[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Logic biblical?

On Jun 6,  8:29am, Carl W. Conrad wrote:


> At 4:17 AM -0400 6/6/97, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
>
> >The question then becomes, how do we know logic is trustworthy?  Simply
> >because it is biblical.  It is used in scripture consistently and
> >throughout.  It is assumed there and used there.  Thus, we can and should
> >utilize it.
> 
> If Edgar fears the slings and arrows of outraged linguists, I may have
> reason to fear those of outraged philosophers and theologians. 

I fear you are right, Carl! ;-)

Eric Weiss asked that this be directed toward a discussion of the
Greek.  Again I fear the worst.  I don't expect to succeed, so I ask 
your forgiveness in advance!

> I'm interested in this question partly as a historical matter, but partly
> also, I confess, for theological reasons. Somehow I have long had the sense
> that Jewish theologiansmay well be right to argue that God can be defined
> only negatively, that the implications of "EHYEH ASHER EHYEH" in Exodus
> 3:14 are that God refuses to be definitively and for all time pinned down
> to a particular essence--this is the way Buber reads the passage. Then
> there's that curious passage in Isaiah 45:7 where Yahweh in the oracle to
> Cyrus rejects implicitly Zoroastrian dualism and insists, "I form light and
> create darkness, I make weal and create woe ..." And Yahweh's reply to Job
> from the whirlwind seems to imply the incommensurability of God's creation
> with human powers of understanding.

Shall we not draw a distinction between incomprehensible and 
unknowable?! To say that God is unknowable (as in _by analogy_
as Thomists assert, or via negationis as some Medieval theologians
have said) is contrary to the express words of Jesus,

   QEON OUDEIS hEWRAKEN PWPOTE MONOGENHS 
   QEOS hO WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS 
   EKEINOS ECHGHSATO
   (John 1:18)

on the other hand, God is incomprehensible:

   TIS EGNW NOUN KURIOU;
   (Romans 11:34)

Logic is so basic that it is not possible to think without using it. 
Like goodness, and beauty, truth is impossible to define.  It is a 
simple concept that cannot be broken down and analyzed.  hO LOGOS DE 
ESTIN TO FWS TOU KOSMOU, TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN; the Light by which we 
see all things, including God Himself.  It is the Logos who exegetes
the Father, who makes Him known to us.  But the Father is not fully 
known!  This reminds me of the following passage:

IDE GAR ANQRWPOUS hOION EN KATAGEIWi OIKHSEI SPHLAIWDEI . . . . . .
TE AN KAI hHGEISQAI TA TOTE hORWMENA ALHQESTERA H TA NUN DEIKNUMENA; 
POLU G', EFH.  OUKOUN KAN EI PROS AUTO TO FWS ANAGKAZOI AUTON 
BLEPEIN.  TA D' OUN EMOI FAINOMENA hOUTW FAINETAI, EN TWi GNWSTWi 
TELEUTAIA hH TOU AGAQOU IDEA KAI MOGIS hORASQAI, OFQEISA DE 
SULLOGISTEA EINAI hWS ARA PASI PANTWN hAUTH ORQWN TE KAI KALWN 
AITIA, EN TE hORATWi FWS KAI TON TOUTOU KURION TEKOUSA, EN TE NOHTWi 
AUTH KURIA ALHQEIAN KAI NOUN PARASXOMENH, KAI hOTI DEI TAUTHN IDEIN 
TON MELLONTA EMFRONWS PRACEIN H IDIAi H DHMOSIAi.
(Plato, Republic, excerpts from 514a-515d)

And this one:

   And this is the true end set before the Soul, to take 
   that light, to see the Supreme by the Supreme and not 
   by the light of any other principle - to see the Supreme 
   which is also the means to the vision; for that which 
   illumines the Soul is that which it is to see -- just 
   as it is by the sun's own light that we see the sun.
   (Plotinus, Fifth Ennead, Third Tractate)

What next?? Heraclitus?!! Why not? "Although the LOGOS is common to 
all men, most men live as if they had a private understanding" [B1].  
Not that Heraclitus had a proper understanding of the Logos, that 
comes from Scripture; still, in accord with what Scripture says, hO 
LOGOS FWTIZEI PANTA ANQRWPON.  :-)

   KAI ESTIN hAUTH hH AGGELIA hHN AKHKOAMEN AP' AUTOU 
   KAI ANAGGELLOMEN hUMIN, hOTI hO QEOS FWS ESTIN KAI 
   SKOTIA EN AUTWi OUK ESTIN OUDEMIA.
   (1 John 1:5)

> > . . . it is biblical.  It is used in scripture consistently and
> >throughout.  It is assumed there and used there.  Thus, we can and should
> >utilize it.
> 
> I certainly would not want to reject this assertion wholly, nor would I
> want to go the way of Kierkegaard (personally I wouldn't) or endorse the
> stance of Tertulian (was it his?): CREDO QUIA ABSURDUM. But I think there
> are points in our understanding of world-order and God's action that lie
> beyond our powers of rational analysis.

ESTIN hO LOGOS SOU hHMIN NAI KAI OU; !-) Is there a tertium quid
between accepting Paul's assertion wholly and going the way of 
absurdity?  I don't think so!

True, God is incomprehensible.  But just as no one can look upon the 
sun and discern its inner workings, yet it is by the light of the 
sun that we can see anything at all, and this includes what we can 
see of the sun.  And this is God's Logos:

   Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.  The 
   entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding 
   unto the simple.
   (Psalm 199:105,130)

In Christ, 
Jim Beale
Follow-Ups: References: