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

Re: Logic biblical?

Jim:

Thanks for the address.  Also, thanks for your input on the b-greek list.
I think we will be good for the list.

BTW, DWP was pleading for your return over on the theology list.  I
haven't been doing too much over there lately, not after I dealt with the
Thiemites and their antinomianism.

Paul S. Dixon, Pastor	http://users.aol.com/dixonps
Ladd Hill Bible Church	"Negative Inference Fallacies"	/nif.htm
Wilsonville, Oregon	"Evangelism of Christ ..."	/evangelism.htm
			"Evil Restraint in 2 Thess 2:6"	/restrainer.htm

On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Jim Beale wrote:

> 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
>
References: