 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/22/2002 4:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | I've mentioned a certain friend of mine several times. He is of the opinion that in the name of "mystery," and owning to our finite understanding, it is sometimes necessary to attribute to God what is logically self-contradictory. He feels this is necessary because:
a) Scripture actually leads us to ackowledge some self-contradictory propositions (e.g., God eternally foreknows free choices, Christ has two natures, the doctrine of the Trinity).
b) God's infinite being cannot be contained by us. Thus, in seeking to understand God we sometimes simply have to admit what is logically self-contradictory.
I'd like to understand just why it is we should NOT attribute logical contradictions to God. So give me some reasons. I'll suggest one:
1. If we affirm as true what is logically self-contradictory we can no longer speak meaningfully about God. Logic/Reason is what even makes communication possible. If logic is dismissed, meaning goes with it.
2. ?
3. ?
Help me out.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/22/2002 4:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Ineffability! (corrected)
What can be shown for our limitedness, can also be shown about limitedness in our prayers.....
(From a yesterday's sermon by a pastor who has a B.A. from Dordt College and an M.Div. from Calvin Seminary)
hy we need the Spirit to pray with us:
1. We need prayer because we don't know the depth of our need.
1'. Our prayers are corrected by the Spirit.
2. By God's fulfillment we discover...
2'. Answers revise our understanding of what we need -- from our own selfish reading of needs.
3. We know for sure ONLY THE GENERAL THEME: THAT GOD WORKS FOR THE GOOD.
3'. All we can do is trust God's thoughts -- we can never read them.
3b. God always fulfills the intentions of our need
4. Trust
Edited by - (o) on 07/22/2002 10:51:44 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/22/2002 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Ineffitability!
What can be shown for our limitedness, can also be shown about limitedness in our prayers.....
Help me out (0)-
What's "ineffitability"? I checked out several dictionaries and couldn't find it. I know what "ineffable" and "inevitable" mean.
Plus I didn't follow you at all. God helps us in our prayers. OK. So why should be not attribute self-contradictions to God?
Thanks,
Tom 
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/22/2002 5:49 AM (GMT -6) | | This is interesting; but might take some unpacking:
"The Inconceivable is conceived in the womb of a Virgin; the unmeasurable becomes three cubits high; the Unqualifiable acquires a quality; the Undefinable stands up, sits down, and lies down; He wh is everywhere is put into a crib; He who is above time gradually reaches the age of twelve; He who is formless appears with the shape of a man; and the Incorporal enters into a body. . ." (Theodore the Studite)
Theodore lived at a time of violent iconoclasim. His point as idfferent from the discussion you are having with your friend. In some ways the discussions are opposites. Theodore was saying that there are somethings that DO HAVE TO BE SAID. Your friend, perhaps, is saying that some things can't be said. These are logical opposites....but they are also two sides of the same coin. (to switch analogies)
To explain, I'll switch over to the world of painting.
Theodore's beloved icons (I'm not saying that he painted any.) are painted by applying light onto a dark background. EVERYTHING that is SAID WITH A BRUSH is a "possitive" statement. Icons are painted with light! There is never any shadow work added. No "negations." Shadows and logical-negations flowered in the work of Medieval/Renaissance Protestant etching! It is Scholastic and Nominalist to define form by negation/shaddow. Icons, on the other hand, begin with a prepared "wall" (originating from Egyptian fayaum burial masks, that were prepared while the subject was still alive, but portrayed them in the eternity) of plaster into which a line is carved--much as in hieroglyphics. SOME negation takes place right from the start. But from there on everything is either positive or mystery.
"Begotten, not made" (Nicene Creed). This one is interesting to share with my 4th and 6th grade boys. The "not made" -- which is the carved into stone "negation" is easy. "Begotten" is easily contrasted with "conceived"; just as begotten contrasts with the world begin made. Christ is divine by nature; we are made to participate in His divinity by grace. But "begotten" is never more than an analogy: selected from traits of gender (sperm), but ONLY as it helps by means of contrast (not grown in a womb). "Begotten" is incomplete!!!!!!
