It is true that if I press these keys, I get letters on the internet. It is true that if I overeat, I will get fat or if a poke out my eye, I will go blind. It is true that if I put a key in my ignition, the car will start. It is true that synthetic discoveries in chemistry are real despite not existing from the beginning of creation. Is all truth really grounded in God and His being? Spiritual revelation is from God. Smashing a glass on the ground does not flow from His 'ontologogy'.
Godrulz,
You have created a duality that is just not justifyable. Why on earth is it proper for you to make a distinction between what is "Spiritual" and what is purely "physical." For someone who detests Greek Philosophy you have certainly done well in taking up the understanding of the physical as being lesser than the Spiritual (and putting them almost at odds with one another; spiritual things deal with eternal things while physical things are temporal and less than perfect). God created the World (yes, even the glass that you smash on the table). And God not only created the world, but he created/creates the world according to his will (by God and through God and unto God are all things). You see the life of the world is not it's own. Our life (and the life of all creatures) is God's (God's Spirit comes to dwell in our members so as to imbue them with life). Now a glass might not share in that life in the same way that we do, but in God giving that glass over to our governance (as we are transformed into God's image), it does share in the life that we envision (because we acheive a sense of purpose and will that we share with God).
If God is not the ontological grounding for all things, than there is something that is truly other than God (and you succeed in making God out to be much more transcendant than I ever accomplished). Transcendance for me deals with contingency (our life consists in God's life; not vice versa). Yet there is nothing that is outside of God. God envelops all things, so that in God's transcendence, God cannot help but be immanent. In your understanding of God, God is first entirely other so that God must become immanent from his transcendence. For me the transcendent God is the immanent one. God is intimately related to God's Creation because God is the one in whom the Creation is grounded (in its very being). And God is not equaly contingent; it cannot be said that God's life is the sum of life in the Creation (this is no panentheistic or pantheistic view of God). It is this dramatic tension that is harmonized in the Trinity.
So see that you have not been so successful in divorcing yourself from Greek thought, because you are not sufficiently been aware of the ways in which Greek thought has infiltrated your own thinking through your ties to this world.
God has revealed that He is God, that He is the truth, and that the truth does not contradict itself.
This seems redundant to me (it seems to be a truism). When you say that "God is the truth and that the truth does not contradict itself" it is like saying that God is truth and God is not a non-truth. What is the significance in making such a statement, unless you want to give a reality to the "non-truth"? There is no contradiction for God. When God speaks into the chaos he speaks unopposed (like when light shines into the darkness, and the darkness flees in its presence, because darkness is nothing more than the absence of light). Truth is truth. I don't want to define truth by non-truth (anymore than I would define light by the darkness). The darkness is nothing without light; lies are nothing without the truth. Contradictions are what we see in the world (especially when we are not grounded in the truth; because we have allowed the lies to corrupt us). The lie holds nothing; it is parasitical to the truth. And when God shows up, the lie will be show for what it truly is (nothing). So I don't want to define God's truth as "non-contradictory," for it places ontology in another place other than God. Truth is the only ontological reality; all other realities are parasites of this truth. And without the truth (without the host) the lie is nothing (the parasite has no life).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentientsynth
We therefore may not say that God is not God. We are held to affirming what God has revealed, and not contradicting it.
Do you agree?
Once again, do you understand the qualms I have with the way in which you are stating this? God's revelation to us cannot be defined by the "contradictions." That would be to give an onology to the contradictions. It would be to affirm the Modern philosophy which grounds reality in the self (in the thinking person). God cannot be defined in opposition to human self. That is like defining the truth as a non-lie. What on earth would a "non-lie" be? Mathematics might be able to say that a double negative makes a positive, but language does not quite work that way (it is much more nuanced in language, because words do not form equations in the same way as numbers, numbers being an abstraction of reality). The truth is not the opposite of a lie, because a lie is grounded in the truth (you have to know what truth is first before you can say what a lie is).
