David, You continue to help us define anthropological theology. You define all things in God from a human standpoint instead of allowing God's revelation in Himself to define all things human (called theological anthropology). You did it with your word study on 'hate' and you are doing it again now. You project onto God your own mythology and then call it theology.
Please define grace as administered in the Person of Jesus Christ and how you feel this is logical. Consider that if all truth will align with reason and logic then you may be equating logic with Jesus Christ (Jesus being the Truth). Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 4:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Is Truth always rational? David Miller wrote: >> ...all truth will align with reason and logic. >> ...truth will not be found to be illogical and unreasonable. Slade wrote: > What about the "foolishness of Messiah?" Lance wrote: > IMO this is FALSE. ... Please say more... You guys are not giving me much to go on in terms of what you find unacceptable with my statement. What is "foolishness of Messiah"? Messiah is not foolish, nor is he irrational. Are you perhaps referring to the "foolishness of preaching" mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:18? Even here, this passage does not mean that the preaching of the cross is irrational. Rather, it speaks of how it APPEARS irrational to the Greeks who seek after wisdom. For the one who lacks the Judaic background of the Torah, the idea of the cross appears irrational. What does the blood of someone being executed have to do with me? Of course, to those of us who are saved, the preaching of the cross is one of the most incredibly wise constructs of understanding that we have ever encountered. Logic takes two forms, and unless we recognize this, there is bound to be confusion about what we are talking about when we describe a concept as "illogical" or "irrational." 1. Deductive Logic: This is a form of reasoning that goes from the more general to the specific. This is the only form of logic which can "PROVE" something. A syllogism is an example of this type of logic. We might construct a general observation: Only birds have feathers. Then we consider a more specific axiom: Penguins have feathers. The conclusion can be made that penguins are birds. Deductive logic always leads to a truth that is proven, as long as the premises are known to be true. The only time the conclusion could be false is if one or more of the premises is found to be false. 2. Inductive Logic: This is a form of reasoning that proceeds from the specific to the general. This is what a theory is; for example, the idea of the "Theory of Everything" that we had talked about in some past posts. >From several specific observations, we try and make a general conclusion that accounts for and provides meaning for our observations. The conclusion may or may not be true. Conclusions drawn from inductive logic are always tentative. The best we can do is try and apply statistical analysis to assign a probability to our confidence in the truthfulness of the conclusion. Now consider the dispute between science and religion in terms of the sources of truth. Science does not accept that truth can come from any source other than from empirical observation. If it cannot be observed in the physical world and quantified mathematically, as far as science is concerned, it is not a source of truth. Religion, on the other hand, generally accepts the concept of revelation. Truth can be revealed to man through the spirit apart from observation of the material world. The Bible is an example of truth that comes through revelation. The Bible was produced when men were inspired by the Holy Spirit and wrote their revelation down. Now revelation might initially appear irrational if it runs contrary to our general system of understanding. However, if the revelation is true, it must by necessity be logical. Otherwise, we would have to contend that God Almighty is an irrational and illogical being. One of the revelations we have is that Christ is the Truth. Therefore, to say that Truth is irrational or illogical would be equivalent to saying that Christ himself is irrational and illogical. Creation itself testifies to us that such is not the case. Creation is orderly and logical in every way. This is why science works, because it works at understanding the logical and rational laws of nature in order to predict future events given a certain set of causations. We have to accept the fact that truth must of necessity always be logical and rational. So why then does truth APPEAR to be illogical at times. The answer to this depends upon the type of logical inference being made. If it is a deductive form, a premise is likely to be faulty. This is why I spend time examining some of the underlying premises in arguments put forth in this forum. All too often, someone who thinks what they believe must be true has not really considered that certain assumptions he makes are actually false. More often than not, the reason a truth appears illogical is because the inductive inference being made simply is not true. While it might account for numerous observations, there are exceptions that have not been observed or considered yet. Sometimes I think of logical inference like stepping stones across the pond. There are many truths that cannot be gotten to by following the stepping stones because some of the steps are missing. You can get so far, but then you look across and you cannot make the connection to the other side. Being at such a place might cause one to think it unreasonable to try and affirm the truth that lies on the other side. However, if a person is able to receive revelation, he might apprehend that truth by being carried over to it by the spirit of revelation. Once over on the other side, he can experience the truth, and looking back to the stepping stones where they stopped, can see how the truth he has come to know is logical and rational. The truth might always appear to the pure rationalist as being "illogical" or unsupported by the evidence, but that is only because he dismisses revelation and the stepping stones he needs to get to the truth rationally and logically are missing. To the one who has revelation, however, the logical consistency is clear because he is already there experiencing the truth and looking back can see the steps needed to get there and has no trouble with the missing steps that prevent the person on the other side from coming over. Therefore, while faith and revelation play an important part in obtaining truth, the truth that they obtain will not be illogical and irrational. If any concept discovered through this process is found to be illogical and irrational, then it was obtained by presumption and imagination instead of faith and revelation. It is not truth. I hope this helps. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
