Turretin's Method of Theology (or how not to be a Campbellite)

[No Other Name]

Your use of the term being is ambiguous. It could refer to person or nature.

I agree that definitions are important before propositions.

"In none of these usages does the term persona have the connotation of emotional individuality or unique consciousness that clearly belongs to the term in contemporary usage. It is quite certain that the trinitarian use of persona does not point to three wills, three emotionally unique beings, or, as several eighteenth-century authors influenced by Cartesianism argued, three centers of consciousness; such implication would be tritheistic. It is equally certain that contemporary theological statements to the effect that the God of the Bible is a “personal” God point not to the Trinity, but to the oneness of the divine will in loving relation to creatures. In other words, despite the variety of usages and implications we have noted, the patristic, medieval, Reformation, and Protestant scholastic definitions of the term persona are united in their distinction from colloquial modern usage. In brief, the term has traditionally indicated an objective and distinct mode or manner of being, a subsistence or subsistent individual, not necessarily substantially separate from like personae. Thus, in trinitarian usage, three personae subsist in the divine substantia or essentia (q.v.) without division and, in christological usage, one persona two distinct naturae, the divine and the human. This can be said while nonetheless arguing one will in God and two in Christ- since will belongs properly to the essence of God and to the natures in Christ, and in neither case to persona as such. Thus, in the language of the scholastics, persona indicates primarily an individuum (q.v.), and individual thing, or a suppositum (q.v.), a self-subsistent thing, and more specifically still, an intelligent self-subsistent thing."

- Muller, Richard. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, p 226-227​

 

[CovenantWord]

[Poythress] said (earlier than my quote here) that if Premise 1: "All cats are carnivores" and Premise 2: "Felix is a cat" then unavoidably it follows: "Felix is a carnivore". This logical validity and logical consistency is true for cats - even if no human were to observe and work out this syllogism deductively. And he is correct on this point.

Thank you for presenting this syllogism, for it illustrates the point. The central question is whether the major premise is true. The answer is that it is, as long as the relevant condition of the underlying observational data is duplicated. The condition is the creation order established during the first week and is covenanted to continue, in somewhat modified form until the Parousia (Gen. 9:21-22). This is why humans may be confident to apply logic even in situations where we are not physically present to observe. But what if God were to decree to revise this condition? The syllogism would still be valid, but its truth value would have been altered, possibly unbeknownst to the reasoner. This supposition of alteration is not far fetched. The Flood significantly altered the food webs on the Earth (Gen. 9:2-3) and the Judge has promised to alter them again so that the lion may one day lie down with the lamb.

It is also worth noting in this regard that, because of the absence-of-humans parameter of this thought experiment, the action of reasoning necessarily occurs at a different place and time from the scenario itself. Reasoning through this syllogism may remind me to feed my cat, it may induce me to thank the Creator, it may help me engage in an interesting discussion on Puritan Board; but it does not affect Felix in the least, because the human reasoner has been abstracted from the cat's environs.

Thus is logic demonstrated to be separate from creation, not intrinsic to it.

 

[CovenantWord]

P1: Justice for sins requires condign punishment from the sinner directly or from one qualified as a plenary sinless substitute.

You have honored me, my friend, with an extensive and detailed post. I read it through carefully several times, and I agree that all of the propositions in that post are true and properly applied. I share your distaste for slovenly logic justifying worship practices disrespectful of the Divine. I am proud to benefit from the Reformed theological tradition, because it is, by far, the most consistent and logical, even while it recognizes that human reasoning cannot be the origin and sustenance of our most cherished fundamental doctrines.

In particular, I thank you for your implied exhortation to present my case more robustly. In pursuit of this goal, I thought I noticed that your "P1," quoted above, presented two ideas different enough from each other that it might be helpful to split them into two propositions: "Justice for sins requires condign punishment from the sinner directly," and "Justice requires condign punishment from one qualified as a plenary sinless substitute." This suggests considering analyzing the doctrine of justification into two syllogisms. In pursuit of this thought, I sought guidance from Romans 3 (NKJ):

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (v. 19).

This verse implies the following syllogism:

Justice requires condign punishment.
God administers righteous punishment to all mankind.
Therefore God is just.

Yet, immediately afterward, Paul also writes:

"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed . . . through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. (vv. 21-22)

This passage implies a very different syllogism:

God requires that His people be perfectly righteous.
The Father laid the guilt of their sins on His Son.
Therefore, all who believe on Jesus Christ will be made perfect.

But, wait a minute, does not the second syllogism contradict the first? Punishing Another for sins He did not Himself commit is not condign. The first syllogism places all mankind "under the law," and the second syllogism places a certain people "apart from the law." Paul, aware of this objection, addresses it immediately and directly:

"[A]ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (vv. 23-24).

Paul does not seek to resolve this apparent contradiction by means of logic, but within grace. He reinforces this teaching, restating the paradox in summary form:

God is "just [administers condign justice, first syllogism] and the justifier [perfects unto complete righteousness, second syllogism] of the one who has faith in Jesus [resolution in grace]." (v. 26)

 

[CovenantWord]

You're missing the distinction between "essence" and "person".

If we said that the Trinity were three in essence and one in essence simultaneously, we'd have a contradiction.

If we said that the Trinity were three in person and one in person simultaneously, we'd hae a contradictoon.

But rather, the Trinity is one in essence and three in person. No contradiction.

The essence of the Trinity is divinity, singular; yet, the Personhood of the Divinity is multiple. Both descriptions are simultaneously true, being comprehensive expressions of the fundamental nature of the same Being. These two aspects of the Trinity cannot be separated by logic, because God is infinite in being, without parts. The resolution of this apparent contradiction is to be found only within the incomprehensible Godhead Himself. (WCF 2.1) Nonetheless, the resolution is gloriously manifest in His relationship with His creation, particularly in the drama of redemption, which is unitary in will and tripartite in accomplishment.