Yes we are indebted to the revelation of God (especially in Christ for us Christians). And as far as contradiction is concerned, we are more concerned with falsity than we are with alternate realities. What is not grounded in God is false (it is idolotry; worshiping deaf dumb and mute idols). In this much I agree; we must not submit to the corruption of the truth; but I will not go so far as to say that the corruption has a reality in itself that can truly replace God's reality. The lie is forever contingent upon the truth for its substance, and as soon as the truth has been entirely removed, the lie ceases to be anything of substance at all. I cannot say, "The sky is green" unless sky and green have already been defined. The lie I tell about the color of the sky is nothing without the truth in which it is grounded.
You have created a duality that is just not justifyable. Why on earth is it proper for you to make a distinction between what is "Spiritual" and what is purely "physical." For someone who detests Greek Philosophy you have certainly done well in taking up the understanding of the physical as being lesser than the Spiritual (and putting them almost at odds with one another; spiritual things deal with eternal things while physical things are temporal and less than perfect). God created the World (yes, even the glass that you smash on the table). And God not only created the world, but he created/creates the world according to his will (by God and through God and unto God are all things). You see the life of the world is not it's own. Our life (and the life of all creatures) is God's (God's Spirit comes to dwell in our members so as to imbue them with life). Now a glass might not share in that life in the same way that we do, but in God giving that glass over to our governance (as we are transformed into God's image), it does share in the life that we envision (because we acheive a sense of purpose and will that we share with God).
If God is not the ontological grounding for all things, than there is something that is truly other than God (and you succeed in making God out to be much more transcendant than I ever accomplished). Transcendance for me deals with contingency (our life consists in God's life; not vice versa). Yet there is nothing that is outside of God. God envelops all things, so that in God's transcendence, God cannot help but be immanent. In your understanding of God, God is first entirely other so that God must become immanent from his transcendence. For me the transcendent God is the immanent one. God is intimately related to God's Creation because God is the one in whom the Creation is grounded (in its very being). And God is not equaly contingent; it cannot be said that God's life is the sum of life in the Creation (this is no panentheistic or pantheistic view of God). It is this dramatic tension that is harmonized in the Trinity.
So see that you have not been so successful in divorcing yourself from Greek thought, because you are not sufficiently been aware of the ways in which Greek thought has infiltrated your own thinking through your ties to this world.
Peace,
Michael
Paul refuted the Greek philosophies that made spiritual real but matter/physical less spiritual. I do not hold to these false philosophies. The BODY/physical is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Physical creation was 'very good'. What on earth are you rambling about?
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Paul refuted the Greek philosophies that made spiritual real but matter/physical less spiritual. I do not hold to these false philosophies. The BODY/physical is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Physical creation was 'very good'. What on earth are you rambling about?
All of the Creation is grounded in the Creator (that is all physical Creation). God has decided to reside in the Creation through humanity (not as singular and individual persons) but as a people imaged after the God of Creation (that is humans [plural], members united in a singular body [flesh], male and female, were made after the image of God; marriage being the image of the church, according to Paul). Human beings as individuals do not bare the image of God in themselves. It is only in as much as they love God by also loving the neighbor that they truly image their Creator.
So humans making a glass and deciding to break it on the table is no less a spiritual matter for us than are questions of our salvation, for our life in general is a spiritual matter, and the physical structures with which we come into contact, the physical bodies with which we relate are defining our life just as much as we define them. God does care about the Creation and how humanity treats it, and God makes it a very spiritual matter in torah (even the land is cursed by our sin and must be healed as a result of it; in those times this is speaking quite literally, as it would do the same in our time, as wars led to the salting of the land, which turned it into fallow land that could no longer bare life; much of conventional warfare has the same affects in our time).
