# God and Logic



## Bryan

> Logic is neither above God nor arbitrarily decreed by God. Its ultimate basis is in God's eternal nature. God is a rational God and necessarily so. Therefore logic is necessary. Human logical systems don't always reflect God's logic perfectly. But insofar as they do, they are necessarily true.
> 
> -John Frame



I've been discussing this with some Christians recently and it seems I'm in the minority agreeing with the above statment. I don't have an issue saying that God is "bound" by logic becasue I believe it is in his nature to be logical (IE. Following the law of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle). 

But I would like a more learned opinion then my own 
If God wasn't "bound" by logic then He wouldn't be able to make any sense to us; we couldn't know anything about Him, right?

Bryan
SDG


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

"Logic comes from God, not God from logic. But when it comes to how we know things, logic is the basis of all thought, and it must come before any thought about anything, including God. For example, I need a map before I can get to Washington D.C. But Washington D.C. must exist before the map can help me get there. Even so, we use logic first to come to know God, but God exists first before we can know him." As John Gerstner said as he began his series of lectures on theology, "œI start Handout Theology with the "˜mind´ because that is where my known life began. I learned later that other things, persons, and God Himself existed before my mind did, but not to my knowledge." Here we see that logic comes epistemologically before God, but God comes ontologically before logic."
_The Two Wills of God_, pages 27-28.


----------



## Bryan

> What we call logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, if you will.



Thanks Paul, it is good to know that I am understanding what Frame said correctly.

To provide a biblical basis for this idea I use the following:

1. Point to nature. Creation is a reflection of God (although now mared by sin) and as such our thought mirrors the thought of the creator.

2. God does not lie, God is truth and God does not change. For those statments to make any sense God must be logical.

3. God as shown in the bible does not violate logic


Now apparently quantium mechanics doesn't follow the law of non-contridiction (need to do some looking into this one), but I think the second and third points are solid. Have I missed anything? 

Bryan
SDG


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Do you mean God "created" logic?

That would be a contradiction. God would have to use logic to create.


--That depends on if you're talking temporaly? 


Even so, we use logic first to come to know God, but God exists first before we can know him.

I'm talking epitemologically. 

Therefore infants know God. 

Innately, yes. Cogntively, no.


----------



## Laura

What about...God _is_ logic? Can it get any clearer than John's introduction - declaring the Word (reason/logic) to be God? Have I just ?  Here, Clark's essay (which shares a title with this thread - that's what I thought it was about) on this might prove helpful.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I do not think that the good Dr. was on the mark with his "in the beginning was the Logic...." The word _logos_ is quite propery translated "word", and in this case is certainly to be understood as synonymous with Revelation, as in the revelatory Word of God. It is by the means of Revelation (and not by the instrumentality of Logic) that God is known. He condescends to man, and even more to sinful man, to speak to us about himself, to communicate to us that we might know the inner God, the Personality--his character, his holiness, his righteousness, his will, his love. And after all the written Revelation of the OT, in these last days he has SPOKEN to us by his Son (Hebrews 1), the revelatory Word came, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. God revealed himself in the living Word of revelation, not the living Proposition or Sylogism or Conclusion.

It is only by asserting that the Revelation is pure, distilled Rationality, and that every relationship (even human relations) are primarily logical (or illogical) and only covered (or slathered) in emotional butter, that one can then take the step of reading back into the language of John 1 the principle of Logic, and equate the Law of non-contradiction with the eternal Mind: "And God was the Logic." This is simply not how the OT was written or comprehended for 4000 years. Man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word (er, Logic? sorry...) from the mouth of God.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Laura_
> What about...God _is_ logic? Can it get any clearer than John's introduction - declaring the Word (reason/logic) to be God? Have I just ?  Here, Clark's essay (which shares a title with this thread - that's what I thought it was about) on this might prove helpful.



God is personal, whereas most would not define logic to be personal.
Paul and I once discussed (actually, I asked a question and he answered) whether logic could be transcendental. I think the two questions are related.


----------



## crhoades

If God is love...If Jesus is the truth...why can't we say God is logic? As well as God is justice etc. truth is personal, love is personal etc. (Haven't read Clark just seeking clarification).


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> If God is love...If Jesus is the truth...why can't we say God is logic? As well as God is justice etc. truth is personal, love is personal etc. (Haven't read Clark just seeking clarification).



we're both vantillians, so I will fence with you for a moment. Bear with me. I might be asking the wrong questions?

Is logic/love/truth normative? Do they compel one to do such and such? Or does something else provide the preconditions for them to be normative? Just wondering


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> If God is love...If Jesus is the truth...why can't we say God is logic? As well as God is justice etc. truth is personal, love is personal etc. (Haven't read Clark just seeking clarification).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God can be, if you define what you mean. My beef is with Clark's interpretation with John 1. Also, we don't want things like this:
> 
> God is love.
> 
> Love is blind.
> 
> Ray Charles is blind.
> 
> Therefore Ray Charles is God!
> 
> Seriously, R.C. Sproul (whom I don't really enjoy) wrote a book "Loved By God" in which he explains and clarifies what the Bible means by "God is Love." I think it is a good and helpful chapter (Ch 1 or 2, I think) and would apply to your question as well.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the syllogism - I see everything clearly now...

Not sure if I have that one by Sproul... will check it out.

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> Thanks for the syllogism - I see everything clearly now...
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 6-14-2005 by crhoades]



That was funny


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> If God is love...If Jesus is the truth...why can't we say God is logic? As well as God is justice etc. truth is personal, love is personal etc. (Haven't read Clark just seeking clarification).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we're both vantillians, so I will fence with you for a moment. Bear with me. I might be asking the wrong questions?
> 
> Is logic/love/truth normative? Do they compel one to do such and such? Or does something else provide the preconditions for them to be normative? Just wondering
Click to expand...


Don't fence with me...I might pull out a taser...

logic/love/truth normative - yes. Compel one to do such and such - no. (my reasoning - law is also normative and it does not compel either) As far as something else providing the preconditions for them to be normative - from a creature standpoint yes. God in His ontoloical being? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Again, if God is love to say that God is the precondition for love throws us back on the horns of the eurythro's delimma...(I think I got that right...)


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> If God is love...If Jesus is the truth...why can't we say God is logic? As well as God is justice etc. truth is personal, love is personal etc. (Haven't read Clark just seeking clarification).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we're both vantillians, so I will fence with you for a moment. Bear with me. I might be asking the wrong questions?
> 
> Is logic/love/truth normative? Do they compel one to do such and such? Or does something else provide the preconditions for them to be normative? Just wondering
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't fence with me...I might pull out a taser...
> 
> logic/love/truth normative - yes. Compel one to do such and such - no. (my reasoning - law is also normative and it does not compel either) As far as something else providing the preconditions for them to be normative - from a creature standpoint yes. God in His ontoloical being? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Again, if God is love to say that God is the precondition for love throws us back on the horns of the eurythro's delimma...(I think I got that right...)
Click to expand...


I understood everything until now 

1. I see and understand on the normative/compelling dimension.
2. 


> As far as something else providing the preconditions for them to be normative - from a creature standpoint yes. God in His ontoloical being? That's what I'm trying to figure out



Would the Creator-creature distinction help out here?


----------



## crhoades

Paul!!! 

creator/creature distinction was what I was trying to refer to in my inept theological shorthand:bigsmile: From the creatures' standpoint - yes God is the precondition for the creature to have use of and a foundation for truth, love, logic, being etc. 

From the Creator's standpoint - in the Ontological Trinity - are we asking if God is the precondition for logic/truth/love as if they did not exist at some point in time? What does it mean to say that God is Love? Jesus is the Truth? Was there ever a time when they weren't? 

Which drives me back to is God Logic? From my thinking above, yes. Does that attribute exhaust God? Nope. Is this how Clark defines logic and God? I have no idea...

I don't think I just furthered the conversation at all but rather tried to restate my thinking or lack thereof...


----------



## crhoades

Forgive my soup for brains as I'm recovering from a head cold - at least that's my excuse...(could be because I've never studied this....)

Here are three statements - are they all true? Have I equivocated? Would both Van Til and Clark agree to them?

1. Logic is an attribute of God.
2. God is Logic
3. Logic is dependent/contingent on God.

I followed Butler on his treatment of Martin above, but I'm not sure that he was scratching where I'm itching...I know, there's powder for that...


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I do not think that the good Dr. was on the mark with his "in the beginning was the Logic...." The word _logos_ is quite propery translated "word", and in this case is certainly to be understood as synonymous with Revelation, as in the revelatory Word of God. It is by the means of Revelation (and not by the instrumentality of Logic) that God is known. He condescends to man, and even more to sinful man, to speak to us about himself, to communicate to us that we might know the inner God, the Personality--his character, his holiness, his righteousness, his will, his love. And after all the written Revelation of the OT, in these last days he has SPOKEN to us by his Son (Hebrews 1), the revelatory Word came, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. God revealed himself in the living Word of revelation, not the living Proposition or Sylogism or Conclusion.
> 
> It is only by asserting that the Revelation is pure, distilled Rationality, and that every relationship (even human relations) are primarily logical (or illogical) and only covered (or slathered) in emotional butter, that one can then take the step of reading back into the language of John 1 the principle of Logic, and equate the Law of non-contradiction with the eternal Mind: "And God was the Logic." This is simply not how the OT was written or comprehended for 4000 years. Man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word (er, Logic? sorry...) from the mouth of God.



 It is one thing to say that God is logical, it is another to say He is logic in a woodenly literal sense. God is never illogical nor irrational; His nature is to act and think in a completely rational and logical way at all times. But this is completely different from saying that God is logic itself, or logic incarnate. Paul pointed out above that God is love does not mean He is literally love itself. It means that He is the standard of love, the pure example of love, etc. Pertaining to logic, I think Dr. Clark went to an extreme. When I was heavily involved in his books, the more I read them the more it seemed that to Him Christ was nothing more than a series of logical propositions incarnated. In other words, when we look at Christ, we are looking at logic (i.e. a syllogism, a collection of propositions). The problem with this is that we can't conclude anything about Christ unless we know all the propositions about him, because an incomplete syllogism cannot yield to us a logical conclusion. So he leaves us with the false dilemma of having to know everything about Christ to know Him at all, or else we know nothing about Christ at all. It seems to me that Clark in thinking that Van Til completely separated the creator and the creature (instead of distinguishing), swung the other way and confused the creator and the creature in an absolute Idealism or pantheistic way.