 

[RamistThomist]

Both descriptions are simultaneously true, being comprehensive expressions of the fundamental nature of the same Being.

This is where we have trouble following you. Is "Being" a person or a nature at this point?

hese two aspects of the Trinity cannot be separated by logic, because God is infinite in being, without parts.

I am not separating anything, but they can be described by logic. I have done just that.

The resolution of this apparent contradiction is to be found only within the incomprehensible Godhead Himself.

It is not an apparent contradiction.

 

[CovenantWord]

Wait, is it possible you simply mean that logic is not concrete and simply abstract? I agree, but bristle against logic not existing apart from man wholesale. If creation sings of the order of the mind of the Creator, then logic is a principle of knowledge of the order that is inherent within the character of God.

Otherwise, you allow for order outside the mind of man - but by implication it would have to be an order without logic if you simultaneously construct a barrier that places logic only within the mind of man. How can there be order outside man, and that order not have logical properties inherent to itself - and yet still be ordered outside man?

This would lead to a universe in which only a human-environment interaction allows for order and thereby, if no human is present then no order can be existent.

It would seem you have a different answer to what happens if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there. An answer very different from the physics of sound waves.

The difficulty with your argument here is that it assumes its conclusion, namely, that logic is an essential element of the created order. You have not established that it is. Perhaps an illustration will best convey the point: "Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch. (Genesis 4:16-17 NKJ) If you will permit a bit of license as to detail: Cain thinks to himself: "I'm in trouble. I no longer enjoy the blessing of the LORD, so I need to replace it with the blessings of human society. Gathering a large number of people around me will do it, but how can we overcome the problems that living close together would inevitably bring? I know what -- I'll build a city, providing housing and enforcing social order. My mark scares people, so I better stay out of politics myself. I'll appoint my son, Enoch, as mayor." So: Prior to Enoch the city, did the natural order exist in that area? Yes, it did. The sun shined, the rivers flowed, and the plants grew. Did a city physically exist in that area? No, it did not. Did the conception of cityness exist there, or indeed anywhere? As far as we know, it did not. Was logic necessary to this conception? Yes, it was. [E.g., 1) Wood is necessary for protective walls. I have located a forest. Therefore, I will fell trees. 2) Cooperation is necessary for a city. Enoch is respected. Therefore I will appoint him leader.] The necessary logic was external to the original created order, and it was introduced de novo by the mind of man.

 

[No Other Name]

The difficulty with your argument here is that it assumes its conclusion, namely, that logic is an essential element of the created order. You have not established that it is. Perhaps an illustration will best convey the point: "Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch. (Genesis 4:16-17 NKJ) If you will permit a bit of license as to detail: Cain thinks to himself: "I'm in trouble. I no longer enjoy the blessing of the LORD, so I need to replace it with the blessings of human society. Gathering a large number of people around me will do it, but how can we overcome the problems that living close together would inevitably bring? I know what -- I'll build a city, providing housing and enforcing social order. My mark scares people, so I better stay out of politics myself. I'll appoint my son, Enoch, as mayor." So: Prior to Enoch the city, did the natural order exist in that area? Yes, it did. The sun shined, the rivers flowed, and the plants grew. Did a city physically exist in that area? No, it did not. Did the conception of cityness exist there, or indeed anywhere? As far as we know, it did not. Was logic necessary to this conception? Yes, it was. [E.g., 1) Wood is necessary for protective walls. I have located a forest. Therefore, I will fell trees. 2) Cooperation is necessary for a city. Enoch is respected. Therefore I will appoint him leader.] The necessary logic was external to the original created order, and it was introduced de novo by the mind of man.

You are so confused and confusing. When I said "creation sings of the order of the mind of the Creator" and by extension, "logic is a principle of knowledge of the order that is inherent within the character of the Creator", I was referring to God's gift of the ability to do investigation and discovery of the truth of His order and His creative power (among other things like design and flaws in design hinting at a world fallen from its original state).

In other words, simple natural theology - not Platonic realism like "cityness" inherent within a large wooded area. That was not at all derivable from my statements.

Logic is inherent within the Creator not creation. Logic is communicable (at least in part) to us humans who bear His image and (only in that sense) can it be said that logic is at work in the mind of man as an engagement of our portion of God's image in us interacting with nature.

The fact that fallen man (Cain) can also use this gift is proof for the doctrine of common grace, not proof that logic exists only within the mind of man - a claim derived from the implications of your earlier quote below:

logic is a powerful tool developed by the ordained steward to care for the garden of creation. Logic is no more independent of man than is a hammer.

Here you have (unintentionally I presume) given man the power to create logic without God. You read in Genesis that Cain - under the common grace of bearing God's image - built a city from a wooded area and have reversed the order in which this act was possible.

You inferred that Cain used a hammer and etc and the logic needed to construct a hammer, a city et al and then presume Cain developed the logic underpinning the mechanics of building a city, forgetting that the image of God inside Cain is indeed deeply marred but not absent.

The first principles of logic is not introduced de novo by the mind of man; it is eternal inherent within God's order, God's knowledge, God's wisdom, God's dominion and introduced in the mind of man (originally dust) as the image of the God who could not possibly be anything but order and logical.

 

[CovenantWord]

If God is a Being of order and logic so that His creation and His Word are ordered and logical,

then order and logic are part of His attributes - either in a manner that can be categorized singularly in and of itself (as Poythress argues) or - at the very least - can be deduced from broader categories like His knowledge, wisdom, sovereignty, and His dominion.

Perhaps you will permit that I reduce this argument to a syllogism, to facilitate analysis:

1) That which is created partakes of the character of its creator.
2) Creation is orderly.
Therefore, the character of the Creator is orderly.

