Human logic applied to the Divine Word of God

[inchristalone221]

It would seem that you think that a man can come to Christ by simply a use of logic. That isn't intended as putting words in your mouth but it does seem to be what you are implying. If that is the case then the natural man can understand and believe spiritual truth without being regenerate. Which goes against what Paul says in 1Cor. 2:14

I do not believe Jon believes this (or at least I did not personally gather that from his words), but if he does I must disagree.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Greek word used in 1 Cor 2:14 is dekomai (sp?). This word implies experiential knowledge and assent. I believe that the unregenerate man may cognitively grasp the truths of theology through applying reason to scripture, but I agree that he will not accept them (they are "foolishness" to "those who are perishing").

 

[Proeliator]

I hear this objection pretty often. For those who think that we apply "human logic" to the Scripture too often or incorrectly, I would like to see a single instance of where correctly applied logic results in a violation of a scriptural principle.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

My point was not so much that it leads to a misinterpretation, but that there are certain aspects of the Divine that will defy our logic no matter what; yet we frail humans still try to apply our logic to them.

 

[Jon_]

Having debated with you before it is a scary thing for me to respond to you. Actually I have been attempting to learn what a logical argument is and how to do it but I am a slow learner. Still some things do come to mind as I read your comment. I don't intend to build a straw man but only to define what we mean when we speak of using logic.

I sincerely hope and pray that God would enable to explain it in words that you will understand and will glorify him.

It would seem that you think that a man can come to Christ by simply a use of logic. That isn't intended as putting words in your mouth but it does seem to be what you are implying.

I see. In that case, allow me to explicitly dispel the implication. I do repudiate the notion that one can come to Christ through logic alone. I most assuredly believe that one must be gifted with faith in Christ, which faith is a gift of God, effected in the sinner by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. In other words, I affirm the orthodox Calvinist doctrine of soteriology. My assertion is that one may understand the doctrines of Scripture through use of logic, but logic has no bearing on the belief of the person. That is, even an atheist can understand that Christianity teaches that Christ died for the remission of the sins of his people, but only a regenerated Christian can believe this proposition to be true when applied to himself. This then, begins to approach the doctrine saving faith. I wrote a little article on another forum about this topic, but in response to it being raised here, I went ahead and posted it on my blog, so that it would be easily accessible. You can read it here: http://nicholsonjon.wordpress.com/2006/02/12/on-saving-faith/.

If that is the case then the natural man can understand and believe spiritual truth without being regenerate. Which goes against what Paul says in 1Cor. 2:14.

Yes, that would go against what the apostle wrote, which is why I do not maintain that position.

I believe you would agree that logic is vey useful in seeking truth it doesn't necessarily define truth. For me it is simply a method of arriving at a conclusion.

Only one last comment; I may be mistaken but I think the point was that we just cannot find out everything of God by using logic.

I think we are on the same page, brother. Perhaps there was just some general misunderstanding. Logic certainly does not define truth. As you say, it is merely a tool for arriving at a conclusion. If the premises are true, and if the logical argument is valid, then the conclusion will also be true. But no logic can ever make false premises into a true conclusion.

Job 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?

Amen. I believe Zophar is saying here that natural theology cannot possibly discover truth about God. I also believe that he is in a sense saying that God is infinite and that he is inexhaustible. That is, we can never know everything about God. Indeed, we know previous little, but what we know has been gifted to us by God because he wanted us to know it. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism says, "The Scriptures principally teach what God requires of man and what man is to believe concerning God." Where the Scripture is silent, we must also be silent, for as Agur, son of Jakeh, said: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6 KJV).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

My point was not so much that it leads to a misinterpretation, but that there are certain aspects of the Divine that will defy our logic no matter what; yet we frail humans still try to apply our logic to them.

I think I understand this, but I am still not altogether sure this isn't a completely hypothetical argument. What is there about God that we try to apply logic to that cannot be explained by logic? If there is such a thing, how do we know it without using logic? I think that is the real problem. The argument is self-contradictory.

The argument presumes to assert they are things about God that logic cannot deal with. If that is true, then I must ask how one can possibly know these things apart from logic, when human thought is bound by logic. We are indeed frail humans. We indeed make countless logical blunders. But I fail to see how one can make the assertion that there exists in God things that cannot be grapsed by logic when one must express this proposition logically. It results in a self-contradictory proposition.

You see, the thing is, I can readily admit that there might be things about God that are not expressable through logic, but no one can possibly demonstrate that this is true. To show this is true, one must use logic. But then that refutes the argument in the first place. In other words, to even say that there are things about God that defy logic is to say something contradictory, and thus, false.

If there are things about God that cannot be logically understood then we can never know them, for knowledge is conformed to logic. It is because of this simple fact that I find it pointless to even discuss the possibility of it. In fact, your objection that "we frail humans still try to apply our logic to them" is really turned back on you because you are putting forth an argument that can never be justifiable or true coming from the lips of a man.