----------



## Laura

RAS said:


> It is one thing to say that God is logical, it is another to say He is logic in a woodenly literal sense. God is never illogical nor irrational; His nature is to act and think in a completely rational and logical way at all times. But this is completely different from saying that God is logic itself, or logic incarnate. Paul pointed out above that God is love does not mean He is literally love itself. It means that He is the standard of love, the pure example of love, etc. Pertaining to logic, I think Dr. Clark went to an extreme. When I was heavily involved in his books, the more I read them the more it seemed that to Him Christ was nothing more than a series of logical propositions incarnated. In other words, when we look at Christ, we are looking at logic (i.e. a syllogism, a collection of propositions). The problem with this is that we can't conclude anything about Christ unless we know all the propositions about him, because an incomplete syllogism cannot yield to us a logical conclusion. So he leaves us with the false dilemma of having to know everything about Christ to know Him at all, or else we know nothing about Christ at all. It seems to me that Clark in thinking that Van Til completely separated the creator and the creature (instead of distinguishing), swung the other way and confused the creator and the creature in an absolute Idealism or pantheistic way.



Hmm, I do see your point, and it is helpful. Thanks for writing that out.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I think you have to be careful about saying something such as "God is Logic" in the same way we can't just say "God is Love" and be making a universally understood and accepted, truthful, claim. What Love are we talking about? The Postmodern humanistic view of love? The Biblical view of love? What is love exactly? In the same way, we have to understand what is being meant by the term "Logic" in such a declaration as "God is Logic." Otherwise, we'll be in a heap of trouble and missing the mark (as countless individuals do today in evangelicalism when they claim "God is Love" with no qualifications or explanation...).


----------



## Arch2k

*Maybe I\'m just off my rocker but...*

I see no problem with calling God logic in the same sense that we say God is love. The Bible uses this phrase to describe God does it not? Yet whenever we observe what appears to be love, we don't say "There's God!" 

Christ is called the wisdom and power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:24: ...but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 

1 Corinthians 1:30: But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption. 

God is truth. God is love. 

It's important to note that part of the image of God in man is his reasonable soul.



> WCF Chapter 4
> II. After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female,88 *with reasonable and
> immortal souls,89 endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image;*


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Do you mean God "created" logic?
> 
> That would be a contradiction. God would have to use logic to create.
> 
> 
> --That depends on if you're talking temporaly?
> 
> 
> Even so, we use logic first to come to know God, but God exists first before we can know him.
> 
> I'm talking epitemologically.
> 
> Therefore infants know God.
> 
> Innately, yes. Cogntively, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By epistemologically I'm referring to your highest authority in the realm of knowledge.
> 
> Do infants use logic?
Click to expand...


Innately, the tools are there. Cogntively, no.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Paul,

The Apsotle does not say "all men." Not sure where you got that.

Romans says:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness *of men*, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Romans 1:19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

Romans 1:21 because, although *they* [the "of men"] knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Thus, Paul is speaking about "all ungodliness" and "unrighteousness" of "who?" "of men who supress the truth in unrighteouness".

These are not infants. We do not run to Romans 1 to speak about Psalm 51:7 and being wicked in that manner. Depravity is taught here as a consequence of total depravity, but this is not the same thing.

Infants are not what Paul had in mind in Romans 1.

Paul says, "although they knew God" and hwo is those that know in this case? "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness".

In this context, how do infants do this, or the mentally disabled for that matter.

I think you are mixing ideas together that have no warrant.

These are men who "(Romans 1:22) Professing to be wise, they became fools." Infants do not profess to be wise.

God, to these men, is "clearly seen" and they "understood" certian things about them. Infants are incapable of this unless you know something about infnats that the rest of the world does not know.

Also, these "all men" "changed" the glory of God, and thus God gave them up to "uncleanness" which, as you know, is referring to "unclean relationships."

These men also "leave" the natural use of the body for unnatural.

Then, if this was not enough, Paul says that these men are "(Romans 1:29-32) filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. " 

I know we both agree that they are depraved. So I am unclear, Paul - how do infants or the mentally retarded or disabled: "practice such things"?

Enlighten me. 

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Me Died Blue

Matt, if the general revelation spoken of in passages like Romans 1 cannot be said in any sense to apply to infants and the mentally disabled, how can such people be considered "unexcusable" as spoken of in WCF.I.I (since, as you said, we all of course agree they are depraved)?


----------



## Laura

But neither does the WCF I.I. say anything about *all* men. Its phrasing is "...as to leave men inexcusable."



[Edited on 6-14-2005 by Laura]


----------



## Me Died Blue

If they are not inexcusable without Christ, that would seem to present difficulties for the doctrines of original sin and total depravity.


----------



## Laura

All right, I am just confusing things - I happen to be in this exact section of a book on the WCF right now, so I was trying to apply what I _thought_ I just learned. Now I am confused myself. Hah. I would ask the same question, Chris.


----------



## Me Died Blue

I can completely relate, Laura, both when I was first studying the Confession as well as continuing to study various issues - and thankfully, that's what we're all here for, to edify, learn from, challenge and sharpen each other.


----------



## RamistThomist

If you want "confusing," see Chris Rhoades and me discuss this topic on the last page.


----------



## Laura

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> do infants have an excuse? do the metally disabled have an excuse? Will they be able to say o God, 'well I couldn't exercise logic?" Will they be able to say, 'well my cognitive faculties were not operating normally?'



No, no. I am joining Chris and you in asking Matt how it is that infants and mentally disabled may be seen as excused from the charge of Romans 1:19-20. I am thinking that Matt is talking about _a priori_ equipment...? If knowledge is the basis of responsibility, then we have to say that mentally disabled people must have sufficient innate ideas about God to be held accountable. Is that where we are? 


> _Originally posted by MeDiedBlue_
> I can completely relate, Laura, both when I was first studying the Confession as well as continuing to study various issues - and thankfully, that's what we're all here for, to edify, learn from, challenge and sharpen each other.


Thanks. 



> _Originally posted by DraughtHorse_If you want "confusing," see Chris Rhoades and me discuss this topic on the last page.


 
No, dear, watch me keep trying to contribute to this thread. You will see the word "confusing" redefined (and "confused" epitomized...). :-/

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by Laura]


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> If you want "confusing," see Chris Rhoades and me discuss this topic on the last page.



And I thought we were flashing brilliance!!!  Actually, I'm still scratching my head.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Paul, I definitely not being over rationalistic. I'm trying not to be irrational  with my application of Romans 1. I'm trying to be exegetical. Paul is not addressing infants and the mentally disabled in Romans 1. There are a host of other places that we would rest on Total Depravity and even Christ's own words. That does not mean that the Apostle does not mean sin has universal affects (and that's his point in this opening preface to the letter). Christ says,

John 15:22 "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin."

The Word _itself_ in its spoken form demonstrates that all men are without excuse because of the revelation of God. General revelation has no cognitive affect on a 1 second old conceived / fertilized egg in the womb. BUt we know from Psalm 51 that in "sin my mother conceived me..." 

However, Paul in Romans 1, certainly touching on the universal *fruit * of wickedness, is doing just that - demonstrating the *fruit of wickedness and its consequences*. (Something we all _see_.) Will children who grow up follow in the same footsteps as these Paul is speaking about in the universality and fruit of sin? Certainly. No contention there.

"...asking Matt how it is that infants and mentally disabled may be seen as excused from the charge of Romans 1:19-20."

They are not excused from depravity, but I would wonder how they are *blamed * for not suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness without cognitively doing anything yet. That does not make them without excuse as to depravity, but I can't see how someone who is "not excusable" is not excusable from something they have yet to do?" The Apostle says "they" (wicked men) have done...xyz (the list he gives). Innately, I think total depravity demonstrates very clearly that they will be charged with every offense Adam committed (and he broke every commandment in the sin of the garden that was imputed to "all of us" even infants and the mentally disabled). But again, being without excuse in Romans 1 seems to not focus on the garden (that will be his progression to Romans 5). Rather, right now, he is attesting to the reality of men's fruit and their active oppression of the Gospel by wicked intentions and actions. God, in turn, gives them over to more of their own wickedness.

How does that destroy depravity?

Instead of plunging at once into an exposition of the gospel, Paul launches into a lengthy exposure of the sinfulness of man. This is sound procedure, for until men are persuaded of their lost condition they are not likely to be concerned about deliverance. So Paul undertakes to demonstrate in the human situation a grievous lack of the righteousness God requires.

In Romans 1:19-20 (what everyone seems to be hung up on with the infant) the creation bears clear witness to its Maker, and the evidence is "plain to them." Who are "them?" We have a clue. Here Paul enters upon a discussion of what is designated natural revelation in distinction from the special revelation that comes through the Scriptures. It is a clear testimony set before the eyes of men, as the word "plain" implies. From the use of "understood," the revelation does not stop with perception, but is expected to *include reflection*, the drawing of a conclusion about the Creator. Acquaintance with it in the former area (general revelation) should prepare men to expect it in the latter (special revelation). But they have failed and are left without excuse. Cognitive ability is essential for Paul's argument to hold ANY water. It is characteristic of man in his sinful state that he knows much more truth than he translates into fitting response.

Then in the next couple of verses, despite the knowledge of God conveyed to them through the creation (and something they have pondered - I wonder how infants do this?), men failed to act on it. (Again, something infants cannot yet cognitively do in exercising knowledge). They "neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him." 

Then the phrase "God gave them over" becomes a refrain. The same expression is what God does to men in the OT when they are idolatrous and worship other gods openly.

Then, after those verses, Paul talk about human relationships. I'm really at a loss as how infants are capable of this.

Remember now, at no point am I saying, in ANY way (and you should know me better) that infants are not without excuse. Rather, I'd just use some better exegetical passages to prove that point.

One asked, "I am thinking that Matt is talking about a priori equipment...? If knowledge is the basis of responsibility, then we have to say that mentally disabled people must have sufficient innate ideas about God to be held accountable. "

Exactly. Innately, and by imputed sin, they are already without excuse. There is NOTHING they need to further "do" to be further "without excuse." It seems that Paul (not the Apostle) is trying to say that infants actively and cognitively hate God by employing in a host of ways what the Apostle says is done by men in wickedness. Is that right Paul?

Paul, you asked, "Do infants have an excuse?" 