The weakness of this presentation is to be found in the major: The creature may partake of the creator, but not necessarily. For instance, has not the Immortal created the mortal?

What, then, can we reliably conclude about the nature of the Creator through studying creation (general revelation)? Well, Paul specifies this for us, does he not (Rom. 1:20, 21)? God is eternal, that is, He is not subject to the space-time restrictions that creation is; God is powerful, that is, He is uniquely able to bring somethingness out of nothingness; and God is divine, that is, He alone is worthy of worship and ultimate thanksgiving. Comprehesive orderliness per se is neither stated nor necessarily implied in any of these descriptions.

Negatively, one may demonstrate that the Divine is not of Himself necessarily orderly. [Please note, I did not say that God is disorderly. What I intend to express is that God is not accountable to the unyielding parameters of the orderliness observed in creation. One might say that God is "supraorderly."]

-- The manifestations of divinity during the earthly journey of the Incarnation were supraorderly. I refer here, for instance, to the healings and exorcisms, the ability to read others' thoughts (even at a distance), the Transfiguration, the contempt of locked doors, and the Ascension. Indeed, this very freedom from created orderliness constituted the primary proof of His divinity.

-- Orderliness involves manipulating discrete units into a preplanned arrangement. This is impossible internally to the Divinity, because He has no parts to arrange (WCF 2.1).

-- Creation itself is not universally orderly, as is evidenced, for instance, by black holes (macro), and Brownian motion (micro). One of the wonders of creation is that the absence of human-level order above us and below us does not interfere with -- indeed often supports -- the kind of order upon which we absolutely depend. It is interesting to review the creation narrative in view of this observation: the light is separated from darkness, the fish swim in the sea, Day 5 follows Day 4 within the week, etc. It is exegetically necessary to conclude from this that intrinsic orderliness is a permanent part of the fabric of creation, subject to alteration only by direct divine intervention (e.g., the Flood, the miracles, the Second Coming). Even so, notice that this orderliness encompasses only that portion of creation that is visible to, and manipulable by, man and does not necessarily characterize the other levels of creation. Should one conclude that God is orderly because creation is orderly; then, consistent reasoning demands that God is also not orderly because creation is not orderly.

-- This final point is not definitive, but suggestive: God's relationship with His creation, particularly with the crown of that creation, is not characterized by abstraction essentially, or even primarily, but by personal relationship. God does not customarily act lovingly, He is love -- absolutely, comprehensively. Love is readily observed to operate according to its own sense of order, which not infrequently deviates from the logical. I am thinking that this would at least exclude the claim that logic comprehensively and fundamentally characterizes the nature of God. As we are made in His image, it can be illuminating (albeit, again, not definitive) to examine the character of the human soul in this regard. That the soul acts logically much of the time is indisputable, but does that prove the soul logical of itslef, by metonymy, perhaps? That would be a tough sell. One might be on stronger ground to claim that the soul is orderly, at least according to its own lights, which is not always the kind of order that supports logic. Is God's relationship with man logical? Yes, insofar as it pertains to law ("If you are righteous, you will be blessed; if you are wicked, you will be cursed"). Nonetheless, insofar as that relationship pertains to grace, the relevant parameters change.

 

[No Other Name]

Perhaps you will permit that I reduce this argument to a syllogism, to facilitate analysis:

1) That which is created partakes of the character of its creator.

Stopped right here. I reject Premise 1 as stated. At the very least, this would need qualifiers including - but not limited to - distinct definitions for "partakes" and "character".

Why do you insist on creating syllogisms? I engaged in creating a syllogism once but that was to demonstrate how quickly complex and messy things get and why it is very rare that a clear theological conclusion can be constructed from a simple syllogism. Poythress constructed a simple syllogism on the Trinity but solely using Scripture directly as premises, (which - if one were to do so - seems to me the only way to do it responsibly without cleaning up a bunch of mess).

For instance, has not the Immortal created the mortal?

No? Our flesh may be mortal but our spirits are not. And even in regards to the flesh, it was not originally created so.

But see, this is the point. Creating syllogisms takes time and effort to weed out weaknesses, and it is why we communicate primarily in sentences that are structured into paragraphs rather than going around saying "Ok try this: Premise 1.9 x 10^5". Not only would that be exhausting - if even possible for our human brains - but it would be beyond messy. Which goes to show how limited created beings are in the scope of the abilities of our Creator.

Most of the rest of your post is you beating on your own interpreted self-constructed syllogism I never agreed to.

And your presumptions on my view that you attack that go beyond what I originally said.

When you take my use of the word "order" and insert a "comprehensiveness" to it from the perspective of us on Earth this is unfair and infers something I never implied.

When I said we can comprehend an order, it was not meant to imply that we can comprehend the full nature of God's order. Do you really suppose I need reminding God is outside time? Or that proof of Christ's divinity came from signs and wonders that defied our perceived comprehension of the order normally inherent in nature?

Unlike you, I will not infer rashly, but will ask: what is the difference between your "supraorderliness" and my definition of "order" but with the assumption that everyone that reads me knows we allow for elements hidden from the limited perspective of humans on Earth?

You could have simply said I assumed that without stating it directly. You would be right. I would have said you are right. And our respective posts back and forth would be much shorter in length.

As for this line:

Creation itself is not universally orderly, as is evidenced, for instance, by black holes (macro), and Brownian motion (micro).

you had missed I already qualified this by specifically mentioning (in bold):

God's gift of the ability to do investigation and discovery of the truth of His order and His creative power (among other things like design and flaws in design hinting at a world fallen from its original state).

General revelation speaks to a world designed - and yet off. Special revelation explains why this is so. (Ironically, my thoughts were more towards congenital birth defects, hurricanes, tornadoes, cancer etc. Your examples of black holes et al are still more likely to be phenomena not fully discovered yet).

