The Bible uses what is called “Logic” all through out its pages. Indeed, every word inspired by God from the pens of the sacred writers assumed what i formally called the law of contradiction. That is, subject A cannot be subject Non-A at the same time, in the same relationship. Jesus is Lord (A) cannot also mean Jesus is not Lord.
Some have said that the Greeks “invented” logic. This is false. Logic was developed by an understanding that if communication (dialogos – dialogue) was to make sense between man and man, then both men MUST communicate in such a fashion if understanding was to be gained at all. If I said, “look out, that’s a lion!” and you understood, “hey, a black moon rock is green”, then, you would be eaten by the lion. I warned you. Without logic, though, “lion” can mean “black moon rock” and “look out” can mean “Aerosmith is a great band.” Without logic, communication is impossible.
If, then, (note the “then” – it’s a logical “then”) God created mankind in His image (Genesis 9.6), and from the outset of the creation of Man God “spoke” a “commandment”, then we are right to deduce that Adam understood the commandment. He knew right from wrong. He was drawn away to do the wrong, and after he did it, he knew it, because he knew the commandment. This is not rocket science.
Often, Logic is portrayed in postmodernist terms as useless, or just a social convention, invented by men, but having no real merit. These people deprecate Logic as “mere human logic” (Van Til, Kierkegaard, Barth). It is something that can be used here and there, but never consistently, and never, ever to be used for the things of God. For Barth, God is “wholly other” and for Van Til, God’s words in the Bible is “paradoxical” and merely “analogical”. We know negatively about what God is not, but we cannot positively say what God is, for this would be to “bring God down” to “human logic”, and to do this, so their argument goes, “limits God.” What is ironic here is God is extremely “limited” by this very argument for it states what it argues against: what God CANNOT do. That is, God CANNOT speak LOGICALLY so that we can understand His word in such a fashion without resorting to “mystery” or “paradox” (which are mere escapist terms for not facing the force of the logical argument at hand). God is thereby limited in how He communicates. His word CANNOT be interpreted logically, nor can it be submitted to logical scutiny (so much for “let us reason together”).
The second part of this brief blog, is that a definition of logic is needed. Logic is the science of necessary inference. It provides no definitions. Logic is merely a systematic watch that ticks at a given pace. A watch does not, cannot, give you the “time”. That has to be supplied by something else. Watches are mechanisms that operate purely on the Winder Who Winds and Sets the watch. It does not give the time. It operates soley on the time SUPPLIED to it. Once the time is SET, then it operates accordingly, strictly, functionally and systematically. If you plug into the watch, 1:00 am, then, of strict watch-keeping mechanics, in 60 minutes, which is divided by 60 clicks of the second hand 60 times, one MUST arrive by strict neccesity of the design of the watch at 2:00 am. There can be no other possibility. If it arrives at 2:23 am in 60 minutes, then something is WRONG with the watch.
Same with logic. If all men are mortal, and Frank is a man, then Frank is also mortal. That is, “All A is B. C is A. Therefore, C is B.” Plug anything into this, and you will get a necessary mechanism. All dogs have four legs. Ginger is a dog. Therefore, Ginger has four legs. All the Bible is inspired. Leviticus is in the Bible. Therefore, Leviticus is inspired.
Now, watch this: “All women have three legs. Sharon is a woman. Therefore, Sharon has three legs.” This is logically CORRECT. It is FACTUALLY false. But, logic does not care about facts. It does not provide facts. Like a watch does not provide time (the concept of time, or the correct time), time has to be supplied to the watch. Logic does not provide truth, nor definitions. It cares not whether you are Jewish, an atheist, or a child molestor. But, if one is going to wind the watch – if one is going to utter a declarative sentence – logic kicks in immediately, just as the second hand kicks in once the time is supplied. If, in fact, all women have three legs, and Sharon is a woman, then Sharon has, of strict watch-keeping necessity, three legs. It may be that it is really 3:14 pm, but you set the watch to 1:45 am. The watch will do what it does: in 60 minutes, it will read 2:45 am, when it is really 4:14 pm. The watch does not “know” the time anymore than logic “knows” the facts. It only does what it is told to do based on the way it is “set”.