The Body of which Paul speaks is most often the church as defined as united members. Even in Romans 12 Paul calls us to offer our bodies as a singular living, holy and acceptable sacrifice, which is our spiritual/logical act of worship. And yet today most often you will find both Protestants and Roman Catholics defining this body as a "Spiritual" and "invisible" body that won't be witnessed until we have gone to heaven (leaving behind our bodies and the world with them). Paul doesn't speak this way. Though there is a hint of catholicity in his use of the term ekklesia (which allows for a hope for the eschatological gathering), the word cannot be divorced from its very literal meaning, the congregation, or the gathering. In the Roman world ekklesia (the term we translate into "church") is a word that was used to talk about social gatherings, especially polis gatherings that defined the life of the cities (poloi). Ekklesia was the same term used to talk about the town meetings, which is a nuance of the word that has been completely lost in its English rendering. That is because the English "church" has its roots in the greek meaning "The Lord's house," which signifies that we have reverted in many ways back to the temple ideology of the pre-exhilic Israel. God and humanity meet in a place and no longer in a person (namely Christ).
So don't sit here and pretend like you have agreed whole-heartedly with Paul without doing any real work, because you are failing to see how much you have been influenced by the latent Platonism running through our tradition. We cannot pretend that it isn't there, otherwise we will only allow it to continue to have power. It will take repentance for us to remove this sin and return to something that is more faithful.
Again, I apologize that I didn't respond to the totality of your previous post. Please understand my reasoning: that I wish to narrow in upon foundational issues. Thanks.
Quote:
This seems redundant to me (it seems to be a truism). When you say that "God is the truth and that the truth does not contradict itself" it is like saying that God is truth and God is not a non-truth.
Yes! What I’m saying is so basic, so undeniable, that it almost seems silly to state, doesn’t it?
You read what I write and think, “Well….DUH.” Guess what? So do I!!
What were your words again? You said it better than I have yet.
… God is truth and God is not a non-truth.
Of course that’s true. How could it not be?
We’re going to call what you’ve written “Self-Evident Truth #1” or just “SET1”, for short.
As we’ve established this as true, we could deem it a “law.” I propose that we call SET1 “the theological law of the non-contradiction of God.”
Do you object to this?
Quote:
What is the significance in making such a statement, unless you want to give a reality to the "non-truth"?
Oh no, it's not at all an attempt to “give reality to the ‘non-truth’”, but to *codify* a self-evident truth, namely SET1.
In response to my second question, you voiced the same concern, saying....
Once again, do you understand the qualms I have with the way in which you are stating this? God's revelation to us cannot be defined by the "contradictions."
Yes! I do understand the issue you are raising. So please know that I’m not trying to “ give a reality to the "non-truth." I agree that “God’s revelation to us cannot be defined by the ‘contradictions’.”
I’m saying that God’s revelation possesses truth, and that, by logical necessity, God’s revelation does not possess non-truth.
Would you agree?
Seekinganswers, I’m glad that you and I can have a nice, calm chat. You’re a super-cool guy.
Is the fact that I am named William (true) necessarily grounded in God or would it still be true even if God did not exist?
Godrulz, allow me to reiterate.
God is the foundation of all truth. He is the only reason that a thing called "truth" exists. If God didn't exist, you wouldn't even be here, much less have a name.
I'll repeat: God is the foundation of all truth. Every example qualifies.
God is the foundation of all truth. He is the only reason that a thing called "truth" exists. If God didn't exist, you wouldn't even be here, much less have a name.
I'll repeat: God is the foundation of all truth. Every example qualifies.
Have a nice day...
So if truth were relative in God's case, truth would really have no meaning at all, since He is the foundation of all truth.
An example could be if God told us homosexuality was an abomination to Him but also planned every instance of it for His own glory. We would be totally confused because God told us He hates it, but then planned it out in every case. He would either have to be lying, or since He is the foundation of truth, truth must be relative, and actually meaningless.
If truth is relative, God could rightly set up homos like bowling pins to pad His judgement based glory score, but if truth has meaning and He truly hates the abomination I don't see how He could abide actually planning every instance of it. That would be like hustling a pool game. I can't see God cheating/lying like that.