About what in particular? Are you asking me if they have committed adultery? Or slept with another of their own gender? Worshiped four footed animals? At what point did they actively exercise covetousness? What exactly do you mean when you say "without excuse"? Is it the same as what the Apostle listed in Romans 1?

If you want to talk about something be "irrational" - sin itself is irrational once one begins to understand that 1) there is a Maker that will judge them, and 2) they read the Scriptures that demonstrate this apart, even, from general revelation.

Help us all, though, Paul, how are infants plugged into this passage cognitively? 

Chris - 

"Matt, if the general revelation spoken of in passages like Romans 1 cannot be said in any sense to apply to infants and the mentally disabled, how can such people be considered "unexcusable" as spoken of in WCF.I.I (since, as you said, we all of course agree they are depraved)? "

They are inexcusable in Adam. Then they grow up and are condemned and jugded for his imputed sin and then thier actual sin upon pain of death. Does that not make sense?

That is why WCF 33:1 says:

I. God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ [1], to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father.[2] In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged.[3] but likewise all persons that have *lived* upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive _according to what they have done in the body_, whether good or evil.[4]

1. Acts 17:31
2. John 5:22, 27
3. Jude 1:6; II Peter 2:4
4. II Cor. 5:10; Eccl. 12:14; Rom. 2:16; 14:10, 12; Matt. 12:36-37


[Edited on 6-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## turmeric

Romans 9 may have the answer. Jacob & Esau having done nothing either good or bad, God hated one & loved the other. Both were born in sin and deserved nothing from God but wrath.

[Edited on 6-15-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> "...asking Matt how it is that infants and mentally disabled may be seen as excused from the charge of Romans 1:19-20."
> 
> They are not excused from depravity, but I would wonder how they are *blamed * for not suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness without cognitively doing anything yet. That does not make them without excuse as to depravity, but I can't see how someone who is "not excusable" is not excusable from something they have yet to do?" The Apostle says "they" (wicked men) have done...xyz (the list he gives). Innately, I think total depravity demonstrates very clearly that they will be charged with every offense Adam committed (and he broke every commandment in the sin of the garden that was imputed to "all of us" even infants and the mentally disabled). But again, being without excuse in Romans 1 seems to not focus on the garden (that will be his progression to Romans 5). Rather, right now, he is attesting to the reality of men's fruit and their active oppression of the Gospel by wicked intentions and actions. God, in turn, gives them over to more of their own wickedness.



I see Psalm 58:3 as very relevant to this issue: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies." How would you interpret that? Augustine, in _City of God_, described the cognitive nature of infants' depravity and unexcusability by appealing to examples such as selfishness and greed being some of the earliest observable sins of infants, such as wanting to take the food and drink themselves rather than leaving it for the other infant next to them. While they of course do not realize the full implications of their actions, they nonetheless reveal the presence of _cognitive_ greed and selfishness in their hearts and minds. And I see that perspective as supported by Psalm 58:3.



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Chris -
> 
> "Matt, if the general revelation spoken of in passages like Romans 1 cannot be said in any sense to apply to infants and the mentally disabled, how can such people be considered "unexcusable" as spoken of in WCF.I.I (since, as you said, we all of course agree they are depraved)? "
> 
> They are inexcusable in Adam. Then they grow up and are condemned and jugded for his imputed sin and then thier actual sin upon pain of death. Does that not make sense?



I understand and fully agree that imputed sin in Adam is wholly _sufficient_ to render all persons unexcusable (and it is indeed that imputed sin of an a priori nature that is spoken of in Psalm 51:5, "in sin did my mother conceive me"). What I am also saying, however, is that it seems that cognitive sin is likewise presented by Scripture as being an _immediate_ and _universal_ fruit of that imputed sin, thus necessarily including all infants in every state. In addition to seeing support for that view in Psalm 58:3, I also see confessional corroboration for it in the fact that the Westminster divines felt comfortable listing "the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence" as all being things that render men unexcusable, without reservation or elaboration.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Matt, I deny your unsupported prmise that general Revelation is mediate.
> 
> The wrath is revealed against *all* ungodliness. Do you assume all infants are Godly? This then ties into the knowledge and supression.



I concur with your assessment that since infants are ungodly, they are witnessed against by the very fact of thier own creation (general revelation) as well as every other form of God's omnipotent power. But they are not going to know that until later. And that is my point.

Creation's witness of God's power is just that - a witness of God's power whether someone cognitively affirms that or not (that's immaterial). so judgment is already set against them. But as Paul discussed in Romans 1, it is the outward fruit of universal sin that he is attacking, and that men surpress. 

Again, round and round, show me *how infants* do that.

That does not deny depravity, nor does it deny their inexcusablness (which is both demosntrated in the long typed out post above, but again, its not exegetically tenable to assume Paul is talking about infnats and those non-cognitive in Romans 1).

Its OK that you don't agree, just enlighten me, please, so we don't keep rambling the same things over and over HOW infants do this. Don't beat around the bush on answering that question - get to the point. So far, all I've seen is that your point is 1) infants are part of "all men" (where Romans doe snot address "all men" but "they" and "those" surrounding the fruits of wickedness. And 2) that general revelation is not mediate, which I agree. So, explain: HOW infants do this. Otherwise this is going nowhere fast. And please don't ask STUPID questions: i.e. "Do you assume all infants are Godly?"  Either, 1) You didn't REALLY read through what I posted when I talked about depravity and inexcusablness, 2) You're just being a smart-alick (I'm voting for the typical Paul M. #2). Let me play the game too: You're not really a smart-alick are you Paul? 


[Edited on 6-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Romans 9 may have the answer. Jacob & Esau having done nothing either good or bad, God hated one & loved the other. Both were born in sin and deserved nothing from God but wrath.



That is definitely relevant to the issue of universal responsibility and unexcusability _in Adam_, on which we all agree. But the issue at hand here seems to be the _cognitive_ fruit of that imputed sin, and whether or not it exists in infants.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Matt, babies do lie. Ask any mother here.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> "...asking Matt how it is that infants and mentally disabled may be seen as excused from the charge of Romans 1:19-20."
> 
> They are not excused from depravity, but I would wonder how they are *blamed * for not suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness without cognitively doing anything yet. That does not make them without excuse as to depravity, but I can't see how someone who is "not excusable" is not excusable from something they have yet to do?" The Apostle says "they" (wicked men) have done...xyz (the list he gives). Innately, I think total depravity demonstrates very clearly that they will be charged with every offense Adam committed (and he broke every commandment in the sin of the garden that was imputed to "all of us" even infants and the mentally disabled). But again, being without excuse in Romans 1 seems to not focus on the garden (that will be his progression to Romans 5). Rather, right now, he is attesting to the reality of men's fruit and their active oppression of the Gospel by wicked intentions and actions. God, in turn, gives them over to more of their own wickedness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see Psalm 58:3 as very relevant to this issue: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies." How would you interpret that? Augustine, in _City of God_, described the cognitive nature of infants' depravity and unexcusability by appealing to examples such as selfishness and greed being some of the earliest observable sins of infants, such as wanting to take the food and drink themselves rather than leaving it for the other infant next to them. While they of course do not realize the full implications of their actions, they nonetheless reveal the presence of _cognitive_ greed and selfishness in their hearts and minds. And I see that perspective as supported by Psalm 58:3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Chris -
> 
> "Matt, if the general revelation spoken of in passages like Romans 1 cannot be said in any sense to apply to infants and the mentally disabled, how can such people be considered "unexcusable" as spoken of in WCF.I.I (since, as you said, we all of course agree they are depraved)? "
> 
> They are inexcusable in Adam. Then they grow up and are condemned and jugded for his imputed sin and then thier actual sin upon pain of death. Does that not make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand and fully agree that imputed sin in Adam is wholly _sufficient_ to render all persons unexcusable (and it is indeed that imputed sin of an a priori nature that is spoken of in Psalm 51:5, "in sin did my mother conceive me"). What I am also saying, however, is that it seems that cognitive sin is likewise presented by Scripture as being an _immediate_ and _universal_ fruit of that imputed sin, thus necessarily including all infants in every state. In addition to seeing support for that view in Psalm 58:3, I also see confessional corroboration for it in the fact that the Westminster divines felt comfortable listing "the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence" as all being things that render men unexcusable, without reservation or elaboration.
Click to expand...


Chris, I am right there with you. Don't misunderstand me. Just think through this a bit more.

Answer this question: what baby have you seen that came out of the womb speaking lies (LITERALLY?) Or does the psalmist (Hebrew Poertry) have something different in mind?

In other words, does God have feathers because the Psalmist says "Under your wings I find refuge?"

Patrick,

I agree, babies lie. But not literally the moment thay are concived, or the moment, even, that they are born into the doc's hands. I think the Psalmist has something a bit more in mind.

Rememnber, NEVER surrender your "bible logic" (i.e. let the text speak for itself) to the law of non contradiction. That is why I wrote a 550 page book on the subject (Two Wills). Lots of people have a tough time reconciling "babies speaking lies" and taking that literally, but I'd bet you're not going to take the "God has feathers" bit literally eh?

EXEGESIS please!

Unless of course you mean the littel tike on thw Quiznos commercials! Now that I could buy!

[Edited on 6-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Matt, God having feathers is clearly an anthropomorphic expression. It's not intended to be taken literally. But all babies do speak lies. You said that yourself. The very fact that they are conceived in sin with a disposition to hate God supports a "literal" understanding of the psalmist. How else are we to understand the psalmist? And where do you get this notion that infants don't think? It almost sounds like you are speaking more from a psychological rather than a biblical point of view?


----------



## Me Died Blue

Of course they don't literally formulate the words so as to "speak" the lies, but they don't need to in order for Psalm 58:3 to prove the point of _cognitive sin_ in them - as Patrick implied above, there are of course different "levels" of literality in interpretation. And if that passage is not at least taken to be literal in terms of it speaking of the existence of _real, direct acts_ of sin on the part of the infant--especially in light of the fact that even most of adults' own sins are _mentally_ committed as well, as Jesus pointed to in Matthew 5:22, 28--how is it to be taken?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Again, round and round, show me *how infants* do that.



