, there is nothing here to interact with.

CT


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ..We cannot know contradictions, but that says nothing about knowing things that only look like contradictions. Again until you marshall an argument that we have to consider apparent contradictions as equivalent to actual ones, there is nothing here to interact with.
> 
> CT



Why call something an apparent _contradiction_? Because the "apparent" _meaning_ of two statements are actually contradictory. Maybe we don't know which statement is true and which is false because we are uncertain of the certain meaning of the statements, but if the apparent meaning of the statements is correct, they are contradictory.

In effect, there is no difference between an apparent and an actual contradiction. A contradiction is a contradiction. And when we think we have found a "apparent" contradiction, then the meaning of one statement is apparently false - and we do not believe both are true. It's impossible to believe two contradictory statements - apparent or otherwise. Once we understand that two statements are "apparent" contradictions, we in effect have determined that both can not be true.

(P.S. Edit)

The point is that if we can not "know" two contradictory statements are true, then we do not "believe" two contradictory statements are true. The fact that "apparent" contradictions "look" like contradictions means we do not believe both are true or we could not say it is an "apparent" contradictions. You can not believe two statements if you believe they are "apparently" contradictory. 

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...
> iv. Now, a contradiction between two staements would be if both used the terms in the same way and had the same definitions, and where said to both be true at the same time.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, take:
> 
> 3) It is morally wrong to stick needles in people's faces.
> 
> 4) George stuck a needle in Tom's face.
> 
> 5) George was not immoral for sticking a needle in Tom's face.
> 
> These three appear to be contradictory, right.



Technically they are contrary. 3 and 5 are can not both be true, but both can be false. So I know that either 3 or 5 (or both) is false (this assumes no equivocation). Therefore I can not help but believe there is at least one false statement between 3 and 5.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_ But, what if new information is added such that,
> 
> 6) George is a dentist and Tom was getting a tooth pulled.
> 
> We don't have a contradiction anymore 3, "



Yes you do. You still have a contradiction with "It is morally wrong to stick needles in people's faces." The contradiction remains, you have merely shown that the statement was false. Sometimes it _is_ morally correct to stick needles in people's faces.




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> And so in Scripture God also has a secret council. There may be information that God has not chosen to give us. We know that God wold never contradict himself and so, contra the Arminian, Molinist, Open Theist, Rationalist, etc., we do not chop off, reinterpret, stretch, ignore, the clear teachings of Scripture just so that "man's mind may be satisfied.


This is not a satisfaction of man's mind, but of God's. We want to know what God's mind is on the matter. Since God does not contradict himself, then we know that when we think we have found a contradiction, then something is not right. God's word does not contain any contradiction. An apparent contradiction demonstrates that something that "appears" to be the meaning of Scripture is not Scripture. Something is false in our understanding - and we do not believe both statements are true as we understand them.

Adding more information (God's secrete council) could only make it clear what we misunderstand. But we need not wait until then to know that we misunderstand something when we find "apparent" contradictions.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Most of your statements apply to real and not apparent contradictions and so can be dismissed as strawmen. I know that they are not contradictions, but I will never reject a clear teaching of Scripure just because it does not make sense or fit some pre-contrived scheme I have imposed on Scripture.



This "pre-contrived scheme" you speak of is the scheme that Van Til affirmed as necessary to knowing God because God is logical. You can not "impose" on Scripture the laws of logic. You can only impose your misunderstanding on the teaching of Scripture. If ones understanding of Scripture entails contradictions, then one misunderstands what Scripture teaches.




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> I am thankful for the above. The more the Clarkian shows that his own mind is the authority, the more he brings that system in to disrepute.


 Nice.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Technically they are contrary. 3 and 5 are can not both be true, but both can be false. So I know that either 3 or 5 (or both) is false (this assumes no equivocation). Therefore I can not help but believe there is at least one false statement between 3 and 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, well I don't think that *no times* George sticks a needle in Tom's face he's not immoral, but that some times George sticks a needle in Tom's face are not immoral times. Hence, the contradiction.
Click to expand...

Huh?? To many negatives! 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you do. You still have a contradiction with "It is morally wrong to stick needles in people's faces." The contradiction remains, you have merely shown that the statement was false. Sometimes it is morally correct to stick needles in people's faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not with the entire set. New information resolved the apparent contradiction. One way to resolves contradictions is to add new premises:
Click to expand...


But you did so by showing the premise 3 was false. Not by "embracing" premise 3 is true. True is: _not_ all times is it immoral to stick a needle in a person's face. 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> God is all good and all powerful
> 
> If God were all good he'd not want evil, if he were all powerful he'd be able to stop it.
> 
> Evil exists
> 
> Therefore God does not exist.
> 
> But, if we add the premise:
> 
> God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil he plans or allows we do not have the logical contradiction.



The "problem of evil" is not resolved by the premise. The added premise only helps us see what premises are not true.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> So, with Scripture we're talking about sets of beliefs. If two appear contradictory it may be that there is missing information, thus they set does not contain a contradiction. Leave out relavent info, then a contradiction is still possible, but we're not talking about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since God does not contradict himself, then we know that when we think we have found a contradiction, then something is not right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ever think I've found a contradiction, just an apparent one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An apparent contradiction demonstrates that something that "appears" to be the meaning of Scripture is not Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not necessarily. Both could be the meaning of Scripture, and more information makes the set consistent (just like my two examples). I'd have thought this pretty basic.
Click to expand...


 Yeah. Well basically, you are correcting a misunderstanding of what you thought Scripture meant. You can not reverse a contradiction with an additional premise. And if the contradiction is "apparent", then you must mean it is not the Scriptures that are contrary, but your apparent understanding of it's meaning that is contradictory. 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adding more information (God's secrete council) could only make it clear what we misunderstand. But we need not wait until then to know that we misunderstand something when we find "apparent" contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We might not understand *how* it plays out, or *how* it's consistent, we may understand the meaning of x and y (remember, which are said to be *clear*), though.
Click to expand...


Bingo! "We might not understand". A clear contradiction is impossible. Clearly contrary or contradictory premises are not the teaching of Scripture.

However, I will give you a chance to show me otherwise by giving two "clear" and contradictory teachings of Scripture, both of which you believe are true. Show me how it is possible for you to believe they are "apparently" contradictions and are both true at the same time. 

Of course, if you resolve the problem, you must change what you think Scripture means. If you don't resolve it, you believe that Scripture teaches contradictions. Or not if you're right you can show me two teaching of Scripture that you apparently believe can not both be true, but you believe are both true.