Now, I love you Shad, you know that, and my purpose is not to single you out. My intent is to show you that while God is definitely beyond searching out and beyond the total comprehension of the human mind, his revelation most certainly is. Even more, he has given us rational minds that are capable of understanding his revelation. As a result, the proper (in logical terms, valid) application of logic to Scripture should never be thought as wrong. Instead, it is the faculty that God has given to us for understanding (1) what he requires of us, and (2) what we are to believe concerning him. Thus, since it no where says in Scripture that there are things about God that defy logic, we should believe that what the Bible says may be understood logically. Now, the Bible most certainly says there are aspects of God that can never be discovered. This I affirm with my whole heart. But this does not imply that logic is an insufficient tool in coming to a proper understanding of him.

In conclusion, rather than arguing the hypothetical case that there are aspects of God that defy logic--something that man cannot possibly know--it is better to recognize that God has given us rational minds in order to understand and obey him. Instead of deriding logic, we should "take it captive for Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[mlqurgw]

I sincerely hope and pray that God would enable to explain it in words that you will understand and will glorify him.


I see. In that case, allow me to explicitly dispel the implication. I do repudiate the notion that one can come to Christ through logic alone. I most assuredly believe that one must be gifted with faith in Christ, which faith is a gift of God, effected in the sinner by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. In other words, I affirm the orthodox Calvinist doctrine of soteriology. My assertion is that one may understand the doctrines of Scripture through use of logic, but logic has no bearing on the belief of the person. That is, even an atheist can understand that Christianity teaches that Christ died for the remission of the sins of his people, but only a regenerated Christian can believe this proposition to be true when applied to himself. This then, begins to approach the doctrine saving faith. I wrote a little article on another forum about this topic, but in response to it being raised here, I went ahead and posted it on my blog, so that it would be easily accessible. You can read it here: http://nicholsonjon.wordpress.com/2006/02/12/on-saving-faith/.


Yes, that would go against what the apostle wrote, which is why I do not maintain that position.


I think we are on the same page, brother. Perhaps there was just some general misunderstanding. Logic certainly does not define truth. As you say, it is merely a tool for arriving at a conclusion. If the premises are true, and if the logical argument is valid, then the conclusion will also be true. But no logic can ever make false premises into a true conclusion.


Amen. I believe Zophar is saying here that natural theology cannot possibly discover truth about God. I also believe that he is in a sense saying that God is infinite and that he is inexhaustible. That is, we can never know everything about God. Indeed, we know previous little, but what we know has been gifted to us by God because he wanted us to know it. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism says, "The Scriptures principally teach what God requires of man and what man is to believe concerning God." Where the Scripture is silent, we must also be silent, for as Agur, son of Jakeh, said: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6 KJV).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I just wanted to say that I didn't for a moment think that what I said was what you actually believed. I should have said that in my earlier post. While we may disagree on some things I do emphatically consider you my brother in Christ, which is something I am very careful about.

Now a question that you, I am sure, can answer concerning logic. Would you say that there is a difference in formal logic and the normal way people reason? That is, is all reasoning logic whether it is correct logic or incorrect logic? I ask becuse I am trying to learn something of what logic is as I said earlier. I am becoming more convinced all the time that the saying that you can't teach an old dog new tricks is true. I think I may have killed too many brain cells before Christ revealed Himself in me.

 

[McWilliams]

We need to remember that God reads hearts! In the gospel of John it states that some believed on Him but He did not commit Himself to them as He knew their heart! We are to believe on Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength! He knows them that are His!

 

[Jon_]

I just wanted to say that I didn't for a moment think that what I said was what you actually believed. I should have said that in my earlier post. While we may disagree on some things I do emphatically consider you my brother in Christ, which is something I am very careful about.

Well, thank you very much for your words of encouragement. I too consider you a dear brother in Christ, and am happy and thankful that we have this forum through which might have fellowship.

Now a question that you, I am sure, can answer concerning logic. Would you say that there is a difference in formal logic and the normal way people reason? That is, is all reasoning logic whether it is correct logic or incorrect logic? I ask becuse I am trying to learn something of what logic is as I said earlier. I am becoming more convinced all the time that the saying that you can't teach an old dog new tricks is true. I think I may have killed too many brain cells before Christ revealed Himself in me.

Okay, this is a good question. It is best to answer it by saying what "formal logic" is and then comparing it to the way we ordinarily think. Now, formal logic, as its name implies, speaks of the "form" of arguments. For example, there are four basic ways you can assert something. You can say, "All a is b," "No a is b," "Some a is b," or "Some a is not b." These are the four different "forms" of logic. They encompass every possible proposition.

Now, the science of formal logic tells us which combination of these forms are valid inferences. For example. If I say all dogs are canines, and Fido is a dog, then Fido is a canine. This is a valid inference because the form of the argument is such that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Now, you can already see in this proposition how human thinking frequently fits into this form. Not all human thinking follows logical forms, though. In fact, I would venture to say that most thinking does not. Part of the reason is because we do not always think "propositions." Propositions are basically declarative sentences. "All dogs are canines" is a proposition. "Do I need to go to the store?" is an interrogative, a question. Here is an important distinction: propositions are the only forms of language that can be true or false. Questions, commands, exclamations, and other such non-propositional phrases are neither true nor false because they do not assert anything.