They can commit sin with the possession of greed and impatience. Getting upset when mom doesn't bring the bottle _right away!_ Or even something like a disregard for those around them shortly after they are born in the hospital, scratching or biting someone around them because it is their instinct and gives them comfort. Augustine gave examples such as that in _City of God_ to illustrate the existence of cognitive sin on the part of infants. Do they understand the implications of their thoughts and actions as fully as we do? No, but they don't need to in order to render them willingly sinful nonetheless - just as we do not have to either, in fact. I can have an essentially instant reaction of envy or resentment to something someone says without even thinking about it first - but that does not mean that I haven't sinned in that reaction, even though it was instantaneous and without pre-meditated thought. And that is because it is still a real, voluntary act I committed, and it reveals what was in my heart that was sinful. So it is with the mental, nearly instantaneous selfish thoughts and actions of infants.

Just for clarification, I don't see this philosophical illustration as _necessary_ to prove the existence of cognitive sin on the part of infants, since exegesis is sufficient to show that biblical. But since you asked for a "how" answer, I thought it might help clarify how it can be thought about conceptually.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Infants are subject, obviously, to sense experience. If they get slapped they cry. OK. 

I'm looking for the "How do they speak lies," literally. What do they do in "speaking" lies. Is that not metaphorical at least in the application? They have ALL the qualities of speaking lies in thier depraved wicked hearts. Practically, how do they look at creation, supress the truth (because its plain to them) and then go off fornicating, or partaking in sexual immorality (Romans 1). There is a differecne between the anlogical expressions given on subjects like these (knowing that n infants cannot SPEAK at all) and the meaning behind the verse. We know God has feathers. Why? Becuase Patrick says its anthropological? No, because of exegesis. So what about infants that SPEAK? Metaphorical or not?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Again, round and round, show me *how infants* do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can commit sin with the possession of greed and impatience. Getting upset when mom doesn't bring the bottle _right away!_ Or even something like a disregard for those around them shortly after they are born in the hospital, scratching or biting someone around them because it is their instinct and gives them comfort. Augustine gave examples such as that in _City of God_ to illustrate the existence of cognitive sin on the part of infants. Do they understand the implications of their thoughts and actions as fully as we do? No, but they don't need to in order to render them willingly sinful nonetheless - just as we do not have to either, in fact. I can have an essentially instant reaction of envy or resentment to something someone says without even thinking about it first - but that does not mean that I haven't sinned in that reaction, even though it was instantaneous and without pre-meditated thought. And that is because it is still a real, voluntary act I committed, and it reveals what was in my heart that was sinful. So it is with the mental, nearly instantaneous selfish thoughts and actions of infants.
> 
> Just for clarification, I don't see this philosophical illustration as _necessary_ to prove the existence of cognitive sin on the part of infants, since exegesis is sufficient to show that biblical. But since you asked for a "how" answer, I thought it might help clarify how it can be thought about conceptually.
Click to expand...


I agree. No contention there at all. The fruit of thier depravity will manifest itslef ultiamtely. But as you said, they will understand it s depth as they grow and mature. In other words, when mommy does not bring the bottle right away to, say, a 1 week old, do you scold the baby or not? Why wouldn't you scold the baby? If you are saying they are aware of it (and they are at a certain level) why then, wouldn't you EXPLAIN it to them? or would you?



[Edited on 6-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Infants are subject, obviously, to sense experience. If they get slapped they cry. OK.
> 
> I'm looking for the "How do they speak lies," literally. What do they do in "speaking" lies. Is that not metaphorical at least in the application? They have ALL the qualities of speaking lies in thier depraved wicked hearts. Practically, how do they look at creation, supress the truth (because its plain to them) and then go off fornicating, or partaking in sexual immorality (Romans 1). There is a differecne between the anlogical expressions given on subjects like these (knowing that n infants cannot SPEAK at all) and the meaning behind the verse. We know God has feathers. Why? Becuase Patrick says its anthropological? No, because of exegesis. So what about infants that SPEAK? Metaphorical or not?



They cry when they need not. Their manipulative. They are greedy and selfish. Augustine's observations I think are spot on in this regard. Just because they do not lie in a language you understand, doesn't mean they don't lie yet. Its in their actions.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I agree, that their depravity demonstrates fruit. 
But this thread was on logic, and then it morphed in how infants, under "all men" as PM said, suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Help me: how do infants, in any language, suppress the truth in unrighteousness? Remember, this is a positive action according to the Apostle. As a result of this positive action, and its continued suppression, God "gives them over" to thier sin. According to the Apostle, this is recordable (see his list) based on general revelation which is reflected upon so that the one reflecting knows that God's power is present in creation.

Can someone explain how infants, in any language, do this?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Help me: how do infants, in any language, suppress the truth in unrighteousness? Remember, this is a positive action according to the Apostle. As a result of this positive action, and its continued suppression, God "gives them over" to thier sin.



The truth of God and His character is revealed by general revelation both in external nature and providence as well as in internal hearts, and God's Law is a perfect expression of His character. So if infants inherently know God in His existence and character--for example, knowing His wisdom by the splendor of creation around them, or knowing His attribute of judgment through the feeling of any suffering or discontentment, even if they cannot express either in a human language--then by committing sins such as those Patrick mentioned above, they are suppressing the truth that God's character and Laws are perfect, since violating them is making the claim that there is a better way to live, namely, the way they choose to live each time they violate them. Thus, they call God a liar in those acts, since He says they are not the best way to live.

(An important point in all of this is that infants do not have to express things in an official human language to understand and decide them. One example that comes to mind is my high-school science teacher, who has a Downs-syndrome girl as his oldest child, and he told us that his younger boy learned to speak her language before he learned to speak English. Before the boy spoke English, they could tell he was communicating with the girl, and later when he could speak beginning English, he was able to communicate to the parents what the girl was saying or wanting when the parents had no idea.)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Chris - I agree completely.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I would also add, that Paul's list of sins there in Romans 1 is not exhaustive. Gentiles are guilty of other sin as well as a result of their suppressing the truth. He just uses the most obvious perversions to prove his point.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I agree again!

(Two in a row!)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Paul, of course, just make a notation that for the mentally disabled and the infants, they do this in a different capacity than we do with reflecting on nature, contemplation through propositional truth, etc. That, again was my initial point.

[Edited on 6-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Is there any aspect of revelation (general or special) not communicated through the Logos?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Alright. Let's let the topic get back on track.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

From what we have discussed, yes, infants and the mentally retarded know God. (Since no one else popped in, I thought I'd state the obvious. I know you like it when _people state the obvious_.)

You said: "Well, the soulution is to point out that this is a false dilemma, as Frame does above and that is the point and context of your quote. God *is* logical. It is His nature. What we call logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, if you will."

Okay we are good with that. 

How about "God *is* logic."

How shoudl Christians define logic? and then How should logic, then, be related to God to make "God is logic" a true statement with no fuzzies?



[Edited on 6-17-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Arch2k

Noah Webster gets my vote.

Logic
LOG'IC, n. [L. id; Gr. from reason, to speak.]

The art of thinking and reasoning justly.

Logic is the art of using reason well in our inquiries after truth, and the communication of it to others.

Logic may be defined, the science or history of the human mind, as it traces the progress of our knowledge from our first conceptions through their different combinations, and the numerous deductions that result from comparing them with one another.

Correct reasoning implies correct thinking and legitimate inferences from premises, which are principles assumed or admitted to be just. Logic then includes the art of thinking, as well as the art of reasoning.

The purpose of logic is to direct the intellectual powers in the investigation of truth, and in the communication of it to others.


----------



## Arch2k

Paul:

Does 2+2=4 for God?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> Okay, just so we're clear, since you said that you can only know God with logic are you now recanting?



No, its just that we don't need to get into how infants are in fact logical in thier responses or in thier innate knoweldge. Instead, let's keep the tread on tract.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> I think this will make this my 39th time discussing this worn-out Nashian critique.



But you have to *satisfactorily * explain it. Not "just explain it."

Paul, the reason Jeff said what he said, is because the way you are expressing yourself is going to lead you to skepticism if your honest. Which is really what Van Tillian Presuppositionism is going to lead to, unless of course you don't mean what you just said.

"But we also have "human logic." 

This is not really a helpful way of saying anything. God's logic and my logic about the equation is the same on my level. 

You answered Jeff by saying "yes" they are the same, but then said there is a difference between what God knows and what I know. 

If 2 + 2 = 4 is true for me and God, then on a human level, so far as I am not contradicting myself, its is true for God to that degree. As God's knowledge is more quantitatively and quantitatively more accurate than mine, that does not mean on my level that the equation equaling "4" is not 4 for God. Its 4 for me and God in the same sense, logically speaking. Otherwise you wind up a skeptic.

"This logic tries to represent, on a creaturly level, the coherence in God's mind. But we can't equate the two since we have waring systems of logic..."

If you can't equate the two, then how do you know what God's logic is like, or if you have any truth whatsoever? Than you have to be a skeptic about what you believe concerning God because you might be wrong. (And we've gone round and round on this too.)

"So, we want to do justice to all the diversity and make sure we don't equate Human logic with saying God is logic since human logic changes and often contradicts itself via differing methods and axioms."

There is no diversity if 2 + 2 = 4 on my level for me and God. If I ask, "What about when human logic is non-contradictory - is God's logic the same?" The answer is yes. So there is no skepticism and no differecne to the quality or quantity of my logic and God's at that level.

Otherwise, you will remain in a contradition.

So how can you answer Jeff with a "yes"?

[Edited on 6-17-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Apologist4Him

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Jeff,
> 
> I think everyone agrees with saying it is okay to say that God is logic. The point is in how you define it and what you eman by it.



Hello Paul,

I havn't read through this thread entirely, so this may have already been mentioned. The phrase "God is love" can easily be taken out of context. In the biblical context, John is making a distinction between those who love (know God) and those who do not love (do not know God). We know there are different types of love, and it can easily be argued that John did not have human love in mind, John has the kind of love Jesus mentioned in Matthew 5:43-48 in mind, John has godly love in mind. God is love is a way of saying "true love comes from God, everyone who knows true love, knows God". So, it can be said "God is logic", in the sense that "true logic comes from the perfect mind of God." I don't think we can say the phrases in exactly the same sense (people can know the law of non-contradiction without knowing God in the sense John is talking about), but nearly the same sense. However the phrase "God is logic" may be a good backdoor approach to the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.


----------



## Arch2k

Under the Clarkian point of view, "existential import" seems to be a mute point. After all, what is "existence"?