[Edited on 5-16-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Honestly, I'm still waiting to encounter a Clarkian that doesn't turn me off with their approach to things like the above. While I find you guys generally very warm and Christian in other areas of the Board I find your approach pointlessly obnoxious and obtuse here for the sake of terminology. It's the same reason John Robbins turns me off.

Witness the analogy Paul gave:
3) It is morally wrong to stick needles in people's faces.
4) George stuck a needle in Tom's face.
5) George was not immoral for sticking a needle in Tom's face.

It was true as far as it went without modification. Even _after_ Paul added that George was a dentist, you inferred from 3) that the statement declares it is immoral for _all_ people. You offered to Paul that 3) and 5) are then still contradictory. But 3), in fact, does not have to be inferred to mean all people. People who are not dental patients are still "people". You prove Paul's point in fact about apparent contradictions by creating another one. In your haste to "fix" his analogy (instead of giving a fair hearing) you show how somebody can assume contradictions that don't necessarily exist.

Even if the analogy could have been more perfectly stated: Who cares? It's a silly analogy. You fight battles to the death on hills that have no strategic value. Give some ground dude!

You could have merely looked at the three statements and, being charitable and agreeable, understood with what he was trying to state. Give the three sentences to 100 people. Over 90 percent of them would conclude a logical contradiction. Paul knows it isn't because he's witholding information. The other 10 percent would view this as a riddle and might even figure out that anasthesea is to be administered. 

He calls it an apparent contradiction because of how it is processed and perceived. You don't want to deal with the term in the way its used but, rather, want to haggle over the use of the terms "apparent" contradiction.

You just want Paul to talk the same way you do and call it something else, but you still cannot remove the mystery any more than he can to things that God has not fully revealed to us. Or maybe Clarkians have plummed the depths of all Biblical mysteries?

If you want to be received better then admit agreements where you can. I say tomato you say tomahto.

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...It was true as far as it went without modification. Even _after_ Paul added that George was a dentist, you inferred from 3) that the statement declares it is immoral for _all_ people. You offered to Paul that 3) and 5) are then still contradictory. But 3), in fact, _does not state all_ if you read it again. You prove Paul's point in fact about apparent contradictions by creating another one. In your haste to "fix" his analogy (instead of giving a fair hearing) you show how somebody can assume contradictions that don't really exist....



No, it was Paul who said that there was an apparent contradiction here, I merely agreed. I did not create the contradiction, I assumed Paul was being truthful in saying the statements were contradictory.

The only way Paul can claim the statements appear to be contradictions is if the "apparent meaning" of the statement 3 is _at all times_ it is morally wrong to stick needles in people's faces. Clearly is does not mean "sometimes" it is morally wrong to stick needles in people's faces. That is not an apparent contradiction.

Aside: In logic there are only four forms of statement: All, Some, Some not, and No. Statement 3 must mean logically - "at all times...", "at some times...", "at some times not...", or "at no time...". Since Paul said the statements were contradictions, then the logical meaning must have been "at all times". No other understanding of 3) would "appear" to contradict 5). 

My point is, you can not go from an "apparent" contradiction, to no contradiction without changing the meaning of statement 3). This is true for any "apparent" contradiction. Either statement 3) is equivocation, or the contradiction is not apparent at all. And the subject is Scripture and God's mind. God does not equivocate. 

And the more important point is, if something is an "apparent" contradiction, it is because we read the meaning of two statements as being contradictions. And so we must believe one or the other, but not both. You can not believe two apparent contradictions _because_ they "appear" to contradict.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...
> 
> You just want Paul to talk the same way you do and call it something else, but you still cannot remove the mystery any more than he can to things that God has not fully revealed to us. Or maybe Clarkians have plummed the depths of all Biblical mysteries?



Look up how the Bible uses the term mystery - and you will see it is always a case of something that _was_ hidden, but is now made know. Mysteries in Scripture are not the things now hidden from us, but things that are now made know to us.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Well I suppose when our terminology is all precise then we can have real Christian unity...


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Well I suppose when our terminology is all precise then we can have real Christian unity...



God is in the details dude!


----------



## Magma2

> i. When we find an "apparent contradiction" we should *try* to resolve it, yes. As Van Til says above, "man should employ this law to the Scriptures.



Just to add my  to Anthony´s remarks and for further evidence that Paul doesn´t know his history . . . . 

A powerful example of Van Til´s vilification of anyone who would dare even to try to harmonize the supposed "œapparent contradictions" of Scripture occurred during the Clark/Van Til controversy. One of the central issues in that controversy was Dr. Clark´s contention that he had harmonized one of the so-called Van Tilian insoluble paradoxes of Scripture, specifically the relationship between God´s sovereignty and human responsibility. What is particularly revealing is the reaction of Van Til and his associates to Dr. Clark´s proposed solution to this problem. (For Dr. Clark´s argument see his article "œDeterminism and Responsibility," or the last chapter of _Religion, Reason and Revelation._) As Herman Hoeksema observed in The Clark-Van Til Controversy (which is a very readable account written at the time of the controversy), instead of engaging Dr. Clark´s argument or even attempting to refute it, Van Til and his followers viciously attacked Clark as a "œrationalist." To quote the Complaint Van Til and others filed against Dr. Clark´s ordination:



> Here then is a situation which is inadequately described as amazing. There is a problem which has baffled the greatest theologians in history. Not even Holy Scripture offers a solution. But Dr. Clark asserts unblushingly that for his thinking the problem has ceased to be a problem. Here is something phenomenal. What accounts for it? The most charitable, and no doubt the correct, explanation is that Dr. Clark has come under the spell of rationalism. It is difficult indeed to escape the conclusion that by his refusal to permit the Scriptural teaching of divine sovereignty and the Scriptural teaching of human responsibility to stand alongside each other, and by his claim that he has fully reconciled them with each other before the bar of human reason, Dr. Clark has fallen into the error of rationalism [The Clark-Van Til Controversy, 23].



The reason the Complainants slandered Dr. Clark as a "œrationalist" was that he claimed to harmonize two doctrines of Scripture which they, the Vantilians, claimed could not be harmonized. What else could the Vantilians do except slander? If this so-called "œapparent contradiction" could be harmonized at the "œbar of human reason" "“ if Dr. Clark could harmonize doctrines that Van Til and the Westminster Seminary faculty insisted could not be harmonized "“ then Van Til´s entire philosophy, resting on his analogical and paradoxical view of Scripture, would be exposed as a fraud. Yet, as Hoeksema pointed out, the only "œproof" Van Til could provide that Dr. Clark was "œunder the spell of rationalism" was that he mentioned pagan philosophers. Of course, Dr. Clark´s opponents failed to note that he mentioned Calvin´s Institutes as well, which, as it turns out, is central to Dr. Clark´s argument and key to solving this puzzle "œwhich has baffled the greatest theologians in history." Of course, if the mere reference to pagan philosophers warrants the epithet "œrationalist," one doesn´t have to read too far in the Institutes to conclude that Calvin must have been a "œrationalist." Paul himself, who quotes a pagan poet in Acts 17, must have been a "œrationalist," too.

