Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Logic: The Means to Rightly Divide | 2 Tim 2:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143214 | ||
"Men are required to believe and obey not only what is ‘expressly set down in Scripture.’ but also what ‘by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.’ This is the strenuous and universal contention of the Reformed theology against the Socinians and Arminians, who desired to confine the authority of Scripture to its literal asservations; and it involves a characteristic honoring of reason as the instrument for the ascertainment of truth. We must depend upon our human faculties to ascertain what Scripture says; we cannot suddenly abnegate them and refuse their guidance in determining what Scripture means. This is not, of course, to make reason the ground of the authority of inferred doctrines and duties. Reason is the instrument of discovery of all doctrines and duties, whether ‘expressly set down in Scripture’ or ‘by good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture’: but their authority, when once discovered, is derived from God, who reveals them and prescribes them in Scripture, either by literal assertion or by necessary implication. "The re-emurgence in recent controversies of the plea that the authority of Scripture is to be confined to its expressed declarations, and that human logic is not to be trusted in divine things, is, therefore, a direct denial of a fundamental position of Reformed theology, explicitly affirmed in the Confession, as well as an abnegation of fundamental reason, which would not only render thinking in a system impossible, but would logically involve the denial of the authority of all doctrine of the Trinity, and would logically involve the denial of all doctrine whatsoever, since no single doctrine of whatever simplicitly can be ascertained from Scripture except by the process of the understanding. It is, therefore, an unimportant incident that the recent plea against the use of human logic in determining doctrine has been most sharply put forward in order to justify the rejection of a doctrine which is explicitly taught, and that repeatedly of a doctrine which is explicitly, in the very letter of Scripture; if the plea is valid at all, it destroys at once our confidence in all doctrines, no one of which is ascertained or formulated without the aid of human logic." --B. B. Warfield |
||||||
2 | Logic: The Means to Rightly Divide | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 143219 | ||
Greetings Doc! I have an honest question my friend! Didn't you previously post that all aspects of man's nature has been tainted by sin? In light of the above quote, wouldn't this also apply to man's reason? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Logic: The Means to Rightly Divide | 2 Tim 2:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143242 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, There is no difference between human logic and God's logic. All that is in scripture is true, but not all that is true is in scripture. Hmmm... Let me try to explain another way: The Bible teaches that God is a God of knowledge (1 Samuel 2:3, Romans 16:27). Being eternally omniscient (Psalm 139:1-6), God is not only the source of His own knowledge, He is also the source and determiner of ALL truth. Truth is true because God thinks it so. Since that which is not rational cannot be true (1 Timothy 6:20), God must therefore be rational; the laws of logic are the way He thinks. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), He is a rational being, the Lord God of truth (Psalm 31:5). God is the God of logic. John contended with these very same issues you have expressed when he was dealing with the gnostics. Therefore he wrote in John 1:1 that Jesus Christ is called the “Logic” of God: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God” (the English word “logic” is derived from the Greek word Logos used in this verse). John 1:1 emphasized the rationality of God the Son. Logic is as eternal as God himself because “the Logos is God.” Thus, God and logic cannot be separated... logic is the characteristic of God’s thinking. The mind of man is, indeed, tainted by sin. We even have the ability to deny the truthfulness of things (like the existence of God, sin, or logic). We can be deceived and misled. We can be more concerned with defending ourselves or what we want, by using logical fallacies, instead of seeking the truth. Now, if you remain true to form, you will take that last paragraph and try to hoist me with my own petard. Please don't do that -- that would be a logical fallacy in and of itself. The last paragraph does not in anyway deny the truth of the high value that God places on logic, nor its importance in our deriving sound doctrine. Let me continue... Since logic is the characteristic of God's thinking, and scripture is a part of the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:16), it follows that scripture must be logical. What is said in Scripture is God’s infallible and inerrant thought. This is why Paul could reason with people from Scripture (Acts 17:2). Man is the image and glory of God (Genesis 1:27, 1 Corinthians 11:7). God “formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Adam became a type of soul that is superior to that of non-rational animals (2 Peter 2:12, Jude 10). Man, as God’s image bearer, is a rational being (Colossians 3:10). Again, this is why the apostle Paul could spend time “reasoning” with his auditors “from the Scriptures." Because Christ is the Logos who “gives light to every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9), we are to understand that there is a point at which man’s logic meets God’s logic. In fact, John 1:9 denies that logic is arbitrary or that there are many kinds of logic. There is only one kind of logic: God's logic... and the Logos gives every image bearer the ability to think logically. God has given man an understandable message, “words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25). God has also given language that enables man to rationally converse with his Creator (Exodus 4:11). Without logic, such thought or conversation would be impossible. Logic is an indispensable ingredient to all God-given, human language and thought. Sin did, indeed, render man's ability to reason correctly (Romans 1:21), but this does no damage to the laws of logic. The laws of logic are not strengthened by people complying with them or weakened by people ignoring them. The laws of logic are fixed in the mind of God. In Him, Doc "Thinking is subject to logical laws, for I cannot contradict myself and talk sense, yet alone construct a valid line of argument. Good logic is one of God's good gifts, and it is essential to thinking in this and any world." --Arthur Holmes "The laws of logic are not a speculative prejudice imposed at a given moment of history as a transient philosophical development. Neither do they involve a Western way of thinking, even if Aristotle may have stated them in an orderly way. The laws of valid inference are universal; they are elements of the imago Dei. In the Bible, reason has ontological significance. God is Himself truth and the source of truth. Biblical Christianity honors the Logos of God as the source of all meaning and considers the laws of thought an aspect of the imago." --Carl F. H. Henry |
