The Lone Stranger said:

---

The idea that logic was some epistemological given that we "discovered" and is therefore, some kind of backdoor way to truth is a faith statement. I can't be supported by scripture itself.

I have nothing against logic any more than I have something against a printing press. I used to teach logic for the A.P. exam, but to limit the eternal God to the basic principles of logic is simply not the truth.

If we follow your faith assumption about logic, we are back to the "my doctrine is more logical than yours, and therefore truth" idea, and that's just not true.

How did we find correct doctrine before Aristotle came along and gave us logic?

---

The idea that something must be supported scripturally is a faith statement. Heck, the idea that the bible is the word of God to begin with is a faith statement. Just about everything in the realm of philosophy is a faith statement. Not really sure why that would be an issue of my claim and not yours. Aristotle himself didn't believe he "gave us logic". He believed the laws of logic were axiomatic. So, in his view, your claim that logic is a human construct would be a faith statement. And one he would disagree with.

It's best correlated with the laws of mathematics. God made 1+1=2. When humans come to understand this and form a mathematical law to explain it, it doesn't not mean humans "created" addition. Addition was always there, and we came to understand it. Similarly, the laws of logic have always existed, through God, independent of human reasoning. It's His Truth behind the laws, not ours.

Secondly, I did not limit God to basic principles of logic. I didn't even come close to asserting that. I said that the laws of logic emanate from Him. He isn't subordinate to His own creation. I also said that something being illogical should be a non-starter. God is Truth. Logic is a process we use to understand truth. Now, we can misapply logic, but that doesn't mean pure and good logic doesn't exist on it's own, independent of humans.


So, with this framework, "my doctrine is more logical than yours" is not the argument I, or anyone else, is making. I'm saying that if a doctrine is illogical, then it is untrue by definition. The 1,2,3 I used earlier is a perfect example. People recognize it as incoherent and are forced to change at least one of the 3. Calvin did it by saying God doesn't want to save everyone. Arminius did it by saying man does play a role in his salvation. Universalists did it by saying everyone goes to heaven. Luther was the one holdout, and he had to appeal to mystery because he knew he couldn't make sense of it.

just chiming in here to add some guard rails. there's a lot of tacit epistemological heavy lifting going on behind your statements about 1+1=2 and logic as eternal truths coming from God. even something as simple as 1+1=2 assumes math is objective and discovered rather than invented, but Kant argued that our minds impose structures that make arithmetic possible; empiricists like Mill argued that it was generalizations from experience. claiming it was "always there" because God skips over how we know and justify this as knowledge, as well as ignoring the type of knowing it is - is it innate? observed/demonstrable/empirical? divinely revealed? cultural convention? to highlight: how can placing two identical and unreleated objects nearer to each other suddenly make them go from two one things to one set of two things? this is not a given by any means.

likewise the approach with logic assumes things like non-contradiction are self-evident universals, but Quine challenged even basic logic as revisable based on empirical holism. you're assuming logic is a reliable path to truth, even going as far as subordinating truth to logic by saying that if something isn't logical it isn't true - something which someone who follows an apophatic mystery religion that embraces paradox at its very core should certainly view with some suspicion! even so, if logic is a reliable method (method being a questionable approach in itself), but subject to misapplication, how do you distinguish good or pure logic from human error without circular reasoning?

you're really appealing to a christianized platonism where the forms exist independently as part of God's early creations. but this itself is an assumed framework that requires concepts like eternal abstracts that aren't native to the hebrew scriptures... instead, those emphasize God's direct actions and activities through speaking, word, breath without reliance on philosophical realms or pre-existing ideals. importing these elements risks blending greek metaphysics (what the church fathers call "outer" knowledge) with theology proper, which carries no small level of risk. not the least of which is potentially altering the portrayal of God as the sole and unmediated source of existence and order, but also includes ideas like pre-existence of souls, a certain view of the self and the afterlife, and even direct understanding of the godhead (ideas of god as simplicity, unity, etc). there is a reason the eastern fathers kept it at arms length.

The Banned said:

---

My understanding of lutheran teaching is that He clearly doesn't call everyone. The call is only done by hearing the gospel, and it's clear billions of people have never heard it. So in that case, people are being passed over/left out.