For the Vantilians, at least those true to Van Til´s teachings, like our friends Paul here, apparent contradictions do not function as "œred flags" warning them to go back and check their premises, carefully define their terms, and examine their inferences. Instead, when they encounter an apparent contradiction, they must bow their heads in feigned Christian piety and resignation. Such false humility is sheer arrogance, for they do not even entertain the possibility that they may have erred. The apparent contradictions are due to their "œcreatureliness," not to their stupidity or foolishness. Frame´s answer to the logical paradoxes of Scripture [see "œVan Til - The Theologian"] is "œjust believe," but believe what? How does Frame or any Vantilian know "œthere is no paradox for God"? By an appeal to Scripture? Impossible, since "œall teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory." Without any reason the Vantilians command us to believe that for God there is no contradiction. Magic "œfaith," divorced from logic and Scripture, becomes the means by which they assert "œthere is no paradox for God." But why wouldn´t it make more sense, even as a matter of simple intellectual honesty, to conclude that if Van Til is right and these so-called paradoxes of Scripture are logically irreconcilable, then perhaps God himself is contradictory? There is and can be no warrant in Scripture "“ since Scripture itself is contradictory "“ for asserting that God is non-contradictory.



> ii. I dont know if we *must* resolve it. Should, yes, but not necessarily must.
> 
> iii. We can and should embrace it. I had said, what happens if Scripture clearly teaches x and y. Let's assume that both x and y appear to contradict eachother. What do we do?
> 
> Try to resolve it, sure. But what if you can't? Do you reject the clear teachings of Scripture, or do you reject one for the other?



Well, it would seem to me that if the Scriptures teach contradictions (at least they are contradictions to the human existent) and it is a matter of principle, as it was for Van Til and his followers including you that "œall Scripture is apparently contradictory," rather than embrace such seeming antimonies, you should be pleading ignorance and confessing confusion. You should be dedicating your lives to searching the Scriptures in an effort to solve such seeming contradictions and vindicate God's Word against His enemies (rather than providing solace and cover for God's enemies as we see in the currently justification controversy). For Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken, but the Van Tilian assures us, even as a matter of epistemic principle, that at least for us, broken they must remain. The Van Tilian in his arrogance and false piety (Van Til is the prime example of this sheer arrogance and hubris outlined above in his confrontation with Clark), makes this embrace of nonsense the height of Christian humility and an expression of our "œcreatureliness." 



> I am thankful for the above. The more the Clarkian shows that his own mind is the authority, the more he brings that system in to disrepute.



You are a very able defender of nonsense Paul. I´m very thankful that there are still Christian men who refuse to impute irrationality to God and His Word as you have.

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Sean_
> The reason the Complainants slandered Dr. Clark as a "œrationalist" was that he claimed to harmonize two doctrines of Scripture which they, the Vantilians, claimed could not be harmonized. What else could the Vantilians do except slander?


It's not slander if the charge is accurate. You don't need Scripture to see rationalistic methodology. Even Spinoza used the Scriptures for some things. Your history is simplistic and misrepresents the facts. I guess the whole OPC was so stupid as to not see through Van Tils inability to do anything more than just name call. Take comfort that you can trust in your hero over the ruling of the duly appointed authority of elders in God's Church. As long as Clark and his followers insist he wasn't under the spell of rationalism then it must be so.

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Sean_
> The reason the Complainants slandered Dr. Clark as a "œrationalist" was that he claimed to harmonize two doctrines of Scripture which they, the Vantilians, claimed could not be harmonized. What else could the Vantilians do except slander?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not slander if the charge is accurate. You don't need Scripture to see rationalistic methodology. Even Spinoza used the Scriptures for some things. Your history is simplistic and misrepresents the facts. I guess the whole OPC was so stupid as to not see through Van Tils inability to do anything more than just name call. Take comfort that you can trust in your hero over the ruling of the duly appointed authority of elders in God's Church. As long as Clark and his followers insist he wasn't under the spell of rationalism then it must be so.
Click to expand...


I don't understand the charge of "rationalism" in this case. Is it the charge of being "too logical?" If so, is there even such a thing?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Sean_
> The reason the Complainants slandered Dr. Clark as a "œrationalist" was that he claimed to harmonize two doctrines of Scripture which they, the Vantilians, claimed could not be harmonized. What else could the Vantilians do except slander?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not slander if the charge is accurate. You don't need Scripture to see rationalistic methodology. Even Spinoza used the Scriptures for some things. Your history is simplistic and misrepresents the facts. I guess the whole OPC was so stupid as to not see through Van Tils inability to do anything more than just name call. Take comfort that you can trust in your hero over the ruling of the duly appointed authority of elders in God's Church. As long as Clark and his followers insist he wasn't under the spell of rationalism then it must be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand the charge of "rationalism" in this case. Is it the charge of being "too logical?" If so, is there even such a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clark "escaped" the paradox by denying free will.
> 
> Indeed, his own account seems paradoxical.
> 
> Clark says men are responsible because God says so and who are we to talk back to God.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't find asserting a dogmatic position utterly convincing.
> 
> I mean, men are free because God says so, who are we to argue with God. Anyone can play that game.
> 
> If desire to make the facts fit, no matter what is denied, just so man can have ease in your epistemic life, is your program, I'd say that's rationalism.
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying, but I guess I really don't see the problem (and maybe you can help me).

If man is free "in a sense" and God is sovereign "in another sense", then how is the paradox not resolved? From my reading of Clark, that is all he is doing, is defining "senses."


----------



## BobVigneault

Paul, if I remember correctly, Clark would not say man is responsible because God dogmatically decrees it so. You are leaving out the fact that only God is capable of true justice. We are responsible to him because he is the definition and essence and source of justice. Because he is the righteous judge we are responsible to him. You oversimplified the argument.

I loved the dog poop illustration though. Great job!

[Edited on 5-17-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> I loved the dog poop illustration though. Great job!



It is a good illustration. I've been that dog from time to time. Thankfully, God helps me clean up the mess while holding me responsible.

Praise His Name!!


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> "Man has no free will for salvation is of grace and God is sovereign." RRR p.242
> 
> "Man is responsible because God calls him to account; man is responsible because the supreme being can punish him for disobedience." RRR p. 241



If, as you say, Scripture is the ultimate authority - then clearly God does hold man responsible for his sin. And since man has no freedom regarding his salvation according to Scripture, then Clark agrees with Scripture on both counts. 

