A defense of logic.

[twin1954]

It is readily apparent from reading the forums here and elsewhere that logic, when it comes to theology, is discarded like a dirty rag. I have heard it said that folks who are extremely smart when it comes to earthly things check their brains at the door when it comes to spiritual things. Why is that? Why is it that when it comes to spiritual truths people don't think logically but simply accept what they are taught?

I find it often amazing how far from logic people will stray when it comes to theology. If we consider the attributes of God, as they are outlined in the Scriptures, how is it that so many don't follow the logical conclusions of their theology to their end?

One example is the impassibility thread. If God is self sufficient, self contented and self sufficient how can He be moved to act by emotions? Logic simply says that He is not moved by emotions. But some argue from statements of the Scriptures that He is because "it says what it says". That does not take into account what the Scriptures teach as a whole or the accepted views of those who have been given light to understand the Scriptures before us.

So my question is, how much does actual logic play into your theology and why?

 

[now faith]

It is readily apparent from reading the forums here and elsewhere that logic, when it comes to theology, is discarded like a dirty rag. I have heard it said that folks who are extremely smart when it comes to earthly things check their brains at the door when it comes to spiritual things. Why is that? Why is it that when it comes to spiritual truths people don't think logically but simply accept what they are taught?

I find it often amazing how far from logic people will stray when it comes to theology. If we consider the attributes of God, as they are outlined in the Scriptures, how is it that so many don't follow the logical conclusions of their theology to their end?

One example is the impassibility thread. If God is self sufficient, self contented and self sufficient how can He be moved to act by emotions? Logic simply says that He is not moved by emotions. But some argue from statements of the Scriptures that He is because "it says what it says". That does not take into account what the Scriptures teach as a whole or the accepted views of those who have been given light to understand the Scriptures before us.

So my question is, how much does actual logic play into your theology and why?

I hope you do not construe my answer as teaching,I am answering your question.

What God is does not limit him to the confines of what He created.
God created all things including man in his own image.
We are of his image but on a much lower class of being.
We Love one another, but God is love.

1 John: 4. 16. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

To finalize your question,for me logic applies to the study of God's Word,but not to God.
If I could logically understand God outside of his Word,then God would be subject to my understanding.
This would not be God,only a by product of my understanding.

 

[twin1954]

I hope you do not construe my answer as teaching,I am answering your question.

What God is does not limit him to the confines of what He created.
God created all things including man in his own image.
We are of his image but on a much lower class of being.
We Love one another, but God is love.

1 John: 4. 16. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

To finalize your question,for me logic applies to the study of God's Word,but not to God.
If I could logically understand God outside of his Word,then God would be subject to my understanding.
This would not be God,only a by product of my understanding.

I understand your answer but does not our understanding of what God has revealed of Himself in Scriptures apply to logic?

To be sure God is beyond our knowledge or understanding but what He has given us of Himself is logical and can be grasped logically.

 

[twin1954]

Deleted double post

 

[7trees]

It is readily apparent from reading the forums here and elsewhere that logic, when it comes to theology, is discarded like a dirty rag. I have heard it said that folks who are extremely smart when it comes to earthly things check their brains at the door when it comes to spiritual things. Why is that? Why is it that when it comes to spiritual truths people don't think logically but simply accept what they are taught?

I find it often amazing how far from logic people will stray when it comes to theology. If we consider the attributes of God, as they are outlined in the Scriptures, how is it that so many don't follow the logical conclusions of their theology to their end?

One example is the impassibility thread. If God is self sufficient, self contented and self sufficient how can He be moved to act by emotions? Logic simply says that He is not moved by emotions. But some argue from statements of the Scriptures that He is because "it says what it says". That does not take into account what the Scriptures teach as a whole or the accepted views of those who have been given light to understand the Scriptures before us.

So my question is, how much does actual logic play into your theology and why?

I thought the bible was the perfect example of Logic. I thought Paul the smartest man, beside Christ, to have ever lived. I thought the most spiritual Christians to be the most logical. Blind faith is nonsense as faith by its nature is spiritual perception of divine truths...It is seeing things correctly.

 

[Dave-W]

One example is the impassibility thread. If God is self sufficient, self contented and self sufficient how can He be moved to act by emotions? Logic simply says that He is not moved by emotions. But some argue from statements of the Scriptures that He is because "it says what it says". That does not take into account what the Scriptures teach as a whole or the accepted views of those who have been given light to understand the Scriptures before us.

I would submit that you are pursuing the wrong logical framework. The logic of the bible is different from what we consider "logic," (deduction, induction) which is a product of Greek paganism. (via Aristotle)

The bible's logic is different. It is called either "adductive" logic or "Hebrew Block" logic.

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=3324

https://books.google.com/books?id=L...-Ch0Z6Q7G#v=onepage&q=adductive logic&f=false

http://www.thelogician.net/JUDAIC-LOGIC/Torah-Adductive-Logic-2.htm

 

[twin1954]

I would submit that you are pursuing the wrong logical framework. The logic of the bible is different from what we consider "logic," (deduction, induction) which is a product of Greek paganism. (via Aristotle)

The bible's logic is different. It is called either "adductive" logic or "Hebrew Block" logic.

