Re: Logic biblical?

From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church (pauld@iclnet.org)
Date: Sat Jun 07 1997 - 03:03:12 EDT


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
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:18 EDT