The issue that people get stuck on can be put this way: if (as the bible says) man is totally deprived by nature, and has no capacity to do any spiritual good - how can man be punished for his sins? But the question itself begs the question. It assumes that it is self-evident that the only thing we can be rightly punished for doing, are the things we are free to not do. But there is no argument that you can make that will come to that conclusion. There is not rational link between free will and responsibility. Everyone who runs into that "paradox" brings this presumptions unquestioningly to the table.

Clark's answer was simple - we assume the Scriptures as authority - and the answer is there. We don't bring our own preconceived ideas to the Word, and bend the Word to our ideas of justice and responsibility. We assume the Word itself is the first and final authority.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> The issue that people get stuck on can be put this way: if (as the bible says) man is totally deprived by nature, and has no capacity to do any spiritual good - how can man be punished for his sins? But the question itself begs the question. It assumes that it is self-evident that the only thing we can be rightly punished for doing, are the things we are free to not do. But there is no argument that you can make that will come to that conclusion. There is not rational link between free will and responsibility. Everyone who runs into that "paradox" brings this presumptions unquestioningly to the table.





The only way this becomes a "paradox" is if you define responsibility as "autonomy" which Calvinists know is false. Responsiblity to these people should be defined as an autonomous person committing sins of their own autonomous free will. 

But is this how responsibility should be defined? Does the bible define responsibility this way? Calvinists should say "no." If responsibility does not rest on this, then the paradox suddenly disappears.


----------



## Magma2

> Man has no free will for salvation is of grace and God is sovereign." RRR p.242
> 
> "Man is responsible because God calls him to account; man is responsible because the supreme being can punish him for disobedience." RRR p. 241
> 
> In other news, my dog is morally responsible for pooping on the carpet because I can punish him and I call him to account.



You´re dog is not morally responsible because he/she is not a rational creature, which makes you wonder about some people.  However, dogs and men have no "œfree will" in the libertarian sense. 



> Furthermore, God is sovereign even over your "in a sense" freeness that man has. God is soveriegn *over all.* So, God determines, plans, foreordains that "in a sense" free actions of man.
> 
> Still tricky.
> 
> Now, if you deny man's freedom (Clark) then you have a tidy resolution, or you can deny God's sovereignty (Arminians) and have a tidy resolution.
> 
> Or, you can hold both, historic Calvinism



One of the centerpieces of the Reformation was a rejection of "œfree will." I guess for some that no longer applies, yet some still persist in calling themselves "Calvinists." Oh the joys of embracing the paradox. It´s better than petting the dog!


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...
> Well, we'll be getting in to this, but it's not as simple as you'd like, sorry.
> 
> G.I. WIlliamson, in excellant commentary on the confession writes,
> 
> "It is all too common to bring the railing accusation against the reformed faith that it denies free will. Many reject the reformed faith out of hand because they assume that divine sovereignty cancels all true human liberty and responsibility. Yet, ironically, no other system of teaching safeguards true human liberty and responsibility as does the reformed faith."
> 
> I mean, you guys may be right, but let's not pretend that you're espousing orthodox reformed teaching on the subject, you're not. At least face it and admit it.



Because of G. I. Williamson?? Is he the end-all of "orthodox reformed theology"? And this quote is a conclusion - not an argument. I believe Luther wrote some things on the will, and Jonathan Edwards. Williamson would be wrong if he thought that the reformed faith supports libertarian free will. Before you are regenerated, were you able to do any good works? Were you free to obey and please God? No, you were dead in sin, wholly unable to do any spiritual good works. 

I don't know who G.I. Williamson is, but I don't think he wrote the standard on orthodoxy. I think the Westminster Confession is a better measure of othodoxy.



> 9:1 God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil (Deu_30:19; Mat_17:12; Jam_1:14).
> 
> 9:2 Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good, and well pleasing to God (Gen_1:26; Ecc_7:29); but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it (Gen_2:16, Gen_2:17; Gen_3:6).
> 
> 9:3 Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation (Joh_15:5; Rom_5:6; Rom_8:7): so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good (Rom_3:10, Rom_3:12), and dead in sin (Eph_2:1, Eph_2:5; Col_2:13), is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto (Joh_6:44, Joh_6:65; 1Co_2:14; Eph_2:2-5; Tit_3:3-5).
> 
> 9:4 When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin (Joh_8:34, Joh_8:36; Col_1:13); and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good (Rom_6:18, Rom_6:22; Phi_2:13); yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil (Rom_7:15, Rom_7:18, Rom_7:19, Rom_7:21, Rom_7:23; Gal_5:17).
> 
> 9:5 The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone, in the state of glory only (Eph_4:13; Heb_12:23; 1Jo_3:2; Jud_1:24).


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> The issue that people get stuck on can be put this way: if (as the bible says) man is totally deprived by nature, and has no capacity to do any spiritual good - how can man be punished for his sins? But the question itself begs the question. It assumes that it is self-evident that the only thing we can be rightly punished for doing, are the things we are free to not do. But there is no argument that you can make that will come to that conclusion. There is not rational link between free will and responsibility. Everyone who runs into that "paradox" brings this presumptions unquestioningly to the table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way this becomes a "paradox" is if you define responsibility as "autonomy" which Calvinists know is false. Responsiblity to these people should be defined as an autonomous person committing sins of their own autonomous free will.
> 
> But is this how responsibility should be defined? Does the bible define responsibility this way? Calvinists should say "no." If responsibility does not rest on this, then the paradox suddenly disappears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, we'll be getting in to this, but it's not as simple as you'd like, sorry.
> 
> G.I. WIlliamson, in excellant commentary on the confession writes,
> 
> "It is all too common to bring the railing accusation against the reformed faith that it denies free will. Many reject the reformed faith out of hand because they assume that divine sovereignty cancels all true human liberty and responsibility. Yet, ironically, no other system of teaching safeguards true human liberty and responsibility as does the reformed faith."
> 
> I mean, you guys may be right, but let's not pretend that you're espousing orthodox reformed teaching on the subject, you're not. At least face it and admit it.
Click to expand...


Whoa Paul...don't jump the gun.