1) Do unicorns exist? Yes. They are an imaginary horse with a horn on its head.

2) Do dreams exist? Yes. I have them quite often.

The question is not "Does A or B exist?" but "What IS IT?" Is it imaginary? Is it physical? Is it round? 

It seems under a presuppositional standpoint, all members in a premise or conclusion would exist as SOMETHING.

Thoughts?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> Where did I disagree? If you're talking about knowledge of an object then it is the same for us in the same sense. If your talking about knowing as then it's not in the same sense since God knows as Creator and I know as creature. So, a bit of precision would help, otherwise we end up talking past each other



Okay, very good. I agree. We both understand the nature of an object, on our sense, the same way.

How, then, do you distinguish your Aristotle / Frege distinction? Trying to be clear: If God knows what I know about the apple, but I disagree with Frege, does God disagree with Frege?

Or maybe another way of saying it, is logic (order in communication, i.e. God is a god of order even in communication) involved in knowing at any level?

By the way, I always enjoy your ranting.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Jeff,
> 
> I think everyone agrees with saying it is okay to say that God is logic. The point is in how you define it and what you eman by it.



I don't agree with it.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Jeff,
> 
> I think everyone agrees with saying it is okay to say that God is logic. The point is in how you define it and what you eman by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with it.
Click to expand...


Care to elaborate?


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I disagree? If you're talking about knowledge of an object then it is the same for us in the same sense. If your talking about knowing as then it's not in the same sense since God knows as Creator and I know as creature. So, a bit of precision would help, otherwise we end up talking past each other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, very good. I agree. We both understand the nature of an object, on our sense, the same way.
> 
> How, then, do you distinguish your Aristotle / Frege distinction? Trying to be clear: If God knows what I know about the apple, but I disagree with Frege, does God disagree with Frege?
> 
> Or maybe another way of saying it, is logic (order in communication, i.e. God is a god of order even in communication) involved in knowing at any level?
> 
> By the way, I always enjoy your ranting.
Click to expand...


Or even more simply, do Aristotle and Frege contradict each other? Then there is a higher system by which we these two "systems". We're not judging systems of logic, but rather Aristotle's thinking vs. Frege's thinking. Whether the one or the other or neither is logical is another matter.


----------



## Arch2k

Logical arguments are used throughout the scriptures. Are these Aristotle's form or Frege's or neither or both?

These arguments at least define what logic is an attribute of God.

[Edited on 6-17-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Jeff,
> 
> I think everyone agrees with saying it is okay to say that God is logic. The point is in how you define it and what you eman by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

Nope! But I likely will. 

The accepted and confessed attributes of God we find in the Confessions. Though the Belgic Confession is more limited in the terms used to list them, yet is more complete in that it begins with, "...only one God, who is a simple and spiritual Being; He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of good. (sorry, I carried on right to the end of the article. )

I would rather say that man is not logical, and leave it at that, rather than to seem anthropomorphic and say that God is logic. I would agree that God is very truth itself, and that logic is based on God. But to say that God is logic is, after all, saying nothing. All it does is remove us from knowledge of what logic then is, since we are a fallen race. When I look at the stringent demands of pure logic, then I know what a fool I am, and get a glimpse of how excellent in wisdom God is.

I didn't mean to jump in, Jeff, because I don't have the time to get deeply into the discussion. But I'm reading along somewhat, with interest.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Logical arguments are used throughout the scriptures. Are these Aristotle's form or Frege's or neither or both?
> 
> These arguments at least define what logic is an attribute of God.
> 
> [Edited on 6-17-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]



It would be better to ask whether Aristotle's or Frege's logic are logical, or Biblical. Logic is a way of handling truth, and truth is an attribute of God. I think I misled you when I quoted the whole article from the BC. I meant to point out that God is a simple Being, in which, for Him, it is not one thing to be one and another to be another (referring to the attributes. ) Thus to say that God is logical is to make logic a basic, which it is not. For it is the relationship between truth for those who struggle with that. God does not struggle with that. He sets the relationships, He does not discover them with His thinking. Truth is basic, and logic springs from that. So to say that God is truth is right, but to say that God is logic is not. 

It is not possible for God not to be logical, but that is because whatever He says is true, and therefore logic conforms to that. 

Or, you could put it this way: logic is a tool of thought. We need that tool, but God does not. Does this mean that God is not logical? Not at all. God could not be otherwise. But that is because logic is subservient to Him, while we must be subservient to logic. 

Still, the point is that God is a simple Being. Therefore I would not agree with the statement that God is logic.

[Edited on 6-17-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I disagree? If you're talking about knowledge of an object then it is the same for us in the same sense. If your talking about knowing as then it's not in the same sense since God knows as Creator and I know as creature. So, a bit of precision would help, otherwise we end up talking past each other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, very good. I agree. We both understand the nature of an object, on our sense, the same way.
> 
> How, then, do you distinguish your Aristotle / Frege distinction? Trying to be clear: If God knows what I know about the apple, but I disagree with Frege, does God disagree with Frege?
> 
> Or maybe another way of saying it, is logic (order in communication, i.e. God is a god of order even in communication) involved in knowing at any level?
> 
> By the way, I always enjoy your ranting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to be a pain, Matt, but I asked you questions....
Click to expand...


I know you did.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I disagree? If you're talking about knowledge of an object then it is the same for us in the same sense. If your talking about knowing as then it's not in the same sense since God knows as Creator and I know as creature. So, a bit of precision would help, otherwise we end up talking past each other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, very good. I agree. We both understand the nature of an object, on our sense, the same way.
> 
> How, then, do you distinguish your Aristotle / Frege distinction? Trying to be clear: If God knows what I know about the apple, but I disagree with Frege, does God disagree with Frege?
> 
> Or maybe another way of saying it, is logic (order in communication, i.e. God is a god of order even in communication) involved in knowing at any level?
> 
> By the way, I always enjoy your ranting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to be a pain, Matt, but I asked you questions....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well that's not very fair, making me answer all the questions while you get to escape unscathed
Click to expand...


And who said life was fair? 

"In the world you will have tribulation."


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> The accepted and confessed attributes of God we find in the Confessions. Though the Belgic Confession is more limited in the terms used to list them, yet is more complete in that it begins with, "...only one God, who is a simple and spiritual Being; He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of good. (sorry, I carried on right to the end of the article. )



Would you say that God is infinitely wise? Would this include logic (i.e. knowing how his plan is to logically work to accomplish his end)? God is these terms, yes, but he is also a combination of each term (i.e. perfectly good, eternally just etc. etc.). 

Also, would you say that part of the image of God in man is logic?



> WCF
> 4:2 After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female (Gen_1:27), *with reasonable and immortal souls* (Gen_2:7; Ecc_12:7; Mat_10:28; Luk_23:43), endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, *after His own image*(Gen_1:26; Eph_4:24; Col_3:10);





> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I would rather say that man is not logical, and leave it at that, rather than to seem anthropomorphic and say that God is logic. I would agree that God is very truth itself, and that logic is based on God. But to say that God is logic is, after all, saying nothing. All it does is remove us from knowledge of what logic then is, since we are a fallen race. When I look at the stringent demands of pure logic, then I know what a fool I am, and get a glimpse of how excellent in wisdom God is.



I'm not sure that I understand this paragraph. First, it seems that you belittle logic in God by saying it seems "anthropomorphic." But how is it so? We wouldn't say because man is wise and God is wise that to call God wisdom would be anthropomorphic would we? As stated in the WCF, it seems to speak of logic as a part of the _imago dei_.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> It would be better to ask whether Aristotle's or Frege's logic are logical, or Biblical. Logic is a way of handling truth, and truth is an attribute of God. I think I misled you when I quoted the whole article from the BC. I meant to point out that God is a simple Being, in which, for Him, it is not one thing to be one and another to be another (referring to the attributes. ) Thus to say that God is logical is to make logic a basic, which it is not. For it is the relationship between truth for those who struggle with that. God does not struggle with that. He sets the relationships, He does not discover them with His thinking. Truth is basic, and logic springs from that. So to say that God is truth is right, but to say that God is logic is not.



Only propositions can be true or false, yes? Is logic a proposition? It surely can be made into a proposition, for example:

If P, then Q
P
therefore Q.

This argument is true. This form of logic flows from truth. But can we say that God is not properly called logic because it is not as you say "basic"?

God is love. Is love a "basic" attribute of God? It is certainly an anthropopathism, yet God is defined by it. 



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> It is not possible for God not to be logical, but that is because whatever He says is true, and therefore logic conforms to that.



Are you suggesting that logic is simply an effect of God thinking true propositions? In what order does he think them? Does truth (taken by itself) have order to it? 



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Or, you could put it this way: logic is a tool of thought. We need that tool, but God does not. Does this mean that God is not logical? Not at all. God could not be otherwise. But that is because logic is subservient to Him, while we must be subservient to logic.



God needs nothing _outside himself._ I do not understand how God could not be otherwise (than logical) and yet this logic does not properly define God (as much as "God is love").


----------



## JohnV

Jeff:

Let me take these one at a time. 



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> The accepted and confessed attributes of God we find in the Confessions. Though the Belgic Confession is more limited in the terms used to list them, yet is more complete in that it begins with, "...only one God, who is a simple and spiritual Being; He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of good. (sorry, I carried on right to the end of the article. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that God is infinitely wise? Would this include logic (i.e. knowing how his plan is to logically work to accomplish his end)? God is these terms, yes, but he is also a combination of each term (i.e. perfectly good, eternally just etc. etc.).
> 
> Also, would you say that part of the image of God in man is logic?
Click to expand...


I think it is irreverent to put logic behind God, so to speak, as if God needed to conform to something. Everything that God does it true, good, righteous, and with full knowledge. To combine them is an anthropomorphism, for in God it is not one thing to be true, and another to be righteous, as if he could be good without being righteous; for God it is not one thing to be righteous, and another to be full of all knowledge, as if He could be righteous without being full of all knowledge. And you could put them in any order you like: it is not one thing for God to be the one, and not the other, as if He could be one without the other. That is what we mean by "a simple and spiritual Being." So the distinction I am making is that God is behind logic; and that I am unwilling to state in terms that would seem to put logic behind God. Whatever is behind is greater; whatever is last is God.



