quote:

---

While we should all agree that these and many other expressions point toward the genuine character of all reality, their variety reflects the difficulty of specifying one definition as indisputable. This difficulty should not surprise us. As Christians we should expect all human definitions to suffer to one degree or another from the limitations of human thought and language, especially as they suffer the corruption of sin. Our best dicta concerning the non contra se condition will always have limitations. Only God’s understanding of any aspect of creation is perfect. God has always understood himself fully and therefore has always fully understood the law of contradiction. No static obscures his concept of the law. But interference from sin and finitude always crowds our perspectives.

---

And also:

quote:

---

…abstract symbolic formulations of the law of contradiction do not precisely match the way things actually are. As a result, they cannot provide a completely reliable guide for theological studies. Theologians deal with concrete things like biblical texts and theological propositions. These objects of study are linguistic expressions that do not bear the qualities of the imaginary world of abstractions.

---

The same kind of criticism applies to abstract formulations of the law of contradiction. They do not help much with the practical tasks of theological studies because Christian theology focuses not on an imaginary world, but on the concrete phenomena of Scripture and human discourse about Scripture. The limitations of abstract expressions of the law of contradiction lead many theologians to work with definitions that rely more on ordinary language. These formulations of the law are much more useful. We easily make sense of them and employ them in many practical ways. Nevertheless, ordinary language formulations suffer from severe limitations when applied to academic pursuits. Does God fully understand of the law of contradiction? Yes. Do humans fully understand of the law of contradiction? No. Does any human description of the law of contradiction state the principle precisely as it is (i.e. as God knows it)? Is it important for students to exercise caution because of the inadequacies of every human understanding of the law of contradiction? Yes.

4. In answer to the question, “Do you believe in the law of contradiction?” Pratt responds, “My answer depends on what you mean by ‘believe in the law.’” If the question implies that we should not contradict ourselves in theology, then he believes in the law. If the question implies that the Bible never actually contradicts itself, he believes in the law. But if the question implies that we should reject a biblical teaching because we cannot explain how it conforms to the law of contradiction, then he does not believe in the law. No biblical teaching actually contradicts any other teaching, but this logical consistency is not always discernible. Pratt writes: “…the doctrine of Sola Scriptura insists that Scripture, not our understanding of the law of contradiction, is our ultimate authority. Believers should submit to the teaching of the Bible, even if this means affirming beliefs that seem to be (but are not actually) in violation of the law of contradiction.

-----------------------------

What of this notion that though God and reality are non contra se it remains the case that the noetic effects of sin and our natural finiteness means we must expect sometimes to encounter in Scripture what our minds recognize as self-contradictory? We can be confident, however, that such contradictions are only apparent.

Tom


"When you mix things up they get messy" Fred

quote:

---

Tom: ... I wonder how so many (and there seem to be a lot of) theologians argue that Scripture does lead us to affirm contradictory beliefs. ... I’m confronted by others who are convinced that God must be thought of as above logic. God’s transcendence means our logic won’t always apply.

But my focus is on revelation. Somebody I recently read said it well: “Either the logic of revelation is our logic or there is no revelation.”

---

I think that a good tool, here, Tom, is to discard the phrasing that says that God is "unknowable" in certain respects. (Which is certainly true; and the word "unknowable" is perfectly fine.) But, instead, to avoid the academic mindset of that for a minute. Instead, say "God cannot be 'EXPERIENCED' in his essence, BY HIS CREATION. That seems easier to keep clear. While it is our calling to participate in the Personal Love of the Trinity, we shall never BE in the Trinity. Said this way, I think that all of us can affirm that we do not experience/relate God the same way that the Son, the Father and the Spirit relate to each other. I never yet haf 'proceeded' from the Father, nor have I ever been 'eternally begotten.'

Again, making sure that I have a more "biblical definition" of "know" (like "know her in a Biblical way") -- which is to experience. Like:

quote:

---

Jeremiah 31:33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD,

---

Reading, back to what you posted, Tom, we should expect to be able to know what is EXPERIENCABLE, to the capacity that we each, individually, are able to EXPERIENCE it. Paul once experienced the "third heaven." It is a thing that is not conveyable in words, and, so, it not subject by us to logic. (Does not say that it defies logic, though, I guess!)