||||||
4 | Logic: The Means to Rightly Divide | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 143261 | ||
Greetings Doc! Okay! I'll resist the temption! :-) But, I do have one more question. What then is happening when an atheist 'reasons' that God does not exist, and uses 'logic' to support his reasoning? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Logic: The Means to Rightly Divide | 2 Tim 2:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143274 | ||
Hi, Brother Tim... Because of common grace, all men are able to use logic and arrive at valid conclusions. Obviously, though, there are people all around us that believe all kinds of erroneous things. Sometimes this is because of faulty reasoning. (That's why a large part of the study of rhetoric is concerned with logical fallacies.) Sometimes this is because there are presuppositions that are invalid. Sometimes this is simply because people don't take the time to think -- in fact, they don't want to think! As believers, our presuppositions are very different from atheists. Therefore, it is to be expected that our conclusions differ. "Why do the heathen rage?" Because they don't want to be told what to do! As a believer, we start with "Be it unto me according to Thy Word." In Him, Doc |
||||||
6 | Logic: The Means to Rightly Divide | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 143275 | ||
Greetings Doc! Thanks for the response my friend! One last question, and I promise I'll drop this topic! ;-) If we are capable of faulty reasoning (as you stated in your previous post), how do we know for sure that are inferences about Scripture are correct? For instance, if you infer that some music is immoral, how do you know that your inference is correct if Scripture doesn't explicitly state such a thing? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Logic: The Means to Rightly Divide | 2 Tim 2:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143282 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, Or, for instance, your inference that music is amoral? :-) I'm not certain which of us is the more stuborn! :-) First, we have a set of presuppositions that help us. (I love it when a question comes up that I've been studying!) These include the sufficiency, necessity, and inerrency of scripture. It is our ultimate authority. Second, we have what the divines used to call "the light of nature." That is, logic and minds to apply it. Third, we have a set of principles that guide us in our understanding of scripture. These principles are actually used in a far broader context than just scriptural interpretation. They are used every single day as we read secular books, technical documentation, legal documents, etc. These principles provide us with the means of functioning smoothly as a society. They also help us understand scripture. Fourth, we expose our thinking to a broad forum in an effort to expose any error. (Not just the BibleStudyForum.) (For example, most people don't realize the very scientific, closely scrutinized, and systematic way in which original manuscripts are studied. (Some of the folks doing this aren't even believers, but we trust there work because of logic -- see my other posts.)) We don't have one holy-joe telling us what to believe. Nor do we depend on things like personal feelings. We do not see truth as a matter of individual choosing. We have a huge history of men carefully considering the passages of scripture, writing their conclusions, and being critiqued. Concensus is not our ultimate authority, but we recognize that truth often comes in a consistent manner to the people of God. In Him, Doc Okay... here's the music stuff... In Exodus 32 we read Joshua exclaiming to Moses (v17), "There is a noise of war in the camp!" Moses says (v18), "It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear." This noise -- hardly worthy of the name music -- wasn't even recognized as such by these men. It only gradually dawned on them that what they were hearing was singing! The people were dancing about the image they had made (v19). They were also naked (v25), which gives the implication (inference?) of licentiousness as well. We know from Amos that God hates even religious music that is not offered in obedience from a heart that desires to please Him. How can we possibly imagine that the singing of the people in the camp was an indifferent sound to Him, considering the enormity of their sin? Could any part of their activity been anything but odious to Him? Now, in our discussion of music, this wasn't even an extremely important and necessary part of my argument. If we had only found a single instance of God being pleased or displeased with music it would have sufficed. So, since you are wondering, let me quickly move through the rest of the argument. For the sake of brevity (who me?) I may not prove every point as most of them have already been established. God defines what is true, what is pure, what is holy. The term amoral means "not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral." If music is amoral, therefore, God will never make moral distinctions about it. We will never see Him pleased or displeased with music. However, we DO find instances where God is pleased with music and other instances where God is displeased with music. Therefore, it necessarily follows that music is NOT amoral. Clearly, there is more study to do. For example, we cannot say particularly what are the aspects of moral music and immoral music. When God expresses pleasure or displeasure, does it have to do with lyrics? We'd need to examine the God pleasing and displeasing instances to see if singing was always involved. Etc. Remember we talked about presuppositions? People also have predispositions. We have to be careful that our predispositions do not interfere with our search for truth. For example, do we have some kind of vested interest in the results of our inquiry? (Sometimes people don't WANT the truth!) Or will we simply delight in the truth and ask God for grace to help us adjust our heads, hearts, hands, and habits accordingly? |
||||||
8 | Logic: The Means to Rightly Divide | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 143287 | ||
Greetings Doc! Okay! I'm done! Just let close with one statement, no more questions. ;-) You wrote: "However, we DO find instances where God is pleased with music and other instances where God is displeased with music. Therefore, it necessarily follows that music is NOT amoral." This is exactly the problem I have with inferences, because no where does God state in Scripture that is pleased or displeased with any particular music! :-) If He did, I would agree with you. Anyway, get better my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | Logic: The Means to Rightly Divide | 2 Tim 2:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143290 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, I've explained the morality of music with inferences. Your turn: I'll ask you to explain something without inferences. :-) We'll take it off line, though. We've consumed enough of the bandwidth. In Him, Doc |
||||||