> WCF
> 4:2 After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female (Gen_1:27), *with reasonable and immortal souls* (Gen_2:7; Ecc_12:7; Mat_10:28; Luk_23:43), endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, *after His own image*(Gen_1:26; Eph_4:24; Col_3:10);
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I would rather say that man is not logical, and leave it at that, rather than to seem anthropomorphic and say that God is logic. I would agree that God is very truth itself, and that logic is based on God. But to say that God is logic is, after all, saying nothing. All it does is remove us from knowledge of what logic then is, since we are a fallen race. When I look at the stringent demands of pure logic, then I know what a fool I am, and get a glimpse of how excellent in wisdom God is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that I understand this paragraph. First, it seems that you belittle logic in God by saying it seems "anthropomorphic." But how is it so? We wouldn't say because man is wise and God is wise that to call God wisdom would be anthropomorphic would we? As stated in the WCF, it seems to speak of logic as a part of the _imago dei_.
Click to expand...


I do not belittle logic. In fact, I have elevated it. Logic expresses the attributes of knowledge, righteousness and holiness, it does not replace them. Logic is an elevation of true knowledge, true righteousness, and true holiness, for it is there to lead us to betterment in each of these. I hold these attributes themselves as being the image of God in us, and that logic is one of the faculties we use to display them. 

But perhaps, Jeff, we're using the term 'logic' in different ways. Let's go on to the second reply:


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> It would be better to ask whether Aristotle's or Frege's logic are logical, or Biblical. Logic is a way of handling truth, and truth is an attribute of God. I think I misled you when I quoted the whole article from the BC. I meant to point out that God is a simple Being, in which, for Him, it is not one thing to be one and another to be another (referring to the attributes. ) Thus to say that God is logical is to make logic a basic, which it is not. For it is the relationship between truth for those who struggle with that. God does not struggle with that. He sets the relationships, He does not discover them with His thinking. Truth is basic, and logic springs from that. So to say that God is truth is right, but to say that God is logic is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only propositions can be true or false, yes? Is logic a proposition? It surely can be made into a proposition, for example:
> 
> If P, then Q
> P
> therefore Q.
> 
> This argument is true. This form of logic flows from truth. But can we say that God is not properly called logic because it is not as you say "basic"?
> 
> God is love. Is love a "basic" attribute of God? It is certainly an anthropopathism, yet God is defined by it.
Click to expand...

A proposition is a statement, a sentence or phrase that says something about something, to put perhaps too simply. As such, it is either true or false. Usually (actually, all the time, if you think about it) a proposition is a result of a logical motion. It is the conclusion resulting from putting two or more propositions together in order to form the proposition under consideration. In other words, every proposistion can be reasoned backwords, if you will, to other propositions. But a proposition is not logic all by itself. It suggests it, it implies it, but is not logic itself. 

Without truth, logic is a nonsense word, so truth is more basic than logic. God is more basic than logic. Logic is possible because God is inexaustible truth, which makes logic possible. It could as easily be said that logic is not necessary for God, since He is truth. Whatever He says, whatever He thinks, it is true. I would indeed be perfectly logical, but not because God conformed to logic. Truth is not more basic than God. 



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> It is not possible for God not to be logical, but that is because whatever He says is true, and therefore logic conforms to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that logic is simply an effect of God thinking true propositions? In what order does he think them? Does truth (taken by itself) have order to it?
Click to expand...

Order? I am not suggesting that at all. If anything, these fall into order in God speaking them. If God is the fountain of all truth and knowledge, then why would God need logic to help Him attain that? Just to think that, would be to suggest that God is required to conform to strictures which are behind Him, further back as basic. 



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Or, you could put it this way: logic is a tool of thought. We need that tool, but God does not. Does this mean that God is not logical? Not at all. God could not be otherwise. But that is because logic is subservient to Him, while we must be subservient to logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God needs nothing _outside himself._ I do not understand how God could not be otherwise (than logical) and yet this logic does not properly define God (as much as "God is love").
Click to expand...


Jeff, I am just not comfortable with the way things have been put, that's all. It suggests a complexity in God, or worse, that God needs to conform to a structure that is more basic than He is. I know what you mean, and I don't disagree with that. All logic has to conform to God, that I will agree with. Or, logic is prefect reason; God alone is able to reason perfectly. But the proposition, "God is logic", has difficulties with it that are broader than the present discussion. For it is as you say:


> If P, then Q
> P
> therefore Q.


but God does not have to go through that sequence. Q will be true, not because of P, or any other reason, but because of God.

[Edited on 6-18-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by Bryan_
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is neither above God nor arbitrarily decreed by God. Its ultimate basis is in God's eternal nature. God is a rational God and necessarily so. Therefore logic is necessary. Human logical systems don't always reflect God's logic perfectly. But insofar as they do, they are necessarily true.
> 
> -John Frame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been discussing this with some Christians recently and it seems I'm in the minority agreeing with the above statment. I don't have an issue saying that God is "bound" by logic becasue I believe it is in his nature to be logical (IE. Following the law of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle).
> 
> But I would like a more learned opinion then my own
> If God wasn't "bound" by logic then He wouldn't be able to make any sense to us; we couldn't know anything about Him, right?
> 
> Bryan
> SDG
Click to expand...


I agree with the statement... I know even people that are stalwart 5-point Calvinists in their soteriology that are apt to say things like God is above logic... 

If we're going to interpret Scripture with some sanctomonious aura of fuzziness because God is supposedly above logic than we open up a can of worms. Does Christ really mean what it says in John 14:6? 

A logical reading of Scripture translates to sound exegesis. If "universal atonement" people would read 2 Peter 3:9 in context without hyperatomizing it, they would take notice that it's about a "promise" that mockers are doubting, and that the Lord isn't slack concerning that promise. And as the salutation to the epistle of Second Peter says, it's written to a body of believers. The scope of "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 is qualified by "to-ward us." "Beloved" is an appellation reserved God's elect. But then I run into the hysterical crowd of illogic who says God is above logic and that all means all and all without exception. Yet they qualify the extent of the atonement (to those who believe).

[Edited on 6-19-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Jeff:
> 
> Let me take these one at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> The accepted and confessed attributes of God we find in the Confessions. Though the Belgic Confession is more limited in the terms used to list them, yet is more complete in that it begins with, "...only one God, who is a simple and spiritual Being; He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of good. (sorry, I carried on right to the end of the article. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that God is infinitely wise? Would this include logic (i.e. knowing how his plan is to logically work to accomplish his end)? God is these terms, yes, but he is also a combination of each term (i.e. perfectly good, eternally just etc. etc.).
> 
> Also, would you say that part of the image of God in man is logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is irreverent to put logic behind God, so to speak, as if God needed to conform to something. Everything that God does it true, good, righteous, and with full knowledge. To combine them is an anthropomorphism, for in God it is not one thing to be true, and another to be righteous, as if he could be good without being righteous; for God it is not one thing to be righteous, and another to be full of all knowledge, as if He could be righteous without being full of all knowledge. And you could put them in any order you like: it is not one thing for God to be the one, and not the other, as if He could be one without the other. That is what we mean by "a simple and spiritual Being." So the distinction I am making is that God is behind logic; and that I am unwilling to state in terms that would seem to put logic behind God. Whatever is behind is greater; whatever is last is God.
Click to expand...


I too think it irreverent to put logic BEHIND God, as if he needs to conform to some external standard. This, however, is much different from saying that God IS logic, as he IS righteous. We determine righteousness from God, as we should logic (In my humble opinion).

I also disagree that God is behind logic, and yes I do think we may be defining logic differently. I have posted Noah Webster's definition earlier, but a more basic definition may be in order. The most basic definition of logic I can think of is again using the syllogism example.

If p, then q.
P
Therefore q.

In logic, we say that the conclusion FOLLOWS FROM the premises. How does it FOLLOW? logically! Define how it follows. It's hard to do! It is of necessity that if the premises are true, so must the conclusion. This is logic, and it is distinct from just "truth." (at least I think so)



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WCF
> 4:2 After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female (Gen_1:27), *with reasonable and immortal souls* (Gen_2:7; Ecc_12:7; Mat_10:28; Luk_23:43), endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, *after His own image*(Gen_1:26; Eph_4:24; Col_3:10);
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I would rather say that man is not logical, and leave it at that, rather than to seem anthropomorphic and say that God is logic. I would agree that God is very truth itself, and that logic is based on God. But to say that God is logic is, after all, saying nothing. All it does is remove us from knowledge of what logic then is, since we are a fallen race. When I look at the stringent demands of pure logic, then I know what a fool I am, and get a glimpse of how excellent in wisdom God is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that I understand this paragraph. First, it seems that you belittle logic in God by saying it seems "anthropomorphic." But how is it so? We wouldn't say because man is wise and God is wise that to call God wisdom would be anthropomorphic would we? As stated in the WCF, it seems to speak of logic as a part of the _imago dei_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not belittle logic. In fact, I have elevated it. Logic expresses the attributes of knowledge, righteousness and holiness, it does not replace them. Logic is an elevation of true knowledge, true righteousness, and true holiness, for it is there to lead us to betterment in each of these. I hold these attributes themselves as being the image of God in us, and that logic is one of the faculties we use to display them.
> 
> But perhaps, Jeff, we're using the term 'logic' in different ways. Let's go on to the second reply:
Click to expand...


My point in this section was to say that man is logical because God is logical, and attempted to use WCF to prove my point. In other words, anthropomorphisms display God in human terms, but with logic, man is displayed using Godly terms, hence part of God's communicable attributes, and contributing to the image of God that all men display.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> It would be better to ask whether Aristotle's or Frege's logic are logical, or Biblical. Logic is a way of handling truth, and truth is an attribute of God. I think I misled you when I quoted the whole article from the BC. I meant to point out that God is a simple Being, in which, for Him, it is not one thing to be one and another to be another (referring to the attributes. ) Thus to say that God is logical is to make logic a basic, which it is not. For it is the relationship between truth for those who struggle with that. God does not struggle with that. He sets the relationships, He does not discover them with His thinking. Truth is basic, and logic springs from that. So to say that God is truth is right, but to say that God is logic is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only propositions can be true or false, yes? Is logic a proposition? It surely can be made into a proposition, for example:
> 
> If P, then Q
> P
> therefore Q.
> 
> This argument is true. This form of logic flows from truth. But can we say that God is not properly called logic because it is not as you say "basic"?
> 
> God is love. Is love a "basic" attribute of God? It is certainly an anthropopathism, yet God is defined by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A proposition is a statement, a sentence or phrase that says something about something, to put perhaps too simply. As such, it is either true or false. Usually (actually, all the time, if you think about it) a proposition is a result of a logical motion. It is the conclusion resulting from putting two or more propositions together in order to form the proposition under consideration. In other words, every proposistion can be reasoned backwords, if you will, to other propositions. But a proposition is not logic all by itself. It suggests it, it implies it, but is not logic itself.
> 
> Without truth, logic is a nonsense word, so truth is more basic than logic. God is more basic than logic. Logic is possible because God is inexaustible truth, which makes logic possible. It could as easily be said that logic is not necessary for God, since He is truth. Whatever He says, whatever He thinks, it is true. I would indeed be perfectly logical, but not because God conformed to logic. Truth is not more basic than God.
Click to expand...