Paul heads off the sillyness of the wicked using the idea that our unrighteousness shows and praises God's righteousness to excuse themselves from judgement. (Romans 3:5) But if God planned all unrighteousness to commend His righteousness in the first place, imagine how silly Paul will feel when He discovers his error there, in assuming truth is absolute.
I agree and insist that truth actually has meaning and is absolute because God is the foundation of it, and anyone who disagrees will be found a liar. God will prevail and be found just when judged for His words, instead of being accused of a double standard.. (Romans 3:4)
SS, this is one of my big problems with the settled view. Couldn't resist the oppurtunity to jump in. Do I make sense here, or am I missing something?
Marge: "Aren't you going to give him the last rites?"
Rev. Lovejoy: "That's Catholic, Marge - you might as well ask me to do a voodoo dance."
"Oh bother" said Pooh, as he chambered the next round.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Last edited by Vaquero45; April 3rd, 2006 at 03:15 AM.
Reason: spelling
Location: Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
Rep Power: 96294
Christian
Right Wing Zealot
Slogan/motto:
Do right and risk the consequences!
Reputation:
April 3rd, 2006, 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekinganswers
Repentance is not something over which you can boast. If you can elevate yourself above me, you have not repented at all. You have just delluded yourself into thinking that you are better than you are.
You never gave me a chance. You like the Muslims and Christendom before you have tried to be an invasion on me (by coersive power), so that either I agree with you or I am your enemy that can be killed (or in your case that can be insulted and made fun of and condescended to). If I had truly been an "idiot" as you have so gracefully put it, you never would have responded to me in the first place. Instead, in labelling me an idiot you have only proven your own idiocy.
Whether you agree with me or not, Clete, you are my brother, and I will never call you my enemy, but my friend (even if you decide to excommunicate me). And though we may enrage one another, I am still called to love you because that is Christ's command to me (as it is to all his followers), and it is the very example of his life that I have seen lived out by my brothers and sisters in Christ (even in you). Debate is not worth it if this testimony of Christ in us cannot be lived out within it.
Peace,
Michael
Very well, I will over look the hypocrisy implicit in this post and assume once again that somehow I am (seemingly continually) the one who misunderstood you and not the other way around and will give you yet another chance to rescue yourself from the dark recesses of total irrationality.
Quote:
This I completely agree with, Godrulz (something that does not happen often between you and I). But the reason I agree is the fact that you place revelation first and logic second. Logic is not the overarching structure for the Creation in what you have said, God is the one in whom the Creation is grounded. And you have not tried to asign a logic to God, but you have imbedded it within humanity (our response), and God's "logic" is revelational (which means it does not fit into the Creation). God is other than the Creation, and so God must invade this Creation; he does not submit to its logic as if God could be confined by the Creation. God is the one who sets the bounds of Creation, not the one who is bounded by it.
There are a couple of things here. First of all I would like for you to establish that logic was created or is part of the creation, however you want to put it. On what day was logic created?
Second, I do not put either revelation or logic "first". You seem to think that I do, and you couldn't be further from the truth. That would sort of be like putting justice before love or love before righteousness. It makes no sense, they are essencially the same thing. You see it is important that you understand that I DO NOT believe that everything that can be known can begin found out by simply the use of logic, that is not my belief at all! On the contrary! There is much that is way past our ever finding out without God revealing to us. But, (and this is the critical point) God's revelation, if it is true (which of course it will be), must be logical. It will be logical for two related reasons: First, because God is logical and, in fact, is the very source of logic and reason, and second, because that which is true is logical by definition. The second reason comes as a result of the first. That is, the fact that truth is logical is because God, who is logical, is truth. In fact the Bible uses logic as a title or name of God. Just as God is love and God is righteousness, God is also logic. He is the very definition; the absolute personification of logic (John 1:1). If this were not so then we could not be logic in the first place any more than there would be absolute right and wrong if God were not righteous. In fact, "right and wrong" is merely the moral application of "truth and error" (i.e. logic).