This has implications that devastate Empiricism and Rationalism. Neither can “start” without being arbitrary. Disciples of Christ know where to start: “Thy Word is Truth”. “I am the Truth.” “He is the Wisdom.” “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom”. Once plugged in, logic kicks in, and the Scriptures are to be interpreted in strict fashion. If we find an “apparent contradiction” in the Bible, it must be removed, for once we recieve it as two irreconciliable statements, we must erect a standard outside of the Bible to judge whether or not it is a paradox or not. If the Bible is to be squared with what, admittedly, contains seeming contradictions (like, how many appeared at the tomb of Jesus? Did Jesus cleanse the temple twice? Does near mean near to our time, or God’s time?), and, at the same time, some of these seeming contradictions are allowed to remain, then how do we know whether we are to attempt to square them, or simply leave them alone as hopelessly futile to reconcile? Does the Bible give us such a criteria? Or is that supplied from some other source other than the Bible…..say, mere human beings operating on unbiblical criteria? They sound pious. They sound meaningful. But, in the end, they end up creating more confusion than needs be. Everyone loves logic until it turns against them!
Finally, in this brief blog, there is a difference between deduction as necessary inference, and simply an inference. That Socrates is a man and therefore mortal because all men are mortal is NECESSARY inference. It MUST follow. There are no other possibilities. No other inferences can be made. The conclusion follows STRICTLY from the premises. Now, I used the word “possibilities.” Inferences, mere inferences, are possible deductions. We have strict, necessary deductions, and we have non-necessary deductions or inferences.
Larry was found at the scene of the crime with the murder weapon in his hand, hunched over the murder victim. Does it NECESSARILY follow that Larry murdered the victim? No. We are missing some premises. It is POSSIBLE, however, that Larry is the murderer. It is a POSSIBLE deduction (inference) since, based on statistics, people with the murder weapon in hand, hunched over the victim, are USUALLY the murderers. But not ALWAYS. See, with “mortality” we have “all men”. Case closed. Socrates is mortal because he is part of the class, “all men.” But, this is not the case with Larry. We have no “all”. We cannot say, “all men caught with the murder weapon are murderers”. Now, we could ASSUME this, and thus, logic kicks in. Larry has the murder weapon, and by strict logic, Larry is the murderer. But, this assumption could be shot down in court very easily. Maybe Larry stumbled upon the scene, picked up the gun, and sought to give the victim mouth-to-mouth or something. Who knows? We can make all sorts of possible inferences or deductions.
I bring this last subject up because we see Christians making these kinds of inferences all the time. The problem is that they think these inferences are necessary deductions, instead of possibilities. Jesus said “make right judgments”. That is, make necessary, deductive judgments. One’s that necessarily follow. We see this all the time. They usually come in forms of accusations, motive-guessing, providing false rationale for the action of another person (“he said this because….” “she did this because…..”) The “because” here is the logical deduction, supposedly necessary. But, in most instances, it is just a possibility. The sin is that we insist it is the ONLY possibility. That is when we judge the heart and claim to “know it”. We claim to know the heart, motivation, rationale and volition of another when we make these kinds of judgements. And, that’s what they are: false judgements (“judgement” in the Bible is a very logical term. It simply means making an iron clad verdict about a person based on their words, actions, motives, etc). This is where Jesus warns, “Judge not, lest ye be judged. For in whatever judgement you use, it shall be used against you.” I suppose some hyper-preterist will limit this only to the “audience” in that generation, but I don’t. This is a universal principle of the Kingdom of God which was dawning. It was Jesus teaching those who would inherit the kingdom how to live IN the kingdom: judge not, lest ye be judged…..Don’t make false accusations, or they will be made against you. You can bet on it. If you do make an accusation about someone’s motivations, or heart, or create some rationale for “why” someone is behaving a certain way, or writing a certain way, then you are on very sensitive grounds in the Kingdom. God is watching. He watches and judges “EVERY word that proceeds from our mouths.” This makes me tremble. It causes me to seek fogiveness from God for my past. It causes me to write and think more cautiously.
Anyhow…..that’s my thoughts for tonight (or this morning), after a good nights work. May the Lord be with you, and with thy spirit
Sam
Eleventh Sunday of Trinity, 2010, Year of Our Lord.