If you want to debate and discuss any of my points, just quote me directly and engage. It is beyond unnecessary to try and re-create my position into a syllogism.

 

[CovenantWord]

I must admit that I am rather confused by what you've been trying to say here. So let's see if we can clarify what you are attempting to say. There are a number of things that you could be trying to claim. For example:
Putative claim 1: logic is not applicable in theology.
Putative claim 2: theological doctrines are not derivable from the universalistic/natural premises known as the laws of logic
Putative claim 3: logic is an unreliable tool for categorizing ectypal knowledge because the body of true ectypal knowledge contains something that the laws of logic imply is false
Putative claim 4: logic is an unreliable tool for categorizing ectypal knowledge because the entire body of true ectypal knowledge cannot be reduced to a subset of true ectypal premises.

Thank you for challenging me to clarify my thoughts and the expression thereof:
1) No, logic is a powerful and essential tool of theology. As you correctly pointed out, good and necessary consequence is essential to sound exegesis. In contrast, heresies customarily misuse logic one direction or another.
2) See below.
3) No, the law and premises of logic are reliable when they are applied within the same circumstances wherein they were derived. To seek to apply those laws in other kinds of circumstances is inappropriate, like a hammer for a soldering job. The tool is not unreliable, the application is inappropriate.
4) Categorization is, at heart, an extended logical exercise. (Membership in Set X requires certain characteristics. Element A displays those characteristics. Element A is to be included in Set X.) I'm sure you will agree that this mental discipline is essential to systematic theology. Also, see below.

To respond to the concerns implied in claims 2) and 4): One of the weight-bearing pillars of orthodox theology is the use of syllogism comprising a prototypal major and ectypal minor. Perhaps an illustration will help clarify:

The world was created orderly.
Orderliness establishes the integrity and applicability of law -- e.g., physical, social, or logical.
Therefore, deriving and applying such laws is a worthwhile endeavor.

The religion of secularism notwithstanding, the major premise is not a scientific proposition; it is theological. For instance, let's imagine that the law of gravity has been confirmed by two billion careful scientific observations. Does that guarantee that the two billion and first observation will also confirm that law? No, it definitely does not. Science, in and of itself, has no basis for making such a claim. The truth of the major is established by good and necessary consequence of special revelation, that is to say, it is prototypal. The truth of the minor is established by millions of human observations daily. (If I don't support a house wall, it will collapse in the next wind storm. If I steal from my neighbor, I will get in trouble. If I don't discipline my mentation according to the laws of logic, my thinking ends up chaotic.)

Since the major is uniquely Christian, it is confirmatory to note that scientific progress has generally been accomplished within societies imbued with Christian doctrine.

 

[83r17h]

3) No, the law and premises of logic are reliable when they are applied within the same circumstances wherein they were derived. To seek to apply those laws in other kinds of circumstances is inappropriate, like a hammer for a soldering job. The tool is not unreliable, the application is inappropriate.

So are you saying that it is inappropriate to apply logic to theology? Your response here seems to be in tension to your response to view #1, where you say that it is applicable to theology.

Categorization is, at heart, an extended logical exercise.

Perhaps this is the approach required for clarity. Can you define the adjective "logical" in your usage? Specific questions:
- What are the essential attributes of the adjective "logical" in all domains?
- What are the several types of objects that the adjective "logical" can be applied to, and how does the definition differ in those domains?
- What types of objects is it meaningless to apply the adjective "logical" to?

One of the weight-bearing pillars of orthodox theology is the use of syllogism comprising a prototypal major and ectypal minor.

What is "prototypical" here? All of our knowledge/propositions are ectypal.

The world was created orderly.
Orderliness establishes the integrity and applicability of law -- e.g., physical, social, or logical.
Therefore, deriving and applying such laws is a worthwhile endeavor.

This sounds like a Dooyeweerdian view. However, while perhaps interesting in epistemology of natural science, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the doctrines of Trinity/incarnation are "logical" which I thought was the topic of discussion. Further, Genesis 1 suggests that the world was not created orderly, but was shaped into an orderly form. So your first premise (itself is not a major premise - it is a minor premise, and your second is a major premise) is not necessarily true either. Further, the conclusion does not follow as it makes a judgment not contained in the major premise.

For clarity: a major premise is abstract, typically reducible to an "if A, then B" form. A minor premise is concrete, an assertion of some particularized fact that "A" is true. The conclusion, the connected particularized fact that "B" is true follows by necessity. Your proposed syllogism should be:
Major: if X is orderly, then X can be described by law
Minor: creation is orderly
Conclusion: creation can be described by law.

Note that I have changed the minor premise to "is" rather than "was created" orderly. However, I think I would reject the major premise in this instance, as the concept of law is undefined and is typically deistic. To be even more clear, in rejecting the syllogism, I am not rejecting the conclusion (that argument A doesn't prove conclusion C does not imply that C is false). Yet again, I am bothered by the lack of definitional clarity, and the seeming irrelevance to the matter of whether or not the doctrine of Trinity/incarnation is considered "logical" or "illogical." I don't want to get distracted on this syllogism particularly because it seems irrelevant and a distraction from the actual topic under discussion.

Since the major is uniquely Christian, it is confirmatory to note that scientific progress has generally been accomplished within societies imbued with Christian doctrine.

I'm still confused as to the relevance here. What does any of this have to do with whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity/incarnation is "logical" or not?

Have you retracted your claim that those doctrines are illogical? If not, I return to the above series of questions and urge you to clarify just how you are defining logical. You rejected my first possible interpretation of your claim, but in your rejection of my third possible interpretation it really looks like you simply affirmed the first possible interpretation - hence my continuing confusion about what exactly you are trying to claim, and why.