And it's easy to say they harden their hearts against God, but monergistic salvation means that He makes the initial step. He makes the unwilling into the willing without their consent. So for those that never have felt any conversion from unwilling to willing must never have received that grace to begin with. They never had a moment of willingness, which only comes from Him

---

This is what is frustrating. We have a good discussion going, and when you don't like the answers you're getting, you just insert your opinions. It seems clear that you are trying to insert Calvinism into Lutheranism and that's a mistake.

------------------
Your understanding of Lutheranism is incorrect.

Lutheranism makes a very simple claim. The historical view of Scripture is that it interprets itself, and we should take the plain reading of the text unless we have very good reason not to (i.e., Revelation as an example where it's clear the plain language is not the right interpretation).

So when John 3:16 says: [sup]16 [/sup]"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [sup]17 [/sup]For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

When Scripture says all or the world, we say yes.

So God's grace is for all. It's never limited, and He never excludes anyone from that grace.

----------------------
You're trying to insert the Calvinistic view of "Irresistible grace" into Lutheranism. Your entire premise here is foreign to Lutheranism.

Monergism or not, If God does not make the first step, you have much bigger theological issues (namely pelagianism).

Here's who you have presented:

Kant- a "Christian" who didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but was intent on keeping the moral agency of Christianity. His philosophy regarding mathematics are almost completely rejected today

Mills- an atheist who excluded the supernatural, and also has his views on the experiential source of logic and math being rejected today.

Quine- an atheist whose entire work was done with a materialist naturalism at it's core, removing any possibility for the existence of the supernatural from the start.

So three philosophical frameworks that remove the possibility of the supernatural from the outset. It's no wonder they would possibly try to espouse things like the Law of Non-Contradiction not being self evident (although I don't see any evidence that these particular individuals believed this) They have rejected the traditional Christian view of God prior to delving in to the question. And I would like to note that very, very few philosophers seem to be open the LNC not being self-evident. This is a post-modern argument for a way to make things work without a God. I don't know why you'd appeal to them

I also don't know why I would choose those three over an Aristotelian view of logic. Using his philosophical views, he arrived at an Uncreated Creator, a Primary Cause, all while living in a pagan society. He essentially reasoned his way to monotheism (although I would speculate that prevenient grace through Spirit was guiding his work to help him get there) This in and of itself should prove it to be the superior philosophical framework for any Christian.

Also, I am not subjecting truth to logic. God is Truth. He is not subordinate to studies of His Truth. What I said is that, since God is Truth, and logic is the study of truth that He has given us, then something illogical would necessarily become untrue. "A" is "A". "A" cannot be "not A". Not unless we want to accept atheistic philosophy that even most atheists don't agree with.

I'm not saying there aren't very difficult logical questions to sort out, and that may never be sorted, but if an answer is found/revealed to humans, it will be in accordance with "A is A". Not "A is not A". Take the Trinity:

If we say "God is three persons and one essence." we have a paradox: surprising, mysterious, but not illogical because "person" and "essence" refer to different categories.

Now imagine someone says: "God is three persons and one person." Now we have a logical contradiction that cannot be true and it requires us to commit the heresy of modalism (or something like it). Note that, while logic does not perfectly explain God's trinitarian nature, we can use logic to understand the parts we can grasp. And logic does not dictate that we HAVE to fully understand Him. Just that what is understandable isn't illogical.

This is NOT subjecting God to logic. It's understanding God THROUGH logic, and it's something the Eastern Church most certainly has embraced in various forms. The hypostatic union is impossible to define without Aristotelian metaphysics. This is a huge for the Church. But despite this method of understanding, the Church still clearly states this truth is revealed by God. Logic is merely a part of the revelation. And since logic is not above God, we can be comfortable with the mystery of things impartially explained.

I hope you can see with this that I am not appealing to a Christianized Platonism. The metaphysics have no control over theology proper, but help us understand the more difficult parts of our theology. I agree there were warnings from the Eastern fathers on letting philosophy overtake our theology, and I would agree. This is why it's important that we state that logic helps us understand our theology, and not the other way around. I think Palamas and Mark of Ephesus started this more extreme, near rejection of philosophy and logic in the East. The first 6 ecumenical councils very clearly relied on metaphysical language to resolve the dispute, and a case could be made that the 7th was buttressed by it at the very least. Placing above revelation is not something we can do, but abandoning it would be to turn our backs on our history.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

My understanding of lutheran teaching is that He clearly doesn't call everyone. The call is only done by hearing the gospel, and it's clear billions of people have never heard it. So in that case, people are being passed over/left out.