Is this true using the above definition of logic (as provided by me)? Can truth account for the conclusion of an argument FOLLOWING FROM the premises? Sure to say that the logically arguement is true or false can be applied, as truth or falsehood can be applied to any proposition (which was my point in saying that a logical argument can be displayed in propositional form).

To say that logic is not a basic fundamental to God's attributes makes me wonder if God could then plan, predistine, formulate anything in relationship to each other, because certainly that would require logic.

I.E.
X will work for my glory, y will not.
I will predestine x, not y.
I will be glorified.

This is not to say that God must go through this "process" like we do to figure stuff out, but that it reflects the mind of God. 

It would also be interesting (and related) to consider what it means to be a thinking God. What defines thought? Does it merely mean thinking true propositions? If so, it seems that they could be totally unrelated and random without the use of logic.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> It is not possible for God not to be logical, but that is because whatever He says is true, and therefore logic conforms to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that logic is simply an effect of God thinking true propositions? In what order does he think them? Does truth (taken by itself) have order to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Order? I am not suggesting that at all. If anything, these fall into order in God speaking them. If God is the fountain of all truth and knowledge, then why would God need logic to help Him attain that? Just to think that, would be to suggest that God is required to conform to strictures which are behind Him, further back as basic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Or, you could put it this way: logic is a tool of thought. We need that tool, but God does not. Does this mean that God is not logical? Not at all. God could not be otherwise. But that is because logic is subservient to Him, while we must be subservient to logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God needs nothing _outside himself._ I do not understand how God could not be otherwise (than logical) and yet this logic does not properly define God (as much as "God is love").
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeff, I am just not comfortable with the way things have been put, that's all. It suggests a complexity in God, or worse, that God needs to conform to a structure that is more basic than He is. I know what you mean, and I don't disagree with that. All logic has to conform to God, that I will agree with. Or, logic is prefect reason; God alone is able to reason perfectly. But the proposition, "God is logic", has difficulties with it that are broader than the present discussion. For it is as you say:
> 
> 
> 
> If P, then Q
> P
> therefore Q.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but God does not have to go through that sequence. Q will be true, not because of P, or any other reason, but because of God.
Click to expand...


Again, see above in that God does not have to figure the logical syllogism out, as we do, but certainly there is that present within the thinking mind that God is. With that, I will attempt to make a logical syllogism expressing my thoughts on calling God "logic":

Logic is an attribute of God.
God can be called any of his attributes.
God can be called logic.

Final qualification. Just as with "God is love", we can not say that all "Love is God", so it is with the above syllogism. Saying God is love is not saying God=love so it can be reversed to love=God. That borders on pantheism.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Is this true using the above definition of logic (as provided by me)? Can truth account for the conclusion of an argument FOLLOWING FROM the premises? Sure to say that the logically arguement is true or false can be applied, as truth or falsehood can be applied to any proposition (which was my point in saying that a logical argument can be displayed in propositional form).
> 
> To say that logic is not a basic fundamental to God's attributes makes me wonder if God could then plan, predistine, formulate anything in relationship to each other, because certainly that would require logic.


What about truth that does not follow from a premise, as would be the case for God?



> I.E.
> X will work for my glory, y will not.
> I will predestine x, not y.
> I will be glorified.
> 
> This is not to say that God must go through this "process" like we do to figure stuff out, but that it reflects the mind of God.


If _y_ will not work to God's glory, then God did not think it. God is perfect. 



> It would also be interesting (and related) to consider what it means to be a thinking God. What defines thought? Does it merely mean thinking true propositions? If so, it seems that they could be totally unrelated and random without the use of logic.



Again, this seems to put logic in behind God, as if God needed to conform to something more basic than He. I know what you are saying Jeff, but it is not a good way of saying it. 

Everything that God does is good, right and true, and displays that He is full of all knowledge. What we call logic is the ability to put two propositions together to discover the unity of truth. The laws of thought, or the rules of logic (same thing) are expressions of that unity of truth, which is founded in God. There can be no contradiction, there can be no mitigating third proposition, and thing is what it is. So logic is basic because truth is one. God is truth, so logic is necessary. That is the right way to say it. 


> If P, then Q
> P
> therefore Q.
> but God does not have to go through that sequence. Q will be true, not because of P, or any other reason, but because of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, see above in that God does not have to figure the logical syllogism out, as we do, but certainly there is that present within the thinking mind that God is. With that, I will attempt to make a logical syllogism expressing my thoughts on calling God "logic":
> 
> Logic is an attribute of God.
> God can be called any of his attributes.
> God can be called logic.
Click to expand...

I know you didn't mean to break this up with what follows, but I need to know the Biblical qualification for asserting that logic is an attribute of God. That is, I need good and necessary inference if you do not have direct Biblical warrant. Again, I know what you mean; you're just not being careful about God's holiness. 



> Final qualification. Just as with "God is love", we can not say that all "Love is God", so it is with the above syllogism. Saying God is love is not saying God=love so it can be reversed to love=God. That borders on pantheism.


I agree. In fact I was going to post the same thing, only I assumed that we were in agreement on that. 

I would be more comfortable with saying that God cannot be illogical. That would be the same thing as saying that God is always true. But, that would mean that we would have to transcend our own limitations of logic, because we also hold that God is one, yet also is three persons. We have no logic for that, other than that God transcends the created world, and numerical limitations are of the created world. Only God can feed a crowd of five thousand from a few loaves and fishes. For us that is not logical, but I know that it is true, and is therefore indubitably logical as well. 

When we say that God is logical, we have so many problems to face up to, and one is the dilemma that either God was not logical in His miracles, or our logic does not account for all of truth. Because we often face the former in the form of objections to true religion; and do not often confess the latter ourselves. We also have a great deal of difficulty separating the movement of logic from the end of logic. Which of the two are we talking about? God does not require the movement of logic, since that suggests subjection to time. But the end of logic is true propositions. And propositions are about the truth of God, of the created world, and of us, all true because of God. It is not the other way around: truth is not only about propositions.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> I know you didn't mean to break this up with what follows, but I need to know the Biblical qualification for asserting that logic is an attribute of God. That is, I need good and necessary inference if you do not have direct Biblical warrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about "it is impossible for Him to lie." Tied in with this is the law of contradiction and consistancy.
> 
> What about, logic is :universal, immaterial, absolute, unchanging, and conceptual in nature (residing in a mind). If this is a seperate entity then two things have existed from all eternity since logic would always have to exist in all possible worlds.
> 
> Or, were the laws of logic created? This would make them contingent. They are not contingent, hence they were not created.
> 
> The only conclusion to draw, that I see, is that it is an attribute of His.
Click to expand...

But that isn't necessary inference. All these things would still be true without logic being an attribute of God. These things would still be true if logic were an attribute of truth.

It is God who would have to exist in all possible worlds, and He never lies. So wherever God speaks or acts, there is truth; wherever there is truth, there is unity in true things, wherever there is unity in true things, there would have to be ability to do logic. 

But it would still be very true that for us _Q_ would be true because _P_; but for God, _Q_ would be true because of God, for He would not need _P_ to determine that _Q_ was true as we would. The fact that they are related is due to God, in that in Him is the the unity of truth, making logic possible.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> okay, fine, so you have the entity God and the entity logic having existed from all eternity.
> 
> Also, give me an argument of a possible world without logic.



But these are the very things I'm arguing against. 

I am holding to God being a simple Being, and logic being an attribute of truth. How does that make logic co-eternal with God? And how does that allow for a possible world without logic?

In Matthew 14 Jesus feeds five thousand from five loaves and two fish, and they take up twelves baskets of leftovers. I believe this is logical, but not by the limited standards of logic that we recognize. I believe it, because God does everything truly and consistent with Himself. Therefore, since there is no contradiction, since the law of identity is upheld, and since there is no third mitigating proposition (God acting directly), it is logical. Can five loaves and two fish equal five thousand fed well, with twelve baskets left over? Not by our limited standards. He can transcend logic as we know it, and still not be illogical. But He Himself transcends all logic, since He Himself is the fountain of all good and truth. 

I think we are not understanding each other.


----------



## JohnV

Does what exist, Paul? If it did not exist, you could not ask if it existed.


----------



## JohnV

As long as there was time, logic existed. "The LORD created me at the beginning of His work, the first of His acts of old." Prov. 8:20


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> first, you conflate wisdom with logic. The two are not the same.


No, I'm not.


> Second, so "before" there was time then logic didn't exist?


If the answer to the next question is "yes", then the answer to this question must also be "yes". 


> Third, so logic is contingent then?


Yes.


These three belong together, so these questions are well thought. Wisdom is the understanding of knowledge, to put it rather simply (to know is one thing, but to understand that knowledge is a life-long struggle); and part of that is the logic of inference, or the relationship of propostions. But wisdom is more than just syllogistic logic. For example, to obey is better than reason, as in following orders when under command. We may not know the reasons, so it is better to follow the orders of those who do know the reasons. So, though we may not know the reasons for God's commands of certain things, such as "turn the other cheek", or "do not resist evil", and though it may seem to us a weakness, or a lack of will, yet to follow command is better than to follow our reason. 

But it is not as though to follow commands is less reasonable. It is precisely because it is more reasonable to follow commands when we do not know the reasons that it is better to follow commands. It is a faith in, a belief that, God's will is right and true, and without doubt the reasonable thing to do. It may not seem reasonable to us to love those who hate us, but when we take into account God's love for us when we were enemies, still sinners and without hope, and then transcend our own wills, feelings, and thoughts, and believe that God is working His righteousness through us, then we can also see that there is yet a higher reason than where our own logic takes us. 