Given this information, we can see that much of our thinking is not "formally logical" because it is non-propositional. And that is okay. Not constantly having "logical thoughts" is a part of being human. It is a part of language. The Scriptures are full of questions, commands, and exortations. Of course, we frequently think propositions that are irrational, too.

We might think, "Joe has been acting funny lately. He must be up to something because people act funny when they're up to something." This is actually a valid argument, but the premises are highly suspicious. To say that "all people act funny when they're up to something" is to say something that cannot possibly be demonstrated as true. Joe may simply not be feeling well or he may be having personal troubles. While the form of the argument is correct, the proposition is false. Notice that the argument is logical, but wrong. Logic does not dictate what is true. Instead, it only dictates what necessarily follows from a group of propositions. Now, if it were true that all people act funny when they're up to something, then the conclusion would also be true because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. But because the premises are false, the conclusion is also false.

Sometimes we use bad logic. We might say, "Everytime it rains, the ground gets wet. Now, the ground it wet, so it must have rained." This argument is formally fallacious. The fallacy is so common that it has been given the name, affirming the consequent. The form of the argument is invalid, so the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Now, it might be true that it has rained and that is what made the ground get wet, but a different argument is needed to demonstrate that fact because this one is incorrect. This is similar to working an algebra problem incorrectly, but getting the right answer. Your teacher will still mark your answer down as wrong (if he is a good teacher, that is) even though you got the right answer. The reason the answer is wrong is not because the figure is correct, but because the solution was invalid.

I hope that helps to illustrate some of the principles of logic and how they relate to our thoughts.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[mlqurgw]

Well, thank you very much for your words of encouragement. I too consider you a dear brother in Christ, and am happy and thankful that we have this forum through which might have fellowship.


Okay, this is a good question. It is best to answer it by saying what "formal logic" is and then comparing it to the way we ordinarily think. Now, formal logic, as its name implies, speaks of the "form" of arguments. For example, there are four basic ways you can assert something. You can say, "All a is b," "No a is b," "Some a is b," or "Some a is not b." These are the four different "forms" of logic. They encompass every possible proposition.

Now, the science of formal logic tells us which combination of these forms are valid inferences. For example. If I say all dogs are canines, and Fido is a dog, then Fido is a canine. This is a valid inference because the form of the argument is such that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Now, you can already see in this proposition how human thinking frequently fits into this form. Not all human thinking follows logical forms, though. In fact, I would venture to say that most thinking does not. Part of the reason is because we do not always think "propositions." Propositions are basically declarative sentences. "All dogs are canines" is a proposition. "Do I need to go to the store?" is an interrogative, a question. Here is an important distinction: propositions are the only forms of language that can be true or false. Questions, commands, exclamations, and other such non-propositional phrases are neither true nor false because they do not assert anything.

Given this information, we can see that much of our thinking is not "formally logical" because it is non-propositional. And that is okay. Not constantly having "logical thoughts" is a part of being human. It is a part of language. The Scriptures are full of questions, commands, and exortations. Of course, we frequently think propositions that are irrational, too.

We might think, "Joe has been acting funny lately. He must be up to something because people act funny when they're up to something." This is actually a valid argument, but the premises are highly suspicious. To say that "all people act funny when they're up to something" is to say something that cannot possibly be demonstrated as true. Joe may simply not be feeling well or he may be having personal troubles. While the form of the argument is correct, the proposition is false. Notice that the argument is logical, but wrong. Logic does not dictate what is true. Instead, it only dictates what necessarily follows from a group of propositions. Now, if it were true that all people act funny when they're up to something, then the conclusion would also be true because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. But because the premises are false, the conclusion is also false.

Sometimes we use bad logic. We might say, "Everytime it rains, the ground gets wet. Now, the ground it wet, so it must have rained." This argument is formally fallacious. The fallacy is so common that it has been given the name, affirming the consequent. The form of the argument is invalid, so the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Now, it might be true that it has rained and that is what made the ground get wet, but a different argument is needed to demonstrate that fact because this one is incorrect. This is similar to working an algebra problem incorrectly, but getting the right answer. Your teacher will still mark your answer down as wrong (if he is a good teacher, that is) even though you got the right answer. The reason the answer is wrong is not because the figure is correct, but because the solution was invalid.

I hope that helps to illustrate some of the principles of logic and how they relate to our thoughts.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Very helpful indeed. Thanks very much. No wonder I have so much trouble with algebra.

 

[Jon_]

Very helpful indeed. Thanks very much. No wonder I have so much trouble with algebra.

You and me both, brother! It's no coincidence that the prefix "alge" is the same as the Greek for "pain"!

(Algebra is actually an Arabic word, but I thought the coincidence was too good not to share.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Bob Moore]

When you say the word "faith" do you mean "trust"?

I think the two are closely related. It does no good to profess 'faith' unless by action 'trust' is demonstrated. For example, I can profess my faith that that thing in the corner with four legs is a chair, but is my faith worth anything if I am unwilling to trust the chair to support me?