Ineffitable.
Your friend, perhaps, stops short of making everything positive. So did my pastor (above). Theodore knew that iconography -- with all their positive preaching, their "theology in color" was essential and tied mightily to the very fact and proclamation of the Incarnation. But for icons too, there are two "negative" things: the initial "delineation" with the carving knife (like an engraver of metal plates) and what is not said determinatively by negating-shaddow. All that is really said, in an icon, is what the iconographer, by much prayer and devotions, apprehends that is in accordance with truth as it is revealed in scripture. And the form of the icon is NOT an individual matter, but is agreed upon by "two or three witnesses" in-the-max.
So, what can be said of LOGIC. Much!
But it too must be done with prayer and devotions. logic too must be exercised by "two or three witnesses." The negations of logic have their special places. But where the positive light of revelation is at work, the shadows of logic must not intrude.
.......................
A year ago I posted a short report on this site about what can be learned from Medieval Scholasticism. (In Erwin Panofsky's masterwork, "Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism": Gothic cathedrals had distinct shapes to their outlines, unique to each. And the planners liked to take that shape and use it for the "footprint" of the major pillars in the center of the church.) A problem cropped up when the Scholastics/school-men took what they assumed to be the nature of reality and applied it naively to large stone structures. One thing worked well for acoustics (mathematical proportion) and another very different thing worked well for visual harmony. The problem was very much like what happens sometimes when a child counts for how many should get pop/soda/tonic: often the prodigious child forgets to count his/herself. Harmonious proportions spacing between pillars and arches fails to add in the thickness of the pillar-arch-combination itself. Once all of these sets are lined up along the length of the cathedral the acoustic proportions are no longer proportionate. Gothic buildings had many, many "compromises" to make to the "truth" that it assumed could be controlled.
....................
MAKE MUCH OF LOGIC, MY FRIEND. BUT TAKE A LESSON FROM WALLS (and the buildings that hold them up), AND PAINTERS OF WALLS.
(for the boys down at the Sidetrack Tap...)
Edited by - (o) on 07/22/2002 10:57:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/22/2002 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: God helps us in our prayers. OK. So why should be not attribute self-contradictions to God?
My Calvinist from Calvin Seminary pastor said: We know for sure ONLY THE GENERAL THEME: THAT GOD WORKS FOR THE GOOD. ... All we can do is trust God's thoughts--we can never read them.
@: I was contrasting the steriotype folks on this site give Calvinists to what one actually said. He was tacitly saying that we can't pin down the details. (Even "go their" via the train of logic.)
Edited by - (o) on 07/22/2002 10:55:57 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/22/2002 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Theodore the Studite: "The Inconceivable is conceived in the womb of a Virgin; the unmeasurable becomes three cubits high; the Unqualifiable acquires a quality; the Undefinable stands up, sits down, and lies down; He wh is everywhere is put into a crib; He who is above time gradually reaches the age of twelve; He who is formless appears with the shape of a man; and the Incorporal enters into a body. . ."
Tom: So why should (w)e not attribute self-contradictions to God? (I'm totally unclear whether you way we should or whether you say we shouldn't. Sorrrrry: my bad!!!!)
@: I'm not sure that we can always apply logic to define exactly where the light and the shaddow meet. (Icon's don't use half-tones; and cathedral builders ultimately had to either put stone or air at every location--nothing inbetween.  ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 7/26/2002 12:19 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I've mentioned a certain friend of mine several times. He is of the opinion that in the name of "mystery," and owning to our finite understanding, it is sometimes necessary to attribute to God what is logically self-contradictory. He feels this is necessary because:
a) Scripture actually leads us to ackowledge some self-contradictory propositions (e.g., God eternally foreknows free choices, Christ has two natures, the doctrine of the Trinity).
b) God's infinite being cannot be contained by us. Thus, in seeking to understand God we sometimes simply have to admit what is logically self-contradictory.