So logic is but a part of wisdom, but it is a part of it. When wisdom was the first of God's works, it had to include logic. So I did not confuse the two. 

Second, if wisdom was the first of the works of God's hands, then it stands to reason that logic was the direct result of that work. Remembering that God is a simple Being, and that all truth has its source in Him, it cannot be that God conformed to logic, but that logic conforms to God. Therefore logic is created, if wisdom is named as created.

Third, logic is at the very least contingent upon God's character. But it is also contingent upon truth as an attribute of God. Since we say that God is truth *and* the fountain of all truth, we are compelled to submit to truth in our thinking, in our _propositionalizing_. Therefore we say that logic is contingent. 

If we see logic as more basic than truth, then it would be better to say that God is logic than it would be to say that God is truth. The question to ask is which of the two the Bible regards as more basic. There are three basics that the Bible relates to us: the way, the truth, and the life. Are we saying that logic relates more to "the way", that it is another way of saying that? Or are we maintaining that logic is a way of getting at the truth of things? I hold that "the way" relates to righteousness and goodness, "the truth" to complete consistency and eternal integrity of character, and "the life" to the source of light, life, and all being. These overlap, because God is a simple being, for whom to be reasonable is not different than to love, and for whom to be reasonable and love is not different than to give life; yet we as limited and created beings separate them categorically because of our sinful state, attempting at righteousness; and that wisdom on our part is to put them together again in the right order. 

Therefore I hold that logic is a part of truth. Wisdom is the understanding of truth; therefore logic is part of wisdom. I also hold that it is logical to disobey our reasoning if in doing that we are being sure to follow God's commands. Thus logic can transcend reason for us, though it does not really transcend reason. But in saying it this way we would seem to be confusing logic as a category of thought with truth as a category of thought. That is why I would submit logic to truth instead of truth to logic: to follow God's commands is to follow truth, though we may not see the logic. 

That is why we have the extreme limitation on logical inference in doctrinal issues, but we have no such limitation on truth.


----------



## JohnV

Then God would have to bow down to the necessity of A not being ~A. That is also a theologically absurd position.


----------



## JohnV

The propostion A would have to be a proposition about God, since we are confining this to pre-creation. Before creation there was only God. Since God is perfect in His eternity and immutability, there is therefore no possibility of ~A: ~A would have to be about something other than God, which does not yet exist, since we are talking about pre-creation. 

If we make distinctions about the Godhead, in saying that the Father is not the Son, therefore A is not ~A, we are making an error. Not that the Father is not the Son, or the Son not the Spirit, or the Spirit not the Father, but rather that we are confounding the unity of the Trinity ("...we are forbidden to speak of three Gods or Lords", Athanasian Creed, art. 20. ) It is not that the Father is deprived of the Son or of the Spirit, for they are one substance. I understand the Athanasian Creed to uphold the unity, perfection, eternity, immutability and simplicity of God in its formulation of the Trinity. It is very difficult to understand, and I am not the one to take that on. But I do confess that this creed states the formulation so as not to transgress the attributes of God. ~A would, then, have to be a privation of A, and that is not possible before the creation. To go beyond this is to trifle with this doctrine, I believe. 

So I am not holding to an absurd doctrine, but rather trying to be careful about the doctrine I do believe. I will therefore maintain that ~A is not a possibility before creation, since God is the fullness of all good. If A is a good found in God, then ~A is not possible. If A is a characteristic of God, then ~A is not possible. If A is an attribute of God, then ~A is not possible. ~A would suggest a creation. 

I think it was Augustine who opens up this concept in The City of God. He concludes, as I recall, that the first thing that needed to be created was light; not just visibility, but wisdom as a creature of sorts. We see it in cartoons as a light bulb; well its the same kind of concept: the lights coming on, so to speak. He remarks, if I remember, that to think of perfection as overcoming all imperfection is incorrect; it has to be perfection obviating all imperfection, or leaving no want of perfection. Overcoming imperfection is post-creation. There is no privation of perfection, for that would suggest something other than God. So perfection has to be the fullness of things, lacking nothing. But all things are one in God, since He is a simple Being. (I'm not sure, but its around Book VIII, I think. )

So, getting back to logic, the lack of logic is not possible. Indeed, it would not be necessary as yet, since nothing is in want with God; He is the fullness of all things, and all things are one in Him. It can be no otherwise. But then He created outside of Himself, and therefore God said "Let there be...." The creation is not the fullness of all things, but finds its fulfillment in Him. Therefore, it seems to me, logic is not an attribute of God, but and attribute of truth suggesting to us the necessity of God's creating the world we live in. 

I am trying to be very careful about this because it does happen that we are sometimes called to believe beyond logical credibility, just because God commands it (as in miracles to demonstrate His omnipotence and revelation of Himself. ) In the end, of course, it is quite logical, but we won't see that unless we obey first. There is more to living in God's presence than logic, for there is love, submission, service, and faith. I am not suggesting that any of these are illogical, but rather that we need to be very careful not to elevate logic to the point where we negate any of these. 

So I would hold that truth existed in God, and that non-truth was not possible without the creation, without the Fall. So there would need to be no distinction between A and ~A until the creation. 

I know I'm leaving a lot out, Paul, but this post would be too long if I were to explain in more detail. Sorry for the clumsiness.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> The propostion A would have to be a proposition about God, since we are confining this to pre-creation. Before creation there was only God. Since God is perfect in His eternity and immutability, there is therefore no possibility of ~A: ~A would have to be about something other than God, which does not yet exist, since we are talking about pre-creation.



The blunder I see in your reasoning is that ~A does not need to exist in order for the logic of A =/ ~A to exist. It is acceptated amongst us reformed folk that the decrees of God were present in the mind of God before creation, and from eternity past. Therefore, while ~A (or creation) had not been made ex nihilo, God did have in his mind a relationship between himself, and his decrees. He thought about them. He knew about them. He knew his relationship to them. 

The "reality" of a subject does not need to be present in order for logic to be present. An argument is just as valid (although not sound) with false premises as with true.


----------



## JohnV

As soon as you have an expression of _A_, you have something other than God, unless A is God. I don't think you understood what I said. _A_ would be like a full container, not something that can be comparmentalized. Therefore ~_A_ is not a possible consideration. 

Augustine explains it better. I should look it up. I'm am trying to be careful not to transgress the limitations put upon us by the Confessions when talking about God. I am very hesitant to say that God was subject to logic, or that logic was a norm with God. Certainly I agree that it is impossible for God not to be logical, but I would hasten to add that illogic would then not be a possibility, since all there would be is God, Who is all things in unity and perfection. 

So if _A_ is a possibility before creation, then it would have to be God; and therefore there would be no ~_A_ or _B_ to consider. Therefore it is not logic as much as it is being. 

It is this that makes the Athanasian Creed so important to the confessional standard. It confesses the Trinity, not just in harmony, but in unity, as one; being very careful not to nullify or negate any of the attributes of God. 

I am not being absurd, just careful. The Bible gives us "God is truth", but does not give us "God is logic" in the same way. Instead, as I have referenced, it makes it as the first of God's works. For we would not say that wisdom did not exist before anything was created, would we? Would we say that God was not wise until He created wisdom? Of course not; and yet the Bible clearly tells us that wisdom is the first of God's acts of old. I would hold that logic is a part of that wisdom that was created. I would rather do that, and confess the fullness of God, than to say that God is logic. Because "God is logic" would seem to open to door to the possibility of something other than God to be logical about, namely, "He is this, and not that." The declare that "He is this" is truth; to add "He is not that" is logic. And the latter is not a possibility to do, because God's attributes are not a lack of anything, but a fulness of everything ('everything' relating to God alone. )


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> The blunder I see in your reasoning is that ~A does not need to exist in order for the logic of A =/ ~A to exist. It is acceptated amongst us reformed folk that the decrees of God were present in the mind of God before creation, and from eternity past. Therefore, while ~A (or creation) had not been made ex nihilo, God did have in his mind a relationship between himself, and his decrees. He thought about them. He knew about them. He knew his relationship to them.
> 
> The "reality" of a subject does not need to be present in order for logic to be present. An argument is just as valid (although not sound) with false premises as with true.



I understand your trepidation about this, Jeff. This seems almost an attack on logic, and I don't mean to do that. I see equating God with logic as almost an attack on God, since God is a fulness, not a privation of anything; and God is not subject to time. Logic is a motion, from _A_ to _B_, and neither the motion nor ~_A_ would be a possibility where only God is present and no time exists as yet. 

What you refer to as what was"in the mind of God" concerning creation and redemption would have to fall under the time when God said, "Let there be light." because we're considering change from one state to another. But God is unchangeable. I know that Augustine allegorized more than we are comfortable with, but I think that here we have to, in order to protect the holiness of God in our confessions. "Light" would, then, also be an allegorical reference to wisdom, as opposed to non-wisdom, which would not be a possibility until then. 

Can you see why I would have difficulty with this? As much as I hold to logic, I do not want to make rash statements about the Trinity. I would rather take the Ecclesiastical "fifth amendment", so to speak, than say God is logic. Just because it opens to door to wrong notions about God. Logic differentiates, and there was nothing to differentiate before the creation. Yes, we maintain the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but we also have maintain the unity of the Godhead, so as not to make three Gods, or three Lords. It transcends our limitations to understand that, but it is the true faith that we have to hold to.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> John, do you think God thought about other things before he created them?



Exactly. God's decrees were in his mind from eternity. They were a logical PLAN. They weren't random. But, to say that His decrees were not illogical, but not logical either is to assert that they WERE random. 

God's plan was a logical one (as a good plan always is).


----------



## JohnV

I agree with Paul, we are at in impasse. I will not go beyond what I have said, because it is strongly warned against by the Church fathers. I also agree with Jeff, that God's plan was not random. But I have to uphold the doctrine of the attributes of God, as historically understood, and as explained by Augustine and Calvin. 

I think we've gone as far as we can with this. We'll just be going round and round with this. I thank you for your interaction with me, helping me to sharpen my thoughts and belief, my faith.


----------



## JohnV

Just a correction:

The citations for the attributes of God are found in Agustine's City of God and Confessions, as well as in Aquinas' Summa Theologica. In summary: It is one thing to say that man is a reasonable individual; it is another to say that God is incapable of being unreasonable; we could not say that God is a reasonable individual in the same sense that we say man is a reasonable individual.


----------