 

[CovenantWord]

Major: if a divine person assumes a human nature to himself, then that divine person possesses a complete divine nature and a complete human nature.
Minor: the divine person "the Son" assumed a human nature to himself.
Conclusion: the divine person "the Son" possesses a complete divine nature and a complete human nature.

Thank you for answering my challenge to craft a syllogism to vindicate your position on this doctrine.
I note, however, that the major is not a proposition, but a conditional conclusion, which renders the syllogism invalid, I'm afraid.

I would very much like for you to try again. The assignment is to establish the claim that the concurrent truths of two natures and one Person which characterize the Incarnation is a logical construct, i.e., not apparently self-contradictory. What might work in this situation is to expand this major into its own syllogism. It would also be helpful if you would specify what you mean by "possesses."

 

[No Other Name]

I would very much like for you to try again. The assignment is to establish the claim that the concurrent truths of two natures and one Person which characterize the Incarnation is a logical construct, i.e., not apparently self-contradictory.

Yes, sir. From the doctrine of the Trinity to the Creator-created relationships within laws of logic to the doctrine of the Incarnation, we are on it! hahaha

No offense, and if my take is wrong then I will be happy to correct, but it seems to me that you are not really honestly engaging in good faith here.

You are scattershot in your questions. You even seem to treat valid syllogisms and the laws of logic interchangeably at times. And then other times as if the laws of logic can only be brought to bear if a claim is constructed in the format of a syllogism. But I would not infer something you do not intend.

Still you seem all over the place with no clear agreement anywhere with anyone as to the utility and limits to the laws of logic - specifically, the applicability of the laws of logic in natural theology and historical-Biblical theology.

You have repeatedly ignored historical-theological definitions regarding "Person" and "Being" and "Nature".

You have too quickly taken others' posts and re-cast them into simple syllogisms so that you can "deconstruct" them easier.

You have made some good points here and there causing some reflection and re-adjustments, but in light of:

1) Several of us still being confused as to your foundational view of logic and theology and the relationship between them
and 2) continual ignoring of definitions given,

this makes you seem pre-determined that key doctrines are paradoxes rather than mysteries.

But until you acknowledge definitions of these terms (that have already been offered by a couple of us), it is worthless to engage with you - and that is not intended as rude or dismissive but simply as a matter of fact.

Whether that remains true from here is dependent on you.

This is either a profitable discussion re-sharpening skills in expressing reasons to believe and solid bases to affirm sound doctrine or playacting at a profitable discussion.

But as it seems to me: if you are indeed genuine, then you must shift the discussion to the realm of definitions (and why one definition would be preferred over another) before proceeding further into even bothering to try to establish any truth claims for you.

 

[CovenantWord]

this syllogism has four terms, making it formally invalid.
1) Justice
2) requires condign punishment.
3) The Father
3) punished the Son for other people's sins.

Thank you for the correction. Let me try again:

Justice requires condign punishment.
The punishment of the Son was not condign.
Therefore, the punishment of the Son was not just.

The premises are true, the syllogism is valid, but the conclusion is not true. Thus, the doctrine of justification is both true and not logical.

 

[No Other Name]

The premises are true

Stop here. Fully true? No development needed? Just these 2 simple sentences as premises in a vacuum?

Define "justice", define "condign punishment". Don't forget: in order for your stance on the illogic of it all, this definition must include why the event(s) of voluntary sacrificial substitution should be precluded here.

It's not even that simple: you need more definitions than these before you make your point.

Define "human nature" as regards any human,

define "human nature" as regards God the Son. Are they equivalent?

Define "divine nature" as regards God the Son.

Define "emptying himself" in light of Philippians 2,

Define "sacrifice", "substitution",

Define "justification"

Define "federal headship",

define "free will and/or free choice" as regards God the Son.

Define "the cup of God's wrath against sin". ... Wait, is that equivalent to "justice"? Could "justification" be possible without "the cup of God's wrath against sin"? Why or why not?

Explain why you get to claim doctrinal truths are seemingly illogical (or apparently contradictory) without needing to address full theological definitions and concepts throughout Scripture and history.

 

[83r17h]

Thank you for the correction. Let me try again:

Justice requires condign punishment.
The punishment of the Son was not condign.
Therefore, the punishment of the Son was not just.

The premises are true, the syllogism is valid, but the conclusion is not true. Thus, the doctrine of justification is both true and not logical.

To quote myself in describing a potential interpretation of your position:

the body of true ectypal knowledge contains something that the laws of logic imply is false

I see no difference in substance between my quote and your final two sentences. I think we've nailed down your view.

This is a direct contradiction to WCF 1.6. I think this is the point where I will bow out, with one final question: since your profile lists you as an RE, is the rest of your session/congregation aware of your views that key doctrines of the faith are contrary to logic? If not, I urge you to make them aware and to reconsider if such teaching is both in line with the Reformed faith, and if it could be a stumbling block for the faith of those you teach.

 

[CovenantWord]

Proverbs 2:6-8 says all knowledge and wisdom belong to God. (Job 12:13 is a more indirect proof text, my mistake).

By extension, when any man engages in knowledge and wisdom it is an act dependent on Creator God. Without God, knowledge and wisdom are not even possible. The fact that man needs to engage in knowledge and wisdom in order to glorify His Creator still puts man dependent on knowledge, wisdom, and the laws of logic - not the other way around.

Proverbs 2:5-9 in effect equates wisdom-knowledge with a faithful personal relationship with the LORD, for this is the only path of sound moral guidance. The passage promises therewithin and thereupon the blessings of uprightness, justice, holiness, and equity. Although it does not comment directly on God's relationship with the amoral activities of collecting, archiving, and processing of abstract data (including logic), this pericope exalts the moral infrastructure essential to fruitful intellectual pursuits.