But as to "convinced that God must be thought of as above logic," we must remember that God is not within logic, but rather creates it. We cannot penetrate that which we have no revelation about. And we shall not expect to penetrate that which we have no experience about. And here's why. We must avoid the modern temptation to slip towards a quasi-atheism that thinks of the world sustaining itself without being the product of the Word of God. Each thing has its own logoi, is spoken into being. And nothing is self-sustaining. We even will never "have" eternal life -- we will only participate in divine Life in Christ. God gives things their sensibilities and their conceivability. They do not have an independant source. What ever conceivability and logic things have...God gave that to them.

Everything about logic is wonderful. But the potential or failing is ours, in whether we begin with God or begin with an attitude of an "ism." (I'm thinking of Scholasticism.)

Someone could say, "God’s transcendence means our logic won’t always apply." And I would disagree with that in a svelt move or pickiness. Rather, I might suggest that our logic does not always "pertain." If it can properly be applied, then it applies. But it does not always pertain.

An example, to raise feathers, is that I understand sociological models to NOT pertain to the Trinity. Its not a matter of them not "applying." I can't "apply" what does not pertain. (For example, I can not 'lower the cost' of the color blue, or 'sharpen' $2.57 -- they do not pertain. For this, I also wish to express my appriciation of Doyeweerd. A little pedigocial reinforcement, and review. )

So, Tom. I'm with you. I just don't think (and believe that I prooved above) that it is an either/or.

Fred



Edited by - fred on 12/17/2002 10:28:21 AM

quote:

---

Fred: But as to "convinced that God must be thought of as above logic," we must remember that God is not within logic, but rather creates it. We cannot penetrate that which we have no revelation about.

Doc: To say that God created logic might suggest that he could have created it otherwise. But this supposition only has meaning to the extent that we can specify what this "otherwise" might have been. Good luck. If this cannot be done, then there is no clear meaning that can be given to suggestion that God created logic. Of course, he could have created a world in which no one thought logical. But could he have created logic to operate differently (viz. where "round triangle" and "married bachleur" were meaningful)?

It comes down to this: are the laws of logic contingent or necessary? It is only meaningful to say they are contingent if there is a conceivable alternative. And for this reason I conclude that they are necessary.

---

quote:

---

Oh, Fred, I just want to say this: Yes, no, no, perhaps, no, yes, certainly, maybe, and certainly not.

---

quote:

---

Are we seriously expecting a person who does not believe logic applies to God to give a logical response?

We really don't have anything more to offer the world than any other religion if we don't have a reasonable faith.

---

quote:

---

And no one here, that I'm aware of, is voting for an un-reasonable faith.

---

quote:

---

When you say, "God is above logic," and "God creates logic," by definition you seem to me to have made logic totally arbitrary and in fact lawless. I see it as "God operates within the realm of logic," (even when performing miracles, due to his omnipotence) for that is how the universe He created works; that is, logic is simply how things are. I seem to recall reading an Eastern Orthodox writer expounding on Christ as the Logos meaning the revelation of Divine Wisdom/Intelligence/Logic. (But it has been a while).

---

quote:

---

I'll agree with much of what you say above. "God operates within the realm of logic" is very true. (Notice that you are talking about His opperations; and not something ineffable like the eternal begotteness of the Son, or the procession of the Spirit) But since these two things about God are unknowable to me, I can't apply logic to them.

---

quote:

---

Al: I'll agree with much of what you say above. "God operates within the realm of logic" is very true. (Notice that you are talking about His opperations; and not something ineffable like the eternal begotteness of the Son, or the procession of the Spirit) But since these two things about God are unknowable to me, I can't apply logic to them.

John: What is so illogical or unable to be described logically about the eternal begottenness of the Son or the procession of the Spirit? These do not at all seem impossible to describe with English (or any other language). Why do you think you can't apply logic to these things? Isn't the fact that theologians have in fact applied logic to these ideas/doctrines proof that these things can in fact be logically discussed? I guess I just don't see where you get the idea that the inner workings of the Trinity are so beyond reason. It seems to me that the Nicene Creed is quite logical.

---