And it's easy to say they harden their hearts against God, but monergistic salvation means that He makes the initial step. He makes the unwilling into the willing without their consent. So for those that never have felt any conversion from unwilling to willing must never have received that grace to begin with. They never had a moment of willingness, which only comes from Him

---

This is what is frustrating. We have a good discussion going, and when you don't like the answers you're getting, you just insert your opinions. It seems clear that you are trying to insert Calvinism into Lutheranism and that's a mistake.

------------------
Your understanding of Lutheranism is incorrect.

Lutheranism makes a very simple claim. The historical view of Scripture is that it interprets itself, and we should take the plain reading of the text unless we have very good reason not to (i.e., Revelation as an example where it's clear the plain language is not the right interpretation).

So when John 3:16 says: [sup]16 [/sup]"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [sup]17 [/sup]For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

When Scripture says all or the world, we say yes.

So God's grace is for all. It's never limited, and He never excludes anyone from that grace.

----------------------
You're trying to insert the Calvinistic view of "Irresistible grace" into Lutheranism. Your entire premise here is foreign to Lutheranism.

Monergism or not, If God does not make the first step, you have much bigger theological issues (namely pelagianism).

---

I'll respond in full later, but I agree we are having a good discussion and don't want you to be frustrated with me. I try to be clear when I say my understanding so that, should you feel the need to correct it, you can have confidence that I am not trying to speak for you or Lutheranism. It's simply my take on the issue. I'm not trying to insert calvinism. I'm noticing similarities. If that is due to my misunderstanding, I'm ok with being corrected.

I'll give you details on how I arrived at my understanding later so you can advise on where you see me misunderstanding.

This is what I'm used to seeing as a summation of the Lutheran perspective. . I'm going to respond to this video assuming you agree with it fully. If you don't, please correct me where I go wrong.

First, I appreciate that he says these 3 premises don't fit together. I also appreciate that he is saying these 3 doctrines are explicitly taught in scripture.

His 3 premises:

Quote:

---

Universal Grace: God offers saving grace to all people, desiring their salvation

Grace Alone: We don't contribute anything to our salvation, and God does all the saving
.
Hell: Some are not saved, despite Him wanting them to be saved and Him being the only actor in who is saved and who isn't.

---

He says that there is no way to logically hold all 3 of these together. I agree. They don't fit at all. Which leads to the question: Are the any other biblical alternatives? According to the Catholic Church, the EO's, the anabaptists, Arminius, and even (sort of) Melanchthon… yes, there is. It looks like this:

Quote:

---

Universal Grace: God offers saving grace to all people

Grace Alone: God offers grace to all men, for them to freely accept, some of whom will accept, while others reject. Without His grace all are hopelessly lost. However, He wants us to actively receive/choose Him instead of overwhelming our will, so our choice plays a role. In other words, we contribute something to our salvation, but the saving is still dependent on upon God's grace alone.

Hell: Some are not saved, which makes perfect sense, since men are free to reject God, as He divinely allows.

---

Both camps use the same Bible to arrive at their conclusions. So what we have here is not a difference in biblical text, but a difference in interpretation. When the pastor says the 3 premises, as he defines them, are taught in the bible, this is dependent upon who is reading the bible. Some people agree, but (statistically) most don't. The majority of Christians belong to a denomination that reads the exact same words this pastor does, but concludes God desires synergistic salvation. So how do we know who is correct?

Maybe we can say "scripture interprets scripture" is why Luther got it right when the others didn't. The problem is that Arminius and the Anabaptists agreed with "scripture interprets scripture", but came to a very different conclusion than Luther. So we can see two groups using the same framework of scripture's authority arriving at opposite conclusions on monergism vs synergism. Calvin also believed "scripture interprets scripture", but instead of disagreeing on premise 2, disagreed on premise 1. Here we see two groups using the same framework of scripture arriving at opposing conclusions of universal grace.