Job 12:7-25 exhorts the reader to praise God for His creation, providence, and sovereignty. Here, God's omniscience, though not directly stated, is clearly implied.

Our systematic clearly and emphatically promulgates this doctrine: The "one only, living, and true God . . . is infinite in being and perfection, . . . immense, eternal, incomprehensible, . . . most wise, . . . most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will" (WCF 2.1). God does indeed know all things, encompassing (but not limited to) the entire depth and range of human knowledge, including abstract knowledge and, yes, logic. Even so, as the balance of paragraph 2.1 reminds us, the impetus of this Self-revelation of divine nature is to Self-glorify in His relationship with man, in blessing, redemption, and judgment.

Yet, within this very passage from Job, we notice something quite interesting -- that, although God's omniscience is absolute and comprehensive, it is not exclusionary:

Wisdom is with aged men,
And with length of days, understanding.
With Him are wisdom and strength,
He has counsel and understanding. (Job 12:12-13 NKJ)

Where, according to this passage, might reside the repository of wisdom? Is it not with God and with men? God is omniscient, yes, but that truth does not preclude man's acquiring wisdom through long experience of life.

Psalm 127 repeats this theme, using two additional examples:

Unless the LORD builds the house,
They labor in vain who build it;
Unless the LORD guards the city,
The watchman stays awake in vain. (Psalms 127:1 NKJ)

Who is building the house and who is guarding the city? The LORD is and men are. To be sure, wisdom acquisition, domicile erection, and habitation securing are primarily and absolutely dependent upon the LORD; but this truth does not exclude the active, thoughtful -- even creative -- participation of man. In exercising his God-given faculties, man works within and upon and through divine omniscience, This overlap, this concurrency, is an instance of the paradoxical Christian doctrine that God's sovereignty is not inconsonant with man's responsibility. So it is with the development and application of the laws of logic.

By "paradox," I express the character of several foundational Christian doctrines, internally contradictory to the mind of man, but Self-glorifyingly resolved within the heart and mind of God.
By "develop," I express the process of abstracting the orderliness of creation into compact forms readily understood, archived, referenced, applied, and communicated to other minds. Before this development, these forms did not exist; afterward, they did. The development of the laws of physics (in which logic was instrumental) is an illustrative parallel.

 

[RamistThomist]

By "paradox," I express the character of several foundational Christian doctrines, internally contradictory to the mind of man, but Self-glorifyingly resolved within the heart and mind of God.

They are not internally contradictory.

 

[CovenantWord]

But rather, the Trinity is one in essence and three in person. No contradiction.

This is a description of two of the aspects of Trinity, which is conducive to devotional contemplation; but it does not comprehend the being of Divinity, which is simultaneously singular and multiple. The Triune is indivisible, and is thus not subject to logical analysis.

 

[CovenantWord]

If creation sings of the order of the mind of the Creator, then logic is a principle of knowledge of the order that is inherent within the character of God.

Otherwise, you allow for order outside the mind of man - but by implication it would have to be an order without logic if you simultaneously construct a barrier that places logic only within the mind of man. How can there be order outside man, and that order not have logical properties inherent to itself - and yet still be ordered outside man?

This would lead to a universe in which only a human-environment interaction allows for order and thereby, if no human is present then no order can be existent.

Thank you for this post, as it eloquently expresses the heart of the debate. I suggest there are two propositions crucial to the position here expressed:
1) The nature of the creation necessarily manifests the character of the creator.
2) Logic is necessarily intrinsic to the created order.
I hold that 1) is impossible to demonstrate in the case of an inscrutable (outside of Self-revelation) and incomprehensible Creator. It is true, of course, that God made man in His own image of knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; but we know this only by way of special revelation.
I hold that 2) is not the case, because exercising dominion requires the development of abstract, and the manufacture of physical, tools. Certainly, the laws of logic are drawn from, and the exercise of logic is dependent upon, created order. Nevertheless, logic, of itself, is a mental activity unique to man, as ordained of God.
I would be interested to see how you demonstrate the truth of propositions 1) and 2).

 

[RamistThomist]

I hold that 1) is impossible to demonstrate in the case of an inscrutable (outside of Self-revelation) and incomprehensible Creator.

There is a distinction between comprehend and apprehend. We cannot comprehend God. We may, however, apprehend what God chooses to reveal. Otherwise, we are left with Barthianism.

but it does not comprehend the being of Divinity

Again, you are using "being" ambiguously.

which is simultaneously singular and multiple.

But not in the same relation, which we have labored to say, even demonstrate, time and again in this thread.

and is thus not subject to logical analysis.

Sure it is. Person isn't the same as nature. One nature. Three persons. Logical analysis.

 

[CovenantWord]

I am not separating anything, but they can be described by logic. I have done just that.

If you are not separating, then you are not using logic. Logic is a tool of analysis; for which separation is an essential function.
Please note, I am not suggesting that your position is not based on reasoning, which may very well be profound and helpful. Careful, thorough description is another tool of reasoning, just as essential as is logic. By way of analogy, physical science is replete with useful descriptions of phenomena that cannot be analyzed logically. One of these, for instance, is the nature of light. Is light a wave or a particle? We cannot answer this question definitively, for it depends on the aspect of light that the researcher is measuring. The data derived from such research can be very accurate and very helpful; but it describes only one aspect of light or the other, not both at the same time, for the fundamental, comprehensive nature of light is not logically analyzable. So it is with the Trinity. We can describe the nature and the effects of the persona (to refer to the the helpful quote of Richard Muller above by @No Other Name); we can make valid logical statements, using such descriptions as true premises. Such use of logic is at the heart of systematic theology. We can do the same for the essentia. However, we cannot comprehend the essentia and the persona in the same logical conclusion, because they are not separable within the Trinity itself.