Jason
Well done, Sam. The irrationalists simply have no answer for this. You have once again laid it out clear and precise; yet we'll still see someone from PretCosmos argue against the necessity of logic while saying this contradicts the bible. *rollseyes* Self-refuting.
Then again, maybe we won't see anything from them. They seem to be more obsessed with locating pictures of a seminary.
I tell ya, Preterism is in sad shape.
Steel_saint
Fun read Sam. Thanks for what you and Jason do here. Mike B.
Sharon Nichols
“All women have three legs. Sharon is a woman. Therefore, Sharon has three legs.” This is logically CORRECT. It is FACTUALLY false
And you know I don't have three legs how? ROFL
Great article Sam. Thanx for posting. We all use logic to communicate. I don't see any way around the logic of that. :o)
Sharon
PS: If their goal was to find out about the seminary, all they had to do was ASK someone, like you or Dr. Talbot. No need to post a Google map and speculate – then act like you were remiss in not coming forward to “answer” their question – which was no question at all.
Navcad56
Great post, Sam. Thanks to “Adam”, it is far easier to embrace what everyone has always taught, everywhere, irrespective of its biblical, logical legitimacy.
Yeow!
Thanks, Adam!
Samuelmfrost
Sharon,
About the whole seminary thing, I wrote when I first saw the picture of a trailer park, “That's not funny.” I thought it was a JOKE. A couple of weeks later I found out they were SERIOUS!! Then I commented. I mean, really. They all have egg on their face.
hal1
To refute logic, you have to use logic. That's what's so funny – it's a self stultifying statment, it boomerangs upon itself. It's like saying “there are no absolutes”……”oh really, you absolutely sure about that?” “There is no truth”….”oh really, is that statement true?”
To deny logic is to make a logical statment about logic. Krazy stuff indeed!
Jason
Sam, this was interesting. I have a “Ligonier” ministries iPhone app. I've had it for a month and forgot about it. I saw that it needed updating today, so i did and turned it on to see what's been happening. Guess what the title of the latest video podcast is? “Contradiction and Paradox”. lol.
Apparently, it is at least a two parter, if not more, because he didn't finish everything in this first recording. But what Sproul has said thus far is right in line with what we are saying.
He defines contradiction exactly as we have defined it. He states that contradictions are “nonsensical” and “meaningless”. He gave an example of a german(?) professor he once had who told the class that God was immutable in essence and mutable in essence. Most of the class sat in awe, thinking that since they couldn't understand what he was saying and assuming that he must have understood what he was saying…that he must have been saying something real deep, revealing his superior intellect. Sproul, on the other hand, walked out into the hallway laughing his head off, telling the other students that what they just heard was sheer nonsense.
He then defines “Paradox” as “apparent contradiction”. AND, he goes on to say that paradoxes in the bible are only paradoxes at “first glance”, but once one takes a second look and determines the meaning, the paradox is solved and thus no longer a paradox. He says this was the standard and accepted meaning throughout church history. He calls the Trinity a “paradox”, but only because at first glance, it may be confusing to say that God is one and God is three. But, Sproul goes on to to resolve the paradox by explaining how God is one in one sense and three in a different sense. Sproul clearly then, thinks that “paradoxes” in the Bible are understandable and solvable, thus eventually removing the label “paradox”. The Trinity is only a “paradox” to the newbie theologian.
Funny. Ed says the standard view throughout church history is his ridiculous notion of biblical “irresolvable apparent contradictions.” That is something different altogether.
Who here is really confusing things? We are right in line with Sproul's linguistic analysis.