G.I. Williamson (The Westminster Confession of Faith For Study Classes, p. 31) defines freedom thus:



> Freedom may be defined as "the absence of external coercion." If a man is not forced by any power outside himself to do that which is contrary to "what he wants to do," then we may properly say that he is "free." The wonder of God's predestination is that God does leave men free in this sense, even though he predstines everthing that every man will ever do. Some people use the word "freedom" in another sense, however, which is false in the extreme. They mean, by the "freedom" of man, that man has the power to do good or evil at any moment of time. To say that a man is able to do good or evil, is very diferent [sic] from saying that a man is at liberty to do what he desires. We believe that man has liberty but not ability to do what is right. For the truth is that man, while free from coercion from the "outside" is not free from the control of his own nature. He who is evil by nature must of necessity do evil (just as a corrupt tree must of necessity produce corrupt fruit, Mt. 7:17-19). Just as we may say that God is good and therefore cannot do evil, so we may say that man (by nature) is evil and cannot (of himself) do good.



Similarly, Gordon Clark writes (What Do Presbyterians Believe?, p. 37-38):



> The Scripture references [to WCF Chapter III, Section I] show clearly that God controls the wills of men"¦
> This does not mean that violence was done to the will of the creatures. It was not as if the men wanted to adopt Ahithophel´s plan and were forced to follow Hushai against their desires. Their psychological processes issued in a desire to follow Hushai´s plan. But it must be noted that God established psychological processes just as truly as he established physical processes.
> This ties in with the next phrase, "œnor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
> "¦He [God] does not arrange things or control history apart from secondary causes.



It would also be profitable to read his commentary on p. 105-107 on free-will, where he essentially agrees with Williamson above.

So you see, that Williamson and Clark agree that there are two types of "freedom" as I indicated in my post. 

One is a false view (autonomous) that separates itself from the predestinating work of God. This view poses a clear contradiction (or paradox for you) between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. In essence, it is a contradiction between the sovereignty of man, and the sovereignty of God. It just can't be both ways. (See the Bondage of the Will by Luther for a rebuttal of the view)

The other (the reformed/confessional view) is that man's responsibility (at least partly) lies within the fact that he always does what he "wants" to do. He never sins apart from desiring to do so. But this view presents no problem for reconciling God's sovereignty and human responsibility. God sovereignly predestines the end (sin) as well as the means (desire). Man is responsible (or free) because he always does what he wants to do. (See the Freedom of the Will by Edwards for a defense of this view)

God´s sovereignty lies in the eternal decree, or what Turretin calls the compound sense. Man´s responsibility lies in second causes, or what Turretin calls the divided sense. These two, far from being incompatible, are harmonious and complementary. 

I for one do not see the slightest hint of a paradox without accepting a faulty view of human liberty.


----------



## Arch2k

I think there is some equivication of "free-will" on this thread. We must keep them seperate!


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I think there is some equivication of "free-will" on this thread. We must keep them seperate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for a definition above.
Click to expand...


I like Williamson's:



> Freedom may be defined as "the absence of external coercion." If a man is not forced by any power outside himself to do that which is contrary to "what he wants to do," then we may properly say that he is "free."



Certainly you are not suggesting that GHC denies this type of free will, are you?


----------



## Arch2k

Paul,

I don't think that anyone would deny that one can make "apparant contradictions" from scriptural statements. Not all things are clear...at first. Paradoxes do exist. 

The difference between Clarkians and VanTillians (as I know it) is not that one denies paradoxes, but in _how they treat_ paradoxes in scriptures.

Clarkians will tell you that in order to believe a paradox, you must resolve it. Since we know that the Bible doesn't contradict itself, don't we owe it to God to give him all we have to understand it that way? 

VanTillians will tell you that if we run across a paradox that we don't understand, we should believe both sides _even IF_ we can't resolve it. This is problematic to me. 

Question for this person:

If you accept a paradox in scripture as true without resolving it:

How do you know that you are understanding it correctly? Since we know that the Scriptures do not contradict itself, one could easily have a false view of one side of the "paradox" and by modifying it to the correct Biblical view would then eliminate the paradox altogether. 

Without resolving the "paradox", you have no idea if it is a paradox, or a contradiction altogether! For all this person knows, he is accepting two completely contradicting propositions, under the guise of it being a "paradox"! What was that about fideism?  (ok, just a joke) 

The better method In my humble opinion is to not come to a conclusion until the "paradox" can be settled. To distinguish senses are a must. Am I perfectly consistent? Absolutely not. Should I strive to be? Absolutely.


----------



## Arch2k

BTW, if anyone hasn't read McMahon's book, _The Two Wills of God_, it is a must on the subject. It helped me resolve some of my "paradoxes."


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Fine, God *determines* that a man will truly do what the man *wants* to do.
> 
> *The man* wanted to do it, by his own free agency, yet God determined that it would happen and not anything else.
> 
> **The man* chose to do bad. No one coerced him. He really *chose it.* He had *two* (or 3 ...n!) options. He *really* had these options. Yet God determiend that he would have a *real* choice but only choose A rather than B (or c ...z). He *never* would have chosen B, yet his choosing A was free.*
> 
> Seems paradoxical to me.



Here is where I see you jumping ship Paul. You are fine in your first definition of "freedom" (choose according to your desires), but then you equivicate into the BAD kind of freedom (see Williamson above) in the bold portion of your quote.

In order for this to work, you must remain consistent!

God determines the act, and the choice and the desire etc. etc.

Man's freedom does NOT lie in the fact that he can choose from ...n! options, it lies in the fact that the option that God sovereignly determined for him to choose, he did so wantingly. 

God made it happen....sovereignty.

Man wanted it...responsiblity.

The "wanting" is where the responsibility lies. 

*I am not sure what you are trying to prove at this point Paul. If you are trying to prove that there is an actual "paradox" between God's sovereignty and human resposibility THAT YOU can NOT solve, then that is one thing. If you are trying to prove that Clark does not allow for "paradoxes" is scripture, that is another. Which is it!!!!!*


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Oh, is this thread still active?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> We should try to resolve them, if we can.



 Thank you.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Why is it problematic to belive both statement if you can't resolve them? It's not clear to me. Van Til's point was on propositions which *logically presupposed* other doctrines. These, therefore, could not be given up.
> 
> Again, I pose the question: If Scripture teaches x and y, and x and y are clear, and x and y appear to contradict, _what do you do if you can't resolve it?_



Study. 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> We know it's not a contradiction all together because *there are no contradictions all together.* This should not be brought up anymore.
> 
> Anyway, I can throw it back on you: how do you know your modification is correct. Rational consistency does not = truth as shown by this:
> 
> 1) The moon is made of green cheese.
> 
> 2) Hitler signed the death warrent for Jews.
> 
> These are consistent, but (1) is not true.
> 
> More to the point, then:
> 
> 3) JFK was assasinated in 1963.
> 
> 4) JFK was not assasinatied in 1963
> 
> can be resolved by this:
> 
> 5) JFK was not assasinated in 1963, he's renting a room from me, next door to Elvis.
> 
> Thus (4) and (5) resolved a contradiction, but they're not true.
> 
> Therefore, how do you know that because you've supposedly resolved the apparent contradiction you've taught correct doctrine? Resolving apparent contradiction by false propositions does not, therefore, *in reality* take away the original paradox.
> 
> The person knows it must be a paradox, his misunderstanding, etc., but the presuppositionalist *knows* (on the basis of Divine revelation, which is a precondition for knowing anything at all) that it *can't* be a contradiction.