 

[RamistThomist]

However, we cannot comprehend the essentia and the persona in the same logical conclusion, because they are not separable within the Trinity itself.

Is the essentia simple and pure act?

 

[No Other Name]

This is a description of two of the aspects of Trinity, which is conducive to devotional contemplation; but it does not comprehend the being of Divinity, which is simultaneously singular and multiple. The Triune is indivisible, and is thus not subject to logical analysis.

This is for any who are quietly watching on the sidelines, absorbing this "discussion".

Never mind that he has been answered already in the level of definitions which he refuses to engage with ("being" is not simultaneously singular and multiple by definition. It is only he that claims this without substantiation. And then acts like we are the ones who have to explain ourselves while he gets to set the framework for all this).

The tone here is far more Hegelian than Westminster. The implication is that an apparent contradiction (of his own making and insistence) can only be resolved by embracing higher truth. More Barth in this than I would think the OPC would be comfortable having as an elder.

 

[CovenantWord]

It is not an apparent contradiction.

If this is as certain and clear as you imply, then it should be readily demonstrated via syllogism. Would you be interested in accepting a challenge?:
State the doctrine of the Trinity as a brief but comprehensive statement.
Demonstrate that statement to be the conclusion of a valid syllogism with true premises.

 

[RamistThomist]

If this is as certain and clear as you imply, then it should be readily demonstrated via syllogism. Would you be interested in accepting a challenge?:
State the doctrine of the Trinity as a brief but comprehensive statement.
Demonstrate that statement to be the conclusion of a valid syllogism with true premises.

No. The burden of proof isn’t on me. I’m not rewriting the historic doctrine of God.

 

[CovenantWord]

Stopped right here. I reject Premise 1 as stated. At the very least, this would need qualifiers including - but not limited to - distinct definitions for "partakes" and "character".

Why do you insist on creating syllogisms? I engaged in creating a syllogism once but that was to demonstrate how quickly complex and messy things get and why it is very rare that a clear theological conclusion can be constructed from a simple syllogism. Poythress constructed a simple syllogism on the Trinity but solely using Scripture directly as premises, (which - if one were to do so - seems to me the only way to do it responsibly without cleaning up a bunch of mess).

Thank you for confirming my point with enthusiasm and insight.

Showing that this premise ("That which is created partakes of the character of its creator.") must needs be rejected is why I expressed it. This premise is essential to the argument presented in this thread that logic is intrinsic to the nature of God. I reaffirm my objection previously stated: The character of the creature does not necessarily reflect the nature of the creator. Such a claim is speculative projection, not logic.

I insist on syllogisms, because they are the heart of logic. If, as is claimed, God's nature is logical, then that truth should be expressable through syllogism. By way of contrast, you are absolutely right, of course: life is "messy and complex." People are messy and complex. Human relationships are messy and complex. The relationship between man and creation is messy and complex. The relationship between God and man is messy and complex. If, as is claimed, logic is integral to God, man, and creation, how does one account for widespread messiness and complexity? (I here specifically exclude the messiness consequent to sin. I take it you are referring to the aspects of creation and of relationships that are intrinsically difficult to categorize.)

Another reason I am recommending syllogisms for this thread is that they are a powerful intellectual discipline to clarify thought and expression. A well-constructed syllogism is more persuasive and less polarizing than simple assertion.

It is not only rare that the character of God (and of the foundational Christian doctrines more generally) can be determined by syllogism, it is impossible; because the only way we can know them is through Self-revelation, to some extent by general, and more particularly and fully by special. On the other hand, the essence of systematic theology is logic: syllogisms (mostly implied rather than stated), categorization, establishing connections.

I would be very interested if you could conveniently find and quote the Poythress syllogism you referenced. I anticipate it would be quite helpful to the discussion.

 

[RamistThomist]

Thank you for confirming my point with enthusiasm and insight.

Showing that this premise ("That which is created partakes of the character of its creator.") must needs be rejected is why I expressed it. This premise is essential to the argument presented in this thread that logic is intrinsic to the nature of God. I reaffirm my objection previously stated: The character of the creature does not necessarily reflect the nature of the creator. Such a claim is speculative projection, not logic.

I insist on syllogisms, because they are the heart of logic. If, as is claimed, God's nature is logical, then that truth should be expressable through syllogism. By way of contrast, you are absolutely right, of course: life is "messy and complex." People are messy and complex. Human relationships are messy and complex. The relationship between man and creation is messy and complex. The relationship between God and man is messy and complex. If, as is claimed, logic is integral to God, man, and creation, how does one account for widespread messiness and complexity? (I here specifically exclude the messiness consequent to sin. I take it you are referring to the aspects of creation and of relationships that are intrinsically difficult to categorize.)

Another reason I am recommending syllogisms for this thread is that they are a powerful intellectual discipline to clarify thought and expression. A well-constructed syllogism is more persuasive and less polarizing than simple assertion.

It is not only rare that the character of God (and of the foundational Christian doctrines more generally) can be determined by syllogism, it is impossible; because the only way we can know them is through Self-revelation, to some extent by general, and more particularly and fully by special. On the other hand, the essence of systematic theology is logic: syllogisms (mostly implied rather than stated), categorization, establishing connections.

I would be very interested if you could conveniently find and quote the Poythress syllogism you referenced. I anticipate it would be quite helpful to the discussion.

I’m all for syllogisms. I just didn’t think I needed to defend the historic view of the Trinity in a syllogism on this board. I might when I get back to my computer.

 

[CovenantWord]

So are you saying that it is inappropriate to apply logic to theology? Your response here seems to be in tension to your response to view #1, where you say that it is applicable to theology.