"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders
Again, I apologize that I didn't respond to the totality of your previous post. Please understand my reasoning: that I wish to narrow in upon foundational issues. Thanks.
Yes! What I’m saying is so basic, so undeniable, that it almost seems silly to state, doesn’t it?
You read what I write and think, “Well….DUH.” Guess what? So do I!!
What were your words again? You said it better than I have yet.
… God is truth and God is not a non-truth.
Of course that’s true. How could it not be?
We’re going to call what you’ve written “Self-Evident Truth #1” or just “SET1”, for short.
As we’ve established this as true, we could deem it a “law.” I propose that we call SET1 “the theological law of the non-contradiction of God.”
Do you object to this?
I would actually establish two posits:
1. God is truth
2. Anything not grounded in God as truth is a lie (the absence of truth).
These are two statements, which do not allow us to define God by condradiction (because as I said before, I would never define light by calling it non-darkness). I define a lie by the truth, but I will not define truth by a lie. It is the "law" (I prefer instruction) of God as God, not the law of God as evident in God's own non-contradiction. God is what God is; we cannot define God by what he is not, for we are the one's who are a lie when we define God in this way. God is, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentientsynth
Oh no, it's not at all an attempt to “give reality to the ‘non-truth’”, but to *codify* a self-evident truth, namely SET1.
In response to my second question, you voiced the same concern, saying....
Once again, do you understand the qualms I have with the way in which you are stating this? God's revelation to us cannot be defined by the "contradictions."
Yes! I do understand the issue you are raising. So please know that I’m not trying to “ give a reality to the "non-truth." I agree that “God’s revelation to us cannot be defined by the ‘contradictions’.”
I’m saying that God’s revelation possesses truth, and that, by logical necessity, God’s revelation does not possess non-truth.
Would you agree?
God's revelation does not possess truth, it is truth. Anything which is grounded in God is truth. This is a third posit I would make. So altogether:
1. God and what God has created and to which God gives life is truth.
2. Anything that is not grounded the truth is a lie.
3. God's revelation perfectly reflects the truth of God to us, so that it is truth as well (for God's revelation to us is God's very self, Jesus the Christ; God's revelation does not merely possess truth, it is truth, just as Christ is the truth).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentientsynth
Seekinganswers, I’m glad that you and I can have a nice, calm chat. You’re a super-cool guy.
I too am glad that we can discuss in a more peacable manner. Thank you for calming me down.
God is the foundation of all truth. He is the only reason that a thing called "truth" exists. If God didn't exist, you wouldn't even be here, much less have a name.
I'll repeat: God is the foundation of all truth. Every example qualifies.
Have a nice day...
It is not profound to say that I would not exist apart from God. God is the foundation of all truth, but that does not mean that man did not creatively name the animals or make cars that are not based on divine revelation. I would distinguish spiritual truth/revelation from mundane things like making a watch that could be done even if there was no God (assuming evolution...God can be totally uninvolved in some things we now do, so I would not say He is the source of all truth...it is true that I am typing creative thoughts without God causing my fingers to move or revealing truth to me...since you do not agree that my ideas have truth).
In your intellectual philosophizing, you are throwing common sense out the window. There is a difference between revelatory truth and facts like moving a chess piece that are not divine nor spiritual issues (man invents chess, plays the game, makes the moves without God's truth or intervention...saying we would not be here to do this is true and accepted...but it does not conflict with saying that some mundane things are true without specifically being revelatory, spiritual truth from God).
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
if you really want to be aggrivated by calvinism, check out www.reformedphilosophy.org
Zac and timmah are quite the aggrivating couple they are great at the "intellectual philosophizing" and throwing common sense out the window.
Very well, I will over look the hypocrisy implicit in this post and assume once again that somehow I am (seemingly continually) the one who misunderstood you and not the other way around and will give you yet another chance to rescue yourself from the dark recesses of total irrationality.
Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clete
There are a couple of things here. First of all I would like for you to establish that logic was created or is part of the creation, however you want to put it. On what day was logic created?