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=3324

https://books.google.com/books?id=L-wI8OGpvTUC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=adductive+logic&source=bl&ots=VhVhFLJrl7&sig=R7UfqoH4cgeggsbpgG7KGT0EpmQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMIvsi0mOT7xwIVh4I-Ch0Z6Q7G#v=onepage&q=adductive logic&f=false

http://www.thelogician.net/JUDAIC-LOGIC/Torah-Adductive-Logic-2.htm

So you would advocate not considering the consequences of your thoughts concerning God? Just go with the flow and everything will be all right?

Hmm, I wonder if that kind of thinking was what made the Jews miss God in Christ when He was with them?

 

[twin1954]

There is a difference in natural thinking concerning spiritual things and using logic to understand the teaching of the Scriptures. Logic is a tool like knowing Greek is a tool. What we naturally think concerning spiritual things is wrong not because it will not stand up to logic, which it cannot, but because spiritual things are the opposite of natural things. According to Paul in Rom. 1 we naturally think that God is like a man and therefore put attributes on Him as though He were. Hence the idea of man having a free will is a natural thought that man must hang on to.

Logic doesn't make us see spiritual things it simply allows us to set them in order that we may grasp more fully those truths and their consequences.

 

[JM]

Communication assumes logic. It's unavoidable.

 

[now faith]

There is a difference in natural thinking concerning spiritual things and using logic to understand the teaching of the Scriptures. Logic is a tool like knowing Greek is a tool. What we naturally think concerning spiritual things is wrong not because it will not stand up to logic, which it cannot, but because spiritual things are the opposite of natural things. According to Paul in Rom. 1 we naturally think that God is like a man and therefore put attributes on Him as though He were. Hence the idea of man having a free will is a natural thought that man must hang on to.

Logic doesn't make us see spiritual things it simply allows us to set them in order that we may grasp more fully those truths and their consequences.

I agree with your interpretation of Romans -1

Romans: 1. 21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Is it possible that this passage could be understood as people that are completely disobedient to God?

Balaam comes to mind in this instance.
Even after being commanded not to curse Israel, he went out to curse them anyway.
Jesabel would be another that clearly watched the power of God destroy her prophet's, yet still wanted to kill Elijah.
Simon the Sorcerer after witnessing the power of God,sought to buy God as if he would control the Holy Spirit.

 

[now faith]

I understand your answer but does not our understanding of what God has revealed of Himself in Scriptures apply to logic?

To be sure God is beyond our knowledge or understanding but what He has given us of Himself is logical and can be grasped logically.

Yes to a point,to use Paul's terminology of being given milk or strong meat is a metaphorical example of Spiritual maturity.
It is my opinion that we will never fully understand God's Word in every aspect.
I personally believe every Word in the Bible has God's purpose in it.
On a personal note ,I used to get bored by the genealogy passages but now I see a wealth of information and understanding of origins in it.
So I have to wonder how much more in a lifetime will there be to learn.

 

[twin1954]

I agree with your interpretation of Romans -1

Romans: 1. 21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Is it possible that this passage could be understood as people that are completely disobedient to God?

Balaam comes to mind in this instance.
Even after being commanded not to curse Israel, he went out to curse them anyway.
Jesabel would be another that clearly watched the power of God destroy her prophet's, yet still wanted to kill Elijah.
Simon the Sorcerer after witnessing the power of God,sought to buy God as if he would control the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 1 applies to all mankind by nature. If God were take off the restraint we would do even worse things than any of those you mentioned. The natural man is enmity with God, Rom. 8:7, and we hate God by nature.

 

[now faith]

Rom. 1 applies to all mankind by nature. If God were take off the restraint we would do even worse things than any of those you mentioned. The natural man is enmity with God, Rom. 8:7, and we hate God by nature.

How did we aquire our sin Nature?

 

[twin1954]

How did we aquire our sin Nature?

Through the fall of Adam of course.

 

[Look Up]

It might be worth recalling here D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies book (2nd ed., 1996) in which is found one chapter entitled "Logical Fallacies." This chapter lists 18 kinds of fallacies with illustrations in published works. No claim is made that the list or examples are comprehensive of the topic, only that the fallacies listed "frequently crop up in exegetical work" (p. 87). Nor of course are logical fallacies the only sort of exegetical fallacy.

 

[Look Up]

I agree with your interpretation of Romans -1

Romans: 1. 21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Is it possible that this passage could be understood as people that are completely disobedient to God? ...

Paul in Rom. 1:18-32 indicts primarily gentiles (to whom the witness of God in creation is manifest), followed in ch.2 by an indictment against primarily Jews (the "circumcision") en route to claiming for example that "every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may be held accountable to God" (3:19), "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (v. 23), etc., all itself followed by a free offer of redemption in Jesus to all who believe, etc.