Perhaps this is the approach required for clarity. Can you define the adjective "logical" in your usage? Specific questions:
- What are the essential attributes of the adjective "logical" in all domains?
- What are the several types of objects that the adjective "logical" can be applied to, and how does the definition differ in those domains?
- What types of objects is it meaningless to apply the adjective "logical" to?


What is "prototypical" here? All of our knowledge/propositions are ectypal.


This sounds like a Dooyeweerdian view. However, while perhaps interesting in epistemology of natural science, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the doctrines of Trinity/incarnation are "logical" which I thought was the topic of discussion. Further, Genesis 1 suggests that the world was not created orderly, but was shaped into an orderly form. So your first premise (itself is not a major premise - it is a minor premise, and your second is a major premise) is not necessarily true either. Further, the conclusion does not follow as it makes a judgment not contained in the major premise.

For clarity: a major premise is abstract, typically reducible to an "if A, then B" form. A minor premise is concrete, an assertion of some particularized fact that "A" is true. The conclusion, the connected particularized fact that "B" is true follows by necessity. Your proposed syllogism should be:
Major: if X is orderly, then X can be described by law
Minor: creation is orderly
Conclusion: creation can be described by law.

Note that I have changed the minor premise to "is" rather than "was created" orderly. However, I think I would reject the major premise in this instance, as the concept of law is undefined and is typically deistic. To be even more clear, in rejecting the syllogism, I am not rejecting the conclusion (that argument A doesn't prove conclusion C does not imply that C is false). Yet again, I am bothered by the lack of definitional clarity, and the seeming irrelevance to the matter of whether or not the doctrine of Trinity/incarnation is considered "logical" or "illogical." I don't want to get distracted on this syllogism particularly because it seems irrelevant and a distraction from the actual topic under discussion.


I'm still confused as to the relevance here. What does any of this have to do with whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity/incarnation is "logical" or not?

Have you retracted your claim that those doctrines are illogical? If not, I return to the above series of questions and urge you to clarify just how you are defining logical. You rejected my first possible interpretation of your claim, but in your rejection of my third possible interpretation it really looks like you simply affirmed the first possible interpretation - hence my continuing confusion about what exactly you are trying to claim, and why.

I do not say that logic is inappropriate to apply to theology. My point is that the foundational doctrines of Christianity are received by revelation, not derived by deduction. Upon this foundation received, logic is essential to theology to organize, systematize, and apply doctrine.

I offered a definition of "logic" earlier in this thread, but it has been a while, so maybe a repeat edited for clarity would be helpful: "Logic is the abstract system of reasoning that develops the results of analysis, according to certain preset principles, primarily deduction, into defensible conclusions. Logic depends upon the revelation that God created the world orderly, that is to say, characterized at the human level by recognizable patterns. Logic is a powerful tool developed by the ordained steward to care for the garden of creation."

To answer your questions: I hold that the essential attributes of logic include orderliness, predictability, truth of premises, and validity of reasoning. Logic is applicable within the human scale of creation. If logic is to be relied on within other environments, the principle of predictability would need to be established first.

By "prototypical," I intended those truths we have by revelation, either general or special; by "ectypal," I intended those truths that we have by deduction therefrom. If there is a better way of expressing this distinction, I am open to suggestions.

Whether forming or shaping into orderliness is separable from the other acts of creation is debatable; but even if it were, it would still be integral to creation. It is included in the creation narrative;, and creation could not exist without it.

Thank you for rearranging my proposed syllogism into better form.

By "law," I intend a clearly expressed, widely applicable principle whose execution eventuates in reliable results. An important example is the laws of logic.

I do not believe, and I have never said, that the fundamental doctrines of Christian theology are illogical. I do believe, and I have said several times, that these doctrines are paradoxical. By this, I mean that their apparent internal contradictions, though not resolvable by human reasoning, are resolved within the heart of God. I will add that these apparent contradictions are divinely-appointed essential elements of the drama of redemption.

 

[CovenantWord]

you must shift the discussion to the realm of definitions

I agree. I have recently offered definitions of logic, paradox, and law. I find Muller's definition of essentia and persona to be useful. A few others that might be helpful: Illogical: The disregard for the parameters of logic with predictably negative consequences. Supralogical: An activity or being that is properly not constrained by the requirements of logic, but sets them aside, or precedes them, for a larger purpose. The foundational doctrines of Christianity are not illogical, they are supralogical. Inferential reasoning: The intellectual activity that, though it does not follow the formal rules of logic, could be expressed as such, were the extra effort deemed to be worth the while. I suspect this is what Poythress and his defenders on this thread mean by "logic." Please correct me if I am wrong here. I do not object to this more general definition, although I hold that when conflict arises, reversion to formal logic is clarifying. Mystery: 1) A significant truth that is adumbrated in the Old Testament, but revealed in the New. A Pauline term. 2) A divine truth that cannot be fully understood by man, but which is divinely revealed to be essential to the relationship between God and man. I have hesitated to use mystery for fear that these two definitions might conflict and because the term carries some papist overtones that I prefer to avoid. However, if it be clear that the second definition is in view, I offer no objection to the use of mystery to describe the foundational doctrines of Christianity. In that context, mystery and paradox are strong synonyms.

Do you suggest any other terms for me to consider?

Actually, I have a definition request as well. What does "relation" mean in the following statements?

[T]he law of noncontradiction says . . . A cannot be ~A at the same time and in the same relationship.

[The Trinity is simultaneously singular and multiple] But not in the same relation.

This concept strikes me as being at the heart of the current debate. What is the intellectual pathway, termed "relation," to conclude that God is possessed of essence, and the alternate path to conclude that They are possessed of Persons? Please understand, I affirm that the Trinity is possessed of both essence and Personhood, in agreement, I am sure, with all contributors to this thread. But the claim that this doctrine is logical depends on the nature of these two "relations."