Logic was created in the first three days, where God makes space for life; space is the grounding for the Created order; God makes light (and orders that light in day and night, where greater lights reign in the day and lesser lights in the night); light is the realm of the heavenly bodies (things that had life in the ancient world); God created the air and the seas which God fills with birds and sea creatures; God makes the land and inhabits the land with animals and human beings. Logic is the grounding space in which the Creation which is other than God is able to respond to God's Creation (which culminates in rest and worship on the Shabat of the seventh day.
Without space there is no logic (for there is nothing other than God without space; there is chaos and darkness that "reigns," which can only be defined in the presence of God's Spirit which is wind and breath and life). Logic is the grounding for how we realate to God, and since we have a beginning (a head), there is no logic before the Creation. Once God makes space for the other, that is when logic is produced (when things can begin to relate to one another and to God). Of course, once again, logic is not a universal for me, so in this context it is the very form which the Creation takes. Animals have a logic that governs them as do humans (in their will), while the Creation as a whole is governed by the logic of God's will. Logic is a multiplicity in the scriptures that united only in love (God's will and Jesus' will are not the same; our will is not absorbed into God's will when we submit to God; we remain distinct from God, and love allows the wills to be brought into harmony, the logics to be brought into peace with one another
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clete
Second, I do not put either revelation or logic "first". You seem to think that I do, and you couldn't be further from the truth. That would sort of be like putting justice before love or love before righteousness. It makes no sense, they are essencially the same thing.
You see, I do see an order between justice and love. God's love precedes justice (for it is love that produces justice not vice versa). God is equated to love within the scriptures, not to justice. So God's Son is sent before the rectification (dikaiosyne) of the world. God's love produces a space for life (justice). Justice is contingent upon love, not vice versa. So before the Christian is concerned about dikaiosyne he or she is much more concerned with love (for love must come first, and only within that grounding can justice be produced). In a very real way the disciple of Christ is the grounding for justice in this world only in as much as the disciple is grounded in love (that is love for God first and love for the neighbor). Love is grounded ontologically in itself (for God is love); justice is grounded contingently in that love, so that what is justice is grounded in love (what is rectified is contingent upon the love of God). We become God's righteousness as we submit ourselves to God's love (just as Christ is the dikaiosyne of God.
Agape and dikaiosyne are not the same in the scriptures. One is an initial action entirely grounded in God the Creator, the other is how humans are called to respond to that love (even as love begins to define them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clete
You see it is important that you understand that I DO NOT believe that everything that can be known can begin found out by simply the use of logic, that is not my belief at all! On the contrary! There is much that is way past our ever finding out without God revealing to us. But, (and this is the critical point) God's revelation, if it is true (which of course it will be), must be logical.
When you say that God is the source of revelation, I don't doubt that this is very much your understanding of the world (no Christian could deny it). But when you go on to submit revelation to logic, you have succeeded in subverting it to the unified logic that has been envisioned by humanity in our Modern age (Logic as a singular and "rational" approach to the world is a Modern ideal, it is not a biblical one). The work of the Spirit (revelation) is hardly singular or unified in itself (like the Muslims would have us believe). It is expressed in a plethora of gatherings of people, who understand the world in very different ways, and yet are unified in Christ (the revelation is always incarnate, united to the contingencies of those to whom it comes; and if it is to be carried on, it cannot be divorced from those contingencies for we only know God as incarnate, not in God's invisibility; the Spirit is known by the fruit it produces, not within itself). Even within the canon of the scriptures you find this clash of logic (the worldview of the ancients is not the same worldview held by the writers of the New Testament, and certainly neither one of them is anything like our Modern understanding of the world around us. Logics and rationalities change throughout time, for that is the nature of humanity, which is here today and gone tomorrow. Empires rise up for a time in their greatness, and are destined to wane once again, fading into the dust of history. Our mortality constantly reminds us that we are mortal and even dependant upon God for continued life; we are not eternal but contingent beings on this planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clete
It will be logical for two related reasons: First, because God is logical and, in fact, is the very source of logic and reason, and second, because that which is true is logical by definition.