Sharon Nichols
Hi,
This is kind of on topic and off topic at the same time. But here goes anyway:
Sharon Nichols
Sorry – as usual I messed up the coding. Maybe Jason can fix it. ~~sharon
Samuelmfrost
Jason,
Right on the money. Sproul does not define “infinity” as Ed H. does: “endless series of things”. This would mean the saints in heaven would never come to “perfection” (the eact opposite of imperfection, or infinity). Our thoughts, according to the BIBLE, are “known, every one of them”. We may think them in a variety of endless combinations, like Rubric's Cube, but we can never think new thoughts, since we are finite. In heaven, we shall think perfectly, in perfect logic, making no mistakes, and knowing all that we as humans were CREATED to know. We cannot, and will not, ever know “all things” in the relation that God knows “all things”. We will, however, know all things as it relates to us as creatures. The Perfection which we now have in Christ will be fully manifested and in full outward operation in heaven with no limitations of imperfection which we so frequently find here on earth. We have, I say, this Perfection now “in Christ” and “Christ in us”, but it does not manifest itself outwardly in its fullness here on earth. It's like having a trust fund. It's mine, and am secured financially by it, and live according to it, since it is mine. It is a done deal. It is perfectly mine and entirely given to me and I live accordingly. However, when I turn 21, the full, outward manifestation of that which has been mine all along, will be. Take turning 21 as a metaphor for physically dying. It would seem that a Preterist must assert something of this sort, since, obviously, witnessing the Preterist community, we hardly see “perfection” at work! So, what happens when the “full” Preterist physically dies? Does anything “change”? If he has “all things” now, then is this “change” a “future” state that he does not NOW enjoy? If he were consistent, it would follow that if he stated any CHANGE at all at death, then this FUTURE aspect would be a manifestation of the CHANGE he claims to already have. In short, Full Preterism cannot escape questions about the FUTURE STATE. Now, of course, one can be a Full Preterist, like Tom Joseph, and assert that no future state exists at all. If everything was fulfilled in A.D. 70, then nothing can apply to any FUTURE state of the believer today, for if it did, this would force the Full Preterist to begin to work on the aspects of futurity. And, this is where I am at right now in my studies.
Samuelmfrost
Sharon,
Right on the money. Dave is comparing two different subjects, then concluding “contradiction”! Time and Space are “in” God. There is nothing “outside” of God. Nothing is independent. Time is a creation. It is, therefore, finite, by definition. That is why theologians distinguish between quality and quantity. If time is measured by human perception, then, as Augustine stated, it will cease to exist in heaven, for we shall not perceive “time” in the same manner as we percieve it now. There will be no “future” in heaven from the standoint as we conceive of “future” here on earth. There will only be “present” – perfect beatitude. There will be no imperfections, but the full manifestation of Perfection for us as human beings, participating entirely in the One God, purely thinking His thoughts as is in our created capacity. There will be no more “potentiality” within us, but entire perfect being – being fully all that we as children of God were created to be. This is the QUALITY of life the Bible calls “eternal life”. Pure quality. Not more “quantity” being constantly added to us ad infinitum (for that would mean we would forever be in a state of imperfection, forever in a state of becoming, or process, or forever in bondage to never exhausting our potentiality – never arriving). Yes, we will “think” in heaven forever. We will exist in God, in Christ, forever, as He is Eternal and Forever. But this existence will be in a pure state of uninterrupted thought, full thought, thought which lacks NOTHING, but is entirely SATISFIED (Augustine's word) with the full capacity with which it has become and ever shall be.
Now, I also add that God's intention for the universe and earth, the physical cosmos, which He created as originally “good”, before it was plunged into the knowledege of Good and Evil (man thinking autonomously apart from God's Logic – Logos), will also come into a state of perfection such as that which it has never seen. “On earth AS IT IS in heaven”. Since, as I have argued, that human history must come to an end, less the nature of God's omniscience be sacrificed into some vague “paradox” that must remain “irreconciliable” to “human logic” (to use Ed H.'s words), then one must think of an end that would result in the entire perfection of the cosmos and the People of God in terms of “substance” – where earth and heaven are one – where all that is are God's People – in full capacity as creatures (explained above) – living on earth which is also in its fullest potentiality (no decay, no corruption, no possibility of such – again, Augustine). In agreement with Tom Wright (Nicholas Tom Wright), the original earth and cosmos was created with “transience” (potentiality for decay already sown within its fabric naturally). In his book, Surprised by Hope, Wright goes the whole way in saying that his present cosmos will be, not destroyed, not replaced, but entirely transformed into heaven itself, with only the myriads of the countless People of God dwelling therein. The full manifestation of that which was inaugurated in the Parousia and, “fulfilled”, but not “fully manifested” outwardly.
