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.
This "reasoned" response could not be more off target (IMO). To insist that matters of faith are purely logical is to have never understood the rules of logic or the essence of logic. To inject the issue of "revelation" into the argument for the logic and rationale of The Faith, is to use circular reasoning as the rationale of the logic minded believer. Silly. Why is the biblical message true? Answer: because the bible says it is so. Huh?
The eternity of God is not a logical consideration but neither is the eternity of matter nor the eternity of motion. The fact is this: Faith disciplines have as their center, the conviction that the particulars are true -- period. No logic. Science is in no better a position, however. It has no good explanation for the beginning of matter or the answer to the question, "whence motion?" In the end -- or should I say , from the very beginning, science cannot offer logical proof for many of its tenets -- so it postulates their existence and bases all else on those postulated "truths."
Resurrection from the dead is not logical. The baptism of the Spirit is not only illogical, but almost impossible to even explain. The provinically supplied biblical message, whether full and complete or not (where is III Corinthians ??) gives God the opportunity to work his will, in part, because we give this publication prayerful consideration -- logical? Not really. In I Corinthians 1:22,23, Paul asserts that the message is not logical, when he notes that the Greeks seek wisdom and are given foolishness. Aristotle used the word (sophia) "wisdom" to mean "mental excellence in its highest and fullest sense." Such an understanding cannot exclude that which is both rational and logical.
Important lessons are to be learned from this point of view. Not the least of which is the first lesson of debate --- know what can be proven and what cannot. We cannot "prove" many aspects of our faith. If this is true -- how then evangelism, conversion, perseverance in the faith, the value of community (esp. the community of believers who actually care for each other and draw from each others strengths). If none of this is established in mere logic, how can we go one?
We can and should because all of man's theoretical notions about time, space, and this world evolve from that which is established only in the postulate -- only in faith. They believe because, for them (the scientist, the political humanist, etc) there are no other explanations THEY WANT TO BELIEVE. The disciple has as much right to that kind of thinking as the "rational" person. He sees spiritual growth, events that can only be called "miracle," the glory of the morning sunshine, the comfort of a kind and gracious partner, the joy of learning and experiencing "God," the emotion of Spirit filling -- and he is convinced that this is reality. He comes to a point at which he desires no other reality. And in the end, he sees purpose in it ALL -- the happy times, the grief of loss, the embarrasment of growing old and the single most unique experience of all, death ----------------- he sees the purpose of it all. While the world is steeped in its logic, it is profoundly stupid in its premonitions of life and reason and purpose.
A one time experience is not logical for logic, scientifically speaking, is the philosophy of right thinking based on thoughtful comparisons (of what ALREADY EXISTS in our world) and necessary conclusions drawn from those comparisons,
So, to the "wise," the foolishness of Spirit filling is profoundly established, as is spiritual growth, fellowship and brotherhood, the parting of an ocean, or the death of one who now lives. The disciple of faith sees only the emptiness of this profundity.
John