What does it mean for God to be logical? Are you going to subject God to a set of rules and limits that make God finite? Logic requires finitude in order for it to work (there have to be limits in order for us to approach the world in a rational manner; closed systems are the joys of science, and the headache of science and the scientific method and rational approaches are multiple variants that cannot be controlled). So to talk about God as logical is to set limits about God. Even though you do not define those limits they are still very much there; and by using the term logical you set those limits not only around God but around the Creation as well (uniting both God and the Creation within the same limits). God is not a finite being. God is eternal and God is Spirit (Spirit being by definition a lack of boundaries that are well defined in the flesh).
Truth is not defined by logic; truth is defined by life and by breath and by the Spirit; God is truth, not logical assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clete
The second reason comes as a result of the first. That is, the fact that truth is logical is because God, who is logical, is truth.
God is truth! That is the posit that is given to us in the scriptures. It is not qualified by anything else. Whether God is logical or not, God is truth (for all of reality consists in God).
You make an assumption that I am not willing to agree with. You define God as logical, and that is a statement I have yet to comprehend let alone conceed. What does it mean for us to define God by God's limits? It only assumes that we have seen the world around us and thought that this world is just as real as God, in itself, and we have conceived of another manifestation of God that we must protect ourselves from. The God of nominalist theology (the omni-God) is a God who seems to be able to go either way, for we assume that goodness and evil are equally based in their own ontologies (and that power is a neutral reality that can be used for either good or for evil). We define evil within itself, so that evil takes on a substance of its own, then we project this onto God.
The problem is that our ontology is messed up so that it also messes up our view of God. Evil has no ontology (it has no reality). The only way in which evil gains substance is parasitically through the Creation. Evil is the lacking of good, it is not the opposite (anymore than 0 is the opposite of infinity; the opposite of infinity is negative infinity). And as soon as we give evil an ontology, we submit ourselves to a view of the world that is not Christian. There is a reason why eastern values are becoming so popular among the people of the west, because this ontological breakdown has led us to affirm the reality of evil as much as we affirm the reality of good, and in fact, we have shed all values, so that evil and good become a subjective matter that is really only a reflection of one's own values.
To define God as logical for me is as absurd as defining God as "non-contradictory." We define God by the Creation, rather than seeing that the opposite must be true; we only have reality in as much as we are grounded in God, and when we cease to be grounded in God we cease to have reality (we are corrupted; we die; we are destroyed). Sin is not the opposite of the good; sin is the absence of it.
So I do not want to talk about God as "logical." God is God; anything is a lie. God is self-defined (not defined by limits we try to tease out of God).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clete
In fact the Bible uses logic as a title or name of God. Just as God is love and God is righteousness, God is also logic. He is the very definition; the absolute personification of logic (John 1:1). If this were not so then we could not be logic in the first place any more than there would be absolute right and wrong if God were not righteous. In fact, "right and wrong" is merely the moral application of "truth and error" (i.e. logic).
Once again, you fail to see why I detest your exegisis of John. When John speaks of logos, it is not a universal and singular logical framework for the world and for God; logos is Jesus of Nazareth who proceeds from the Father in the incarnation within Mary's womb, who walks and talks with his disciples on the earth, who is killed and who is raised, who ascended to the Father and who will come again. Logos is forever incarnate (made flesh) for us. It is never to be abstracted into logic, for logic by definition cannot face the world in an incarnate matter, but must always abstract the world into simplified truths that easy to manipulate and to handle.
I agree and insist that truth actually has meaning and is absolute because God is the foundation of it, and anyone who disagrees will be found a liar. God will prevail and be found just when judged for His words, instead of being accused of a double standard.. (Romans 3:4)
SS, this is one of my big problems with the settled view. Couldn't resist the oppurtunity to jump in. Do I make sense here, or am I missing something?
Linear Mode