As to (a), it seems false. The alleged self-contradictions are either not required by Scripture (foreknowledge of free choices) or are not contradictory (Trinity and Incarnation).
As to (b), the idea seems to be that due to our finiteness and God's infinitude, the concepts we apply in thinking about God are often true of God only in an approximate or analogous way. Therefore, if I have some concept "C" that I apply to God, that concept may only be partially true of God and partially false. Thus to correct for the limitations of our own concepts, we have to say both "God is C" and "God is not-C". An apparent contradiction, but not a genuine contradiction because the conflicting predicates (C and not-C) are not affirmed of God in the same respect. Rather, what we mean is that from one perspective or in some respects God is C, and from another perspective or in other respects God is not-C.
One additional point, I think many people erroneously suppose that God's infinitude implies that none of our concepts can be literally and wholly true of God. This is not so. If it were, the claim that none of our concepts can be literally and wholly true of God cannot be literally and wholly true of God. In other words, it is self-defeating. Furthermore, God is not infinite in every respect. He is infinite in power, in intelligence, in love, etc. But he is not infinite in the sense that he is altogether undefinable.
quote:
I'd like to understand just why it is we should NOT attribute logical contradictions to God. So give me some reasons. I'll suggest one:
1. If we affirm as true what is logically self-contradictory we can no longer speak meaningfully about God. Logic/Reason is what even makes communication possible. If logic is dismissed, meaning goes with it.
2. ?
3. ?
I like your first reason, Tom. Here's a couple more:
2. Contradictions are necessarily false. If Christianity requires us to affirm contradictions, then Christianity is necessarily false.
3. In thinking about God we may find ourselves affirming (apparently) contradictory things. What this shows us is that there is something inadequate in our theology, and our response ought to be to try to fix it. We could try to specify more clearly in what different respects the conflicting predicates we want to affirm of God are true of him, or we could reexamine whether both of the conflicting predicates have to be affirmed of God. Either way, conceptual problems serve to drive positive advances in theology. If instead we just accept the contradiction as the final word, then we are robbing ourselves of the opportunity to learn a lot about God.
Hope that helps, Tom.
Alan
Lege, lege, lege, ora, labora, et relege. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/26/2002 7:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks all! Good stuff.
David Basinger has an article in JETS: "Biblical Paradox: Does Revelation Challenge Logic?" (1987). I'm trying to track it down. I imagine it discusses the very thing we're talking about.
Ciao,
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/28/2002 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/28/2002 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Bye.
(o)-
I sense some dissappointment in that "bye" there (o). I wasn't checking out of the thread myself, I just wanted to quickly respond with that article info.
Despite my love of art, I'm having a difficult time grasping your stuff. It's not you, believe me. I'm sure it's me. I'm still processing it. I intend to come back. Don't leave!
Love,
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/29/2002 5:20 AM (GMT -6) | | It seems to me that Alan nailed the issue for you Tom. Do you agree? If we attribute to God concepts that SEEM contradictory, it is required of us that we articulate some conceivable way that the concepts are NOT contradictory, even though they may be paradoxical. If we just leave "A and -A" as it is, it is both meaningless and necessarily false.
As C.S.Lewis said, "a meaningless contradiction does not become a meaningful compliment simply because we ascribe it to God."
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/29/2002 9:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It seems to me that Alan nailed the issue for you Tom. Do you agree? If we attribute to God concepts that SEEM contradictory, it is required of us that we articulate some conceivable way that the concepts are NOT contradictory, even though they may be paradoxical. If we just leave "A and -A" as it is, it is both meaningless and necessarily false.
Doc
I do agree. Helps a good bit. But it only works with people who already agree with it! That's the frustrating part. The person I want to move toward accepting this doesn't find any of the logic for accepting it convincing because they're committed to suspending reason/logic when needed. It stinks.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:56 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|