I never suggested that it necessarily follows that just because one has "resolved" the apparent contradiction, that they now know the truth. What one DOES accomplish by this is a better hermeneutic. Since God has *clearly* revealed that the scriptures do not contradict one another, shouldn't that hermeneutic be carried across the board to every doctrine that we study?? 

Ah....but you say "Only if we can...if we can't, give up for now and accept statements that are illogical TO YOU". If it is illogical to you, then how do you know it is not illogical period? Paradoxes are illogical statements (relatively) in the eyes of the beholder. Granted, they may not be ultimately contradictory, but for all practical purposes (practical meaning "as far as your understanding of it") they are.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Lastly, Clark didn't *resolve* the *admitted* paradox by consigning it to God's secret will. You *cannot* resolve it because it's God's *secret* will (He's not told us all, yet). Therefore there are paradoxes in Scripture that you *can't* resolve. So, do you reject that God wills and does not will certain things in his secret council? "But how could God will and not will murder." Clark says, "Deut. 29:29"! That's not a resolution, and it's an admission that God wills and not-wills something. Is going to Deut. 29:29, say, fideism?



God wills X in one sense and wills Y in another. There is no contradiction, and no paradox (in my own mind at least!  ). If Clark has the right answer, I do not know (although I do remember him helping...but it has been a long time).

The question is...Is it paradoxical TO YOU??? :bigsmile:


----------



## Magma2

> Sean, when can I start charging for all the lessons I've been (and will be) giving you?



You equivocate on the word free. But thanks for citing the WCF. Maybe you should read it and then explain what exactly you find at odds with Clark´s denial of free will in the libertarian, or, for your benefit, the common Arminian sense? Nothing in the Confession affirms that man has the power of contrary choice, including your dog as he poops on your carpet. Hence, Clark's argument is sound, biblical and he successfully harmonized one of the imagined biblical contradictions Van Tilians like you love so much.

I´ll send you my bill.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> The statements are NOT "illogical" to me. They might be "apparently illogical."
> 
> Seriously, they're not illogical, and I don't see how they have to be. Why, because I know that's it's "in one sense and not another." The problem is, that God has not revealed the different senses. I try to "not go beyond what is written."



This only works if you understand how to resolve the "paradox." What if you don't? Is it subjectively contradictory and objectively not? I think this is the case. 

While the statements of the unsolved paradox maybe not be contradictory in and of themselves, as far as this person goes, they are at complete odds. He understands them contradictorily (new word?  ) which reduces itself to absurdity In my humble opinion.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Question for this person:
> 
> If you accept a paradox in scripture as true without resolving it:
> 
> How do you know that you are understanding it correctly? Since we know that the Scriptures do not contradict itself, one could easily have a false view of one side of the "paradox" and by modifying it to the correct Biblical view would then eliminate the paradox altogether.


But the point is that if there is an "apparent" contradiction, then apparently one of the statements is false, and you can not (and do not) believe both. Now, if you mean by "apparent" that it is not a clear contradiction, then you are uncertain if you understand one or the other position clearly, but given some _particular_ readings, they leads to a contradiction. Well whatever those particular readings are, you know they can not both be true - and you certainly do not believe they are both true as you apparently now read them. 

Resolving the contradiction _does not make both statements true_, it means determining which statement is false.

Remember, you said the Scripture teaches X and Y clearly, and they are an apparent contradiction. What does that mean? If X and Y is clear, then the contradiction should be clear. But if the contradiction is uncertain, then so too is your understanding of X or Y. But if your understanding of X and Y are unclear, then the contradiction is not apparent. So saying X and Y are clear, and apparent contradictions, is a contradiction. They can not be both clear teachings of Scripture and "apparently" contradictory at the same time.

So maybe you say that there are readings of Scripture that, at first blush, are contradictions. But that apparently means that the immediate reading of X and Y is contradictory. However, we can say that we know immediately that Scripture does not contradict itself, and the initial "clear" reading must be false. We DO NOT embrace apparent contradictions, we must resolve them or admit we do not believe both are true. And if we can not resolve them, then they must be "real" contradictions. And if that is the case, again we know that either X or Y is false. So, again, you can not believe both X and Y if they "apparently" contradict. That's irrational and anti-Christian. God does not contradict himself, and we do not believe apparent contradictions are true. 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Why is it problematic to believe both statement if you can't resolve them? It's not clear to me. Van Til's point was on propositions which *logically presupposed* other doctrines. These, therefore, could not be given up.
> 
> Again, I pose the question: If Scripture teaches x and y, and x and y are clear, and x and y appear to contradict, _what do you do if you can't resolve it?_



Admit you don't know which is true. You've already convinced yourself that they can not both be true or you would not say that they apparently contradict - therefore you have to admit the uncertainty of your understanding. You know one or the other must be false or maybe both are false readings because you are uncertain enough to judge them apparent contradictions and not "real" contradictions.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> We know it's not a contradiction all together because *there are no contradictions all together.* This should not be brought up anymore.



All together? You mean if we have more information, we can fix the reading. Sure, that means you have determined which reading was false. Before, you just didn't know. Resolving means determining which understanding is false. It does not make both true.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Anyway, I can throw it back on you: how do you know your modification is correct. Rational consistency does not = truth as shown by this:
> 
> 1) The moon is made of green cheese.
> 
> 2) Hitler signed the death warrant for Jews.
> 
> These are consistent, but (1) is not true.


No one's saying that rational consistency makes all things true. But logical contradiction means something _is_ false. 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> More to the point, then:
> 
> 3) JFK was assassinated in 1963.
> 
> 4) JFK was not assassinated in 1963
> 
> can be resolved by this:
> 
> 5) JFK was not assassinated in 1963, he's renting a room from me, next door to Elvis.
> 
> Thus (4) and (5) resolved a contradiction, but they're not true.


So you are saying the (5) showed that (4) is false? 

First that is incorrect. You can not use a statement you know to be false to resolve the contradiction. It does not follow.

Second. If statement (5) _was_ true, then it would show that (4) was false. And that's the point, one of the two must be false. You don't believe both are true, even if you don't know which is false. When there is a contradiction, you know one is false. If there is an apparent contradiction, the best you can say is you believe one is false. You can not believe both.