We see this principle often in the Bible. I can site many examples in my studies, but one that I
learned from the teachers and books was Abraham: “I HAVE MADE you a father of many nations” (Gen. 17.5). Now, this is a switch from the imperfect verb in verse 4: “I WILL make you a father of many nations”. Why the sudden change? God changed the name of Abram to Abraham. The deal was as good as done (fulfilled). But, it was not manifested in time and space (history) until many years later. Abraham literally manifested that which he was already proclaimed to really be: a father of many nations. Yet, at that time, he had only Isaac! We find this principle at work many times in the Scriptures, and there seems to be no reason not to apply it to the things of NT fulfillment and the ongoing effects which will (have) manifest themselves in time and space (history) until, when fully manifest, our imperfect perceptions, and all things imperfect, cease. What is left is Eternity for heaven and earth and the People of God in the most fullest sense of the word – where no future “change”, no future expectations, no future unused potentiality exists at all for anything, or anyone. As God IS all in all, “the all” shall be entirely reflecting what God has eternally been: Perfect/without Potential/Pure.
anyhow…..I am not iron clad here, but that's where my thoughts drift these days…..(okay, here comes the critics…..)
Samuelmfrost
I promise you guys I am through at Pret Cosmos after this last issue is resolved! I hear ya out there!
Kerry
Hey Jason..And Sam.
It's been awhile since I've posted anything, but I have been in the background reading as usual. I have read all the posts at Pretcosmos, and here at RCM. I have also recently read the blog post by Jason on route 66.
Just so you know, I peruse almost all the Preterist leaning websites almost everyday and most times twice a day when I have time. I quit posting here and everywhere, and I wouldn't have posted on this site except for the fact that I hear in Jasons' words some real disgust with what is going on. Glad to see you joined my club! I won't even take the time to register on other websites because it is not worth it to me to interact with some of the craziness. Offenses, accusations, apologies, and then on to make up sessions and slobbeirng word kisses for everyone, it makes me sick. Get with it. I have an answer but it's not what you may want to hear, but if you really feel bad about Preterism and what is going on, I will try to help as a brother in Christ should. Also, if you think it is bad in the Preterist camp, just take a step outside and see what accusations are leveled against a FP by other so called mainstream loving Christians.
I could probably write a 100 page book on the comments and the drama that from the outside looks like a theological and dogmatic tennis match of sorts that has the trappings of a soap opera.
Here goes. No one, and I mean no one probably studied the scriptures as much as the lawyers, rabbi's and the chief priests, going all the way back to when God spoke to Moses. They knew and spoke the ancient languages, translated them, wrote their own commentary, some of which is still used today. There is no doubt, those people knew the scriptures, most likely much better than any of us….YET THEY STILL DID NOT RECOGNIZE JESUS AS THE MESSIAH!!!!!! THEY KNEW THE TIMING, AND STILL DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM, NOT EVEN HIS CLOSEST FRIENDS AND SOME FAMILY. AND THOSE THAT DID, SOME OF THEM EVEN REJECTED HIM!! HOW COULD THEY HAVE GOTTEN IT SO WRONG?? Like many Christians today, they were concentrating on the wrong things, all of which were based in flawed human reasoning and self serving purposes. No matter how smart or educated some of them were, (i.e. Nicodemus) they had it wrong.
Redemption is the goal, not the endless pursuit of knowledge. The message of Jesus is one of redemption. Why else did He lay down His life? TO INCREASE OUR KNOWLEDGE? NO. He did it so that we could be redeemed. It seemed even then, that the unlearned and poor were the ones that received Him, and Jesus loved them for it. Like children, they just loved Him and wanted to be close to Him.
Eschatology is important right now because the message of the cross(Gospel) is being negatively affected by the misunderstanding of the past fulfillment of the promises and prophecies. The need for people to be changed by the words of Jesus is what is driving the need for a reformation of eschatology. Not anything else. Believe it, and contend for the faith.
If people don't believe that God is behind this reformation of understanding of prophecy, then they, like the educated priests and rabbis will miss what is most important. That JESUS CHRIST WANTS TO SET MEN FREE! “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.”
Kerry. Your brother in Christ.