But in Rom. 1:21, wherein does the "foolish hearts which are darkened" consist (cf. Eph. 4:17-19 & "darkened mind" of Rom. 1:28)? First, the persons considered (to whom God has revealed Himself through what He made, vv. 19-20) in lust (v. 24) have rejected and suppressed that revelation (vv. 18, 21), "exchanging the glory of the immortal God for" idols made to look like things in the creation (v. 23). In consequence of idolatry, apparently secondly, "God gave them up" (v. 24, cf. vv. 26, 28) to a long list of sins, sins which seem to place the persons in darker darkness, if I can put it that way, or at least the divine "giving over" is judicial against idolatry (if also desirable in the eyes of the "given over," cf. "given themselves up" of Eph. 4:19). One thinks of divine "hardening of human heart" later in Romans (chs. 9, 11).

The NT makes much of a dichotomy between those who have the Holy Spirit and those who do not (e.g., Rom. 8), between those who are regenerate (or born again) and those who are not, between those who build their house upon the rock and those who build their house upon the sand, between sheep and goats, between those who walk in darkness and those who walk in the light, between those who are "spiritual" and those who are "natural" (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:14-15). Those on the one side of the dichotomy not only obey Jesus, but also see and understand "the things of the Spirit of God" in a way that those on the other side (who do not obey the gospel) do not (in 1 Cor. 1-2, particularly "things" concerning "the word of the cross" of Jesus, which is "foolishness to those who are perishing," 1 Cor. 1:18).

On the other hand, there does seem a confusion ofttimes between the identities of the wheat and the tares (Mt. 13:24ff), or in the church at Corinth for example, Paul says he could not address the church "as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh" (1 Cor. 3:1), which fortunately meant "as infants in Christ" (v. 2) rather than as "natural" persons who are "not able to understand" spiritual things (2:14). Yet misunderstanding about spiritual things--and sin--at least as vague generalities, seems a commonality on both sides of the dichotomy.

There are many ways to misunderstand the Bible or what God wants us to think and do, logical fallacies among them. Logical fallacies may be simply at the level of factual error or mistake, or they may stem at least in part from some evil desire or incapacity, the latter particularly rooted in suppression of the evidence that the Creator is and has a claim on all of our lives or in a rejection of worshiping a crucified (and raised) God.

But what of the former case? Evil desire even among the regenerate may take many forms--fear and pride among them--and where theology is complex or tied to deep emotions, more heat in polemics may be generated than light. Doctrinal divisions in the church may serve to foster corrections and purity (1 Cor. 11:19), yet they may also deter the witness of the church. There seems no neat and easy solution--from a pastoral perspective--but rightly dividing the word of truth is surely an ideal worth striving for.

 

[Dave-W]

So you would advocate not considering the consequences of your thoughts concerning God? Just go with the flow and everything will be all right?

You clearly did not read or did not understand (if you did read) how block logic works.

Hmm, I wonder if that kind of thinking was what made the Jews miss God in Christ when He was with them?

Actually, in first century Judea, Helenistic thought and logic had made significant inroads to Jewish thinking, especially among the Sadducees (temple priests) and the Pharisees. (synagogue rabbis) They were the groups that primarily rejected HIM.

 

[twin1954]

Paul in Rom. 1:18-32 indicts primarily gentiles (to whom the witness of God in creation is manifest),

Paul in Rom. 1:18-32 indicts primarily gentiles (to whom the witness of God in creation is manifest),

Since the Gentiles that you speak of were preAbramic it would indict all mankind including those who were eventually Jews. The Bible never once seeks to prove the existence of God it simply says He is. That knowledge is innate in all of mankind and can be clearly seen from Creation. It is suppressed and God, whom all mankind knows to be, is made to be like animals and man. The depraved imagination of man makes God to be just like him.

 

[twin1954]

You clearly did not read or did not understand (if you did read) how block logic works.

I did read it and what I said is exactly what block logic does. They claim that God is mysterious and anything that doesn't fit with what they think must be a mystery and so they go with the flow and accept anything.

Actually, in first century Judea, Helenistic thought and logic had made significant inroads to Jewish thinking, especially among the Sadducees (temple priests) and the Pharisees. (synagogue rabbis) They were the groups that primarily rejected HIM.

Actually all of the Jews were looking for a King to ride in on a white horse, so to speak, and rescue them and set up His kingdom physically with them ruling over all the world. When the God-man Christ Jesus came into the world a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief they rejected Him because He didn't fit what they either expected or wanted.

 

[Look Up]

Since the Gentiles that you speak of were preAbramic it would indict all mankind including those who were eventually Jews.

Rom. 1:18-32 contains many allusions to the Genesis 1 creation account (some clearer than others) and even some at least veiled allusions to Genesis 3 (the Fall), so you may be right about a pre-Abrahamic target group in Rom. 1:18ff. Certainly the rejection of the Creator happened in Genesis right after the Fall and following. And certainly Jews were recipients with Gentiles of the revelation of God in that which has been created (hence my use of the term "primarily," above, applied to Gentiles).

But also Romans 1:18-32 is meant to have application for the church at Rome contemporary with Paul, and Rom. 1:18-32 contrasts, particularly for Jewish Christians in Rome, with Jews indicted in Rom. 2. The usual antipode to "Jew" for Paul is "Gentile."

All mankind is indeed indicted: past and present.