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Therefore, how do you know that because you've supposedly resolved the apparent contradiction you've taught correct doctrine? Resolving apparent contradiction by false propositions does not, therefore, *in reality* take away the original paradox.



Nothing takes aways the original paradox, because the paradox is found in the first two statements. These statements did not change with the additional premise. One is still false.

But since we are taking about Scripture, you are assuming that any interpretation of Scripture can be false, and that is correct. But we are not taking about 2 or 3 or 4 premises, we are taking about a whole system. Since Scripture does not contain any contradictions, we know that if our systematic understanding of the meaning of Scripture contains a contradiction, something must be wrong with it. That does not automatically tell us what it is, but that we have more work to do. 

In the end, the only way we know the truth is because we have the Holy Spirit to guide us to that truth. We are always, even in matters of reason, dependent on God. 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> The person knows it must be a paradox, his misunderstanding, etc., but the presuppositionalist *knows* (on the basis of Divine revelation, which is a precondition for knowing anything at all) that it *can't* be a contradiction.


No, he knows that contradictions do not exist in Scripture because Scripture is true, and contradiction by definition mean one of two statements are false and the other true. What he knows is that if it appears to be a contradiction - then his understanding is flawed. And he does not believe he understands correctly the Scriptures the he thinks mean X and Y. 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Lastly, Clark didn't *resolve* the *admitted* paradox by consigning it to God's secret will. You *cannot* resolve it because it's God's *secret* will (He's not told us all, yet). Therefore there are paradoxes in Scripture that you *can't* resolve.



No. It means there are things we don't correct understand. The Scriptures themselves do not contain paradoxes - in no shape our form. Only our understanding of Scripture can contain paradoxes. And the ones we think our paradoxes, we don't believe or embrace. We try to determine what the mistake is because we know there must be a mistake in our understanding. We do not embrace what we have determined can not be true - that both statements are true at the same time.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> So, do you reject that God wills and does not will certain things in his secret council? "But how could God will and not will murder." Clark says, "Deut. 29:29"! That's not a resolution, and it's an admission that God wills and not-wills something. Is going to Deut. 29:29, say, fideism?



I think I missed something. Where do you get the idea that God does not will some to commit murder? He declares that it is a sin for us to murder, but that is not the same thing. And this declaration that we sin when we murder, does not preclude God from willing that we commit murder. 

If one says God wills that we obey the law, and God wills that we break the law, this is equivocating on the word will unless you clarify that you are using will in two different ways. One means God commands us not to commit sin. But that is not God's sovereign will. God's will may be different than God's commands. God willed that Judas betray him - but Judas still committed a sin by breaking God's law. He followed God's sovereign will.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_...
> Lastly, resolve the whole "Clark Paradox." That is, man AND God both take "the first" step, when "first" implies, well, the first.
> 
> God "initiated man;s choices *before* man did. man "initated" the choice *after* God di, yet they *both* took the first step. Must be a Det 29:29 thing.



Cake.

There are two different first steps. One is God's when He ""initiated man's choices *before* man did. The other is man's when he "initated" the choice *after* God did." They are both first steps, not the same first step. They have to be different because you said one came "*before*" and the other came "*after*".


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> "God wills X in one sense and wills Y in another."
> 
> Well, of course. That's why it's not a real contradiction. (btw, I was talking now about Clark's definition of "choice" as something *initiating* and *determining* an action. God initated and determined it and so did man. Seems paradoxical).
> 
> But your answer "resolved" nothing.
> 
> If x and y are taught clearly, do you believe, disbelieve, or suspend belief? Sounds like "suspend belief." Thus we see that you'll only believe what your mind can rationalize. Thanks for the admission. I think that is a very important stance for people to see the Clarkians taking.



Of course you must be rationalizing too in order to determine that there is an apparent contradiction to start with. Just to come to that conclusion means you have worked out the logical implications of X and Y and determined that they lead to a contradiction. The only way to say it is an "apparent" contradiction is to claim you don't understand X and Y correctly - because they would not contradict if you did. The only difference with a Clarkian is he admits the implications of "apparent" contradictions, and Vantillians remain irrational by claiming to embrace what he does not.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...
> Hence we can conclude the debate, i think. You've brought up a good point: What do both camps do with the paradoxes:
> 
> VT: Embrace the Bible, embrace the paradox.
> 
> Clark: Approach the scriptures agnistically, until man's finite, fallen, and sinful mind can "resolve" the paradox. Who cares if the resolution is correct or not, as long as we have cognitive rest. (I'll have to flesh this out a bit in my own thinking, but this may be because of Clark's commitment to the coherence theory of truth - which has many, many problems (e.g., contradictory systems can be deemed *equally* rational, etc).
> 
> [Edited on 5-18-2006 by Paul manata]



Ha! Nice try.

VT: Irrationally embraces paradox (self contradicting) at the cost of understanding Scripture and God's truth. Say's he believes X & Y even though it "appears" that they can not both be true.

GC: Rationally rejects paradox - and uses his God given mind to better understand God's Word by God's grace. Does not add to or take away from Scripture, but admits that an unresolved paradox means X or Y is false and both can not be biblical.

.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> "God wills X in one sense and wills Y in another."
> 
> ...
> Seriously, they're not illogical, and I don't see how they have to be. Why, because I know that's it's "in one sense and not another." The problem is, that God has not revealed the different senses. I try to "not go beyond what is written."



The Doctrine of the Trinity is beyond the text.

Here's the thing with using logic and Scripture. What is deducible from true premises is also true (for all times places and people). The WCF speaks of those things that we can know from Scripture by "good and necessary consequences". This is nothing less than logical deduction. Logic is the science of necessary inference. 

And so we are to use our God given ability to work out the implications of the Doctrines we hold, to determine if we have any false beliefs. This means we must go beyond the text in order to understand the text correctly, or at least determine where we do not understand the text. 

It is irrational to hold to an incoherent system, even if a coherent system is possibly false. The difference is that an incoherent system is _certainly_ false.


----------



## Civbert

Paul, 

I'll give you a day to reply. I hit a lot of points and I'm sure you wouldn't want to skip any. Of course, you could just concede defeat. 

Anthony


----------



## Magma2

> I never equivocated.



Of course you did. Let´s review:

You said:



> Clark "escaped" the paradox by denying free will.
> 
> Indeed, his own account seems paradoxical.
> 
> Clark says men are responsible because God says so and who are we to talk back to God.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't find asserting a dogmatic position utterly convincing.
> 
> I mean, men are free because God says so, who are we to argue with God. Anyone can play that game.
> 
> If desire to make the facts fit, no matter what is denied, just so man can have ease in your epistemic life, is your program, I'd say that's rationalism.