Samuelmfrost
Kerry,
First, and foremost, Jason (nor myself), have stated that we are “leaving preterism”. Am I separating from what I see as toxic? Most definitely. Luther's Reformation was based on soteriology: the message of libery in the justifying work of God through Christ by faith, by grace alone. It quickly spread like a powder keg going off in a fireworks supply house. And this, without the telephone and internet! Yet, Preterism has been around for what, now, 20, 30, 40 years? Larry Siegle laments the good old days, when Preterism had vision, focus, and purpose. It was unified. Now? Not so much. I guess what I am doing is not downplaying or minimizing the massive differences and “camps” that have arisen over the past several years – and we have become vocal and viscious in our presentations. Jason has admitted his own part, and I have admitted mine, and we even ATTACKED for that!
I can't use the right toilet paper without having my motives questioned! THAT'S what we are stepping away from…….and, yes, we run the risk of being called elitist, snobs and name callers (I could have sworn “elitist snobs” is name calling)…..and whatever….the fact is, I have come to a place (finally, Praise the Lord) where these things no longer affect me. I have been called so many names and accussed of so many lies that, afer awhile, one just doesn't care anymore because that's what they have been asking the Holy Spirit to do: take away the “taking it personal” in me, Lord! I know God is saying in my heart to “walk away” – clip the line – cut the cable….not Preterism….PreterISTS……and I must submit to what I believe the Spirit is pricking my conscience to do because the sense is overwhelming….I am miserable debating anymore….I am unhappy confronting and defending my every word from some hidden suspicous agenda, or some evil motive based on my massively inflated ego (which, for some reason, God has held a 17 year marriage together – I guess we can be egotistical liars and still have a Christian marriage! go figgur)…..it's all of it, Kerry. And, I, like Jason (who expressed it before me, on his own, although he has already been accused of having me write “half” of his blog! see what I mean?) have to stop and wonder: is this the FRUIT? Where's the FRUIT? Cause, right now, I don't see any….and when that is pointed out, watch them be riled up like a pile of red ants……somethin' ain't right…..
Kerry
Sam,
I wish you and your family the best in the decisions you make as you go forward. You and others shouldn't have to have all of your motives questioned, and there should be room for reasonable disagreements to be made. Hopefully the leaders of Preterism (so called) will remember their fist love.
You are correct about Luther and the message going forth like a powder keg. You have helped make my point.
It is very clear that the Gospel is not the goal of these websites and discussion groups, and that is precisely why there is no fruit, and in fact the fruit is shown as temporary and fleshly. Preterism is not fleshly, only people are. The whole reason leaders, teachers, preachers, should pursue knowledge of scripture is to further the message of Christ. That is what I was pointing out in my last post. That is why PreterISTS who believe they are something, are not. The Preterists that are bearing fruit (most are not leaders, but are unknown)are preaching the Gospel, and the understanding of the scriptures in the Preterist interpretation has better equipped them to teach. Preaching to the choir is easy, and if done long enough, will turn into a discussion. God calls those who are his through the voice of a preacher, but most leaders, preachers, and teachers are only speaking to believers or those who already have heard and are content to sit in the pew.
There is great power in the message of Christ, that power is only unleashed when it is proclaimed to the unbelieving, and those who hear the Word in that group are changed and made whole.
It is my contention, and this maybe the last time I write for awhile, that using the Preterist interpretation(talking about the end times) can be used by a preacher as the springboard that initiates the conversation to the unbelievers, and then the Gospel is delivered. Consequently, not only do you gain believers, but believers who understand eschatology correctly! IF THIS IS THE GOAL, Jesus guarantees it will bear fruit for His words will not return void.
Feel free to contact me anytime, or just write a line on your site. I will be reading. Take care for now, Kerry.
Samuelmfrost
Kerry,
I am greatly encouraged by your post. Whatever you are doing, keep it up. It's refreshing.
Bible Boy
God told us that we are to reason with him in the book of Isaiah. I have stressed for a long time that God is a God of Logic and Reason. I indeed believe that every word of God was carefully selected to help find the hidden, spiritual wisdom of the bible. This way we can “rightly divide” the word of truth, as written in the scripture. And we know, the scripture cannot be broken. The bible is like a puzzle that we must piece together to ensure we have the truth. If one piece is left out, something is wrong. We must definitely study the scripture with logic and reason.