Per the above, you affirm that Clark´s denial of free will permits him to escape this never ending paradox of Scripture, which, us regular folk, call a contradiction. Clark´s solution, which, For what it's worth, Robert Reymond repeats in even greater detail and arguably with increasing clarity in his systematic theology, is a repudiation of the notion that a free will, or an undetermined choice, is necessary for a man to be called "œresponsible." Further, implied in your remarks is Clark´s use of Rom. 9:20 to solve this problem that Van Til and his associates tell us has "œbaffled the greatest theologians in history. They assure us; "œ Not even Holy Scripture offers a solution." Read that sentence again Paul. Van Til and Co. deny that even Scripture provides a solution, but Clark, drawing an inference from Scripture (and an argument first raised by Calvin), "œescaped" this Van Tilian so-called "œparadox," much to VT´s chagrin and evidently yours. 

But to continue with your equivocation, you might recall this recent post where you ridicule Clark´s denial of free will:



> "Man has no free will for salvation is of grace and God is sovereign." RRR p.242
> 
> "Man is responsible because God calls him to account; man is responsible because the supreme being can punish him for disobedience." RRR p. 241
> 
> In other news, my dog is morally responsible for pooping on the carpet because I can punish him and I call him to account.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, God is sovereign even over your "in a sense" freeness that man has. God is soveriegn *over all.* So, God determines, plans, foreordains that "in a sense" free actions of man.
> 
> Still tricky.
> 
> Now, if you deny man's freedom (Clark) then you have a tidy resolution, or you can deny God's sovereignty (Arminians) and have a tidy resolution.
> 
> Or, you can hold both, historic Calvinism.



Notice, you poke fun at Clark for denying the notion of free will in salvation and for asserting that responsibility, properly defined, implies an authority to which a response must be given. You say it´s "œstill sticky." First, I never thought I would see a "œReformed" man poke fun at the notion that salvation is of the Lord and even the Lord alone. Second, to make fun of Clark´s biblical solution to the problem of God´s sovereignty and man´s responsibility because it rest on the idea that God is ex-lex and is the Lawgiver, belies a lack of understanding of both Scripture and Clark´s argument. Regardless, it is clear from the above that you are using the term free as it applies to the will differently than it has been understood in historic Calvinism, including the Confession chapter nine which you also cite later on. You evidently forgot that the Confession previously asserts; "œGod from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass . . . ." Therefore, while you may have a choice between A, B, and C, your choice, whatever it may be, has been foreordained from all eternity and you will freely choose what God has sovereignly determined you will. Nothing "œsticky" at all. It cannot be otherwise. Further, if you read and understood Clark, he makes it crystal clear that Arminians do not have a "œtidy solution" at all, but, rather, have no solution at all. 

Consequently, I think it would have been more accurate, and perhaps a bit less self-revelatory, if you said; "œI don´t think I equivocated." 




> Regarding choices, I simply said that to "choose" sin freely (free as in Clark's, Confessions, Williamson's term) implies, well, two or more options, or else how is it a choice?



Well, Clark, the Confession and Williamson agree, while men choose between options, their choice can be no other than what God has pre-determined they will choose. Since Clark´s denial of free will in the sense implied by your remarks cited above (otherwise, your ridicule of Clark makes no sense) is that of the Confession and Williamson, then it would follow that Clark has indeed "œescaped the paradox by denying free will." in my opinion your objection rests on your disbelief that God indeed foreordains "œwhatsoever comes to pass," including the where and when of your dog pooping




> Regarding "power" to choose, well I can't point that out in the confession but, as Clark says, the confession was not meant to be a technical philosophical treatise. Power can be moral or metaphysical (Clark agrees). Man is not morally able to choose but is metaphysically able. So, you'd have to define what you meant here. At any rate, it wasn't my problem but your lack of knowledge on the subject.



Clark´s solution and view of free will is in complete harmony with the Scriptures and the Confession. in my opinion the disharmony is coming from you. Man is never metaphysically independent in any sense from God in any of his choosing; For in Him we live and move and have our being.



> I believe the subsequent posts show the paradox (and even a new paradox in Clark's "answer.") So, sending us to Clark got us involved in more paradox. You can of course *say* that Clark resolved it, just like Jeff says. I, on the other hand, tried to argue for my position. Maybe it's axiomatic that Clark resolved the problem and that's why you think you don't need to argue?




It seems to me that you have (unwittingly) vindicated Clark and revealed deficiencies in your own view of the will, which is another subject altogether. 



> At any rate, make the proper adjustments to your bill.



I already have. But at this point it´s probably smart to ask; will that be Visa, MasterCard, or American Express?


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I never equivocated, though.
> 
> If Clark's position was that of the WCF, et al., then fine.
> 
> At worst I misunderstood Clark.
> 
> At any rate, though, I've still not seen how he "resolves" anything.
> 
> Simply saying man is accountable because God says so, *resolves* nothing. Van Til et al would of course agree with that, but it's trivial.
> 
> I still need to pick up Reymond's text, unfortunately.



Fair enough. I confess when I first read "Determinism and Responsibility" I had to read it over and over before I "got it." I did mention that Reymond does a very good job in making Clark's resolution (harmonization) crystal clear and I highly recommend him on this point. I also recommend you read Reymond on the idea of biblical paradox. While not directly addressed, if you don't see the connection between what Reymond says (he has a chapter on the subject) and the Van Tilian nexus in the current justification controversy, let me know. There will be no charge. 



> So:
> 
> 1) I think my position is clear.
> 
> 2. I didn't see the paradox resolved.
> 
> 3) I've shown Van Til is not "irrational" for holding to his view, even if he's wrong.



But if it is possible that you didn't understand Clark, (3) doesn't follow, or at least it is not warranted. Although I do appreciate your devotion. 



> 4) I've brough up some paradoxes that have not been attempted to be resolved.



And some were semantic. That's not to say that there aren't "full bucket" difficulties in Scripture, but I think Jeff is spot on, Van Tilians will "embrace" these difficulties and this embrace of nonsense is held as a sign of Christian piety. Clarkians will say that ignorance, while no sin, is no virtue either. The problem that I see with Van Til and his most able followers, is that they don't see their "embrace" as the equivalent of ignorance. In my mind this is arrogance.



> 6) I've admitted that God determines the choice man makes, so I've not equivocated.



And I will admit that you have backtracked considerably. While much appreciated, I think you can see by my last post why at least of few of us were led to believe we weren't in agreement on what is meant by a "œfree will."


----------