I'm not saying that this video is dogmatic or anything, nor am I saying I have interpreted his views perfectly. I'm offering my opinion for you to tear apart or agree with as you see fit.

reposted for weird formatting error

Yet all three used logic to derive their claims. And you're running after Aristotle and Plato who are no less questionable in their theological bonafides.

I didn't structure my argument as an appeal to authority, so attacking them doesnt unravel it. Nor does calling it "postmodern" (it's not) which is really just code for "things I don't like".

My only point is you're subjecting things to assumptions that you're not fully acknowledging, and then appealing to those assumptions as divine. "God made 1+1=2".

Quote:

---

I am not subjecting truth to logic

---

You literally said "if a doctrine is illogical, then it is untrue by definition". Explain how the reality of God is beyond all change and is perfectly One, but the One is perfectly plural and the plurality is perfectly one. You may just call this paradox, but that's a fancy way of describing contradiction. The reality is that truth transcends logic; logic itself can prove through itself its own limits.

Quote:

---

This is NOT subjecting God to logic. It's understanding God THROUGH logic

---

But we don't understand God through logic. This is the problem with what you're saying, and the Eastern church does not express this. You're conflating expression with understanding, and they are not the same thing.

The Church baptizes philosophical language to express the understanding we receive from God through revelation. But the expression is not the thing. The expression never becomes the thing, and it never limits the thing itself. The symbol of faith is not the faith, it points to it, describes it.

Quote:

---

I think Palamas and Mark of Ephesus started this more extreme, near rejection of philosophy and logic in the East.

---

I think Scholasticism retread ground long understood to be fruitless in the East, then didn't understand why the conclusions their project of straw led them to were rejected. It's kind of absurd to imagine that the East - which never "lost" Aristotle or Plato - would somehow be ignorant of their content when it was "rediscovered" by the West.

There's another problem with this statement. If you read the fathers they clearly say Christianity is the only true philosophy. For example, St Justin Martyr says "...philosophy is, in fact, the greatest possession, and most honorable before God, to whom it leads us and alone commends us...What philosophy is, however, and the reason why it has been sent down to men, have escaped the observation of most; for there would be neither Platonists, nor Stoics, nor Peripatetics, nor Theoretics, nor Pythagoreans, this knowledge being one...There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, both righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place. They are called prophets. These alone both saw and announced the truth to men, neither reverencing nor fearing any man, not influenced by a desire for glory, but speaking those things alone which they saw and which they heard, being filled with the Holy Spirit....I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable."

St John of Damascus writes "Philosophy is knowledge of things which are in so far as they are; that is to say, a knowledge of their nature. Philosophy is a knowledge of divine and human things...Philosophy is a becoming like God, in so far as this is possible for man....Philosophy is the art of arts and the science of sciences, for, since through philosophy every art is discovered, it is the principle underlying every art. Philosophy is love of wisdom. But, the true wisdom is God. Therefore, the love of God-this is the true philosophy."

The process of "use" of "outer-knowledge" is the same as anything else; what is good is baptized and incorporated, and what is bad is rejected. This is as true for Greek philosophy as it is for pagan mythology, or mathematics, or engineering, or art.

The ancient understanding is that while Plato and Aristotle's works were as close as you can get by human efforts, they're ultimately insufficient, and were at best pedagogical tools to prepare the Greeks for the true philosophy, which was revealed to the prophets long before.

Returning to the difference between "understanding" and "expression" also requires a deeper dive into categories of knowing, which is part of the point I made about your epistemological handwaving. When it comes to divine things, we confess that God is beyond knowing or understanding, because we have no capacity to experience him through sensory means, and no referent or thing to compare Him to; hence we arrive to God properly only through negation of all things - apophatic theology - and are left with understanding that whatever we are He is not. We confess this in every divine liturgy: "For You, O God, are ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible" beyond all categories and references of being. St Maximos says that the best we can do to describe this is that He is even beyond knowing and non-knowing, because we can understand both of those things. He is beyond the unknown and beyond unknowing; He is supra-non-knowable. And humans, through the grace and gift of God, have a capacity to supra-non-know God, experiencing God through an act of supra-non-knowing, receiving this supra-non-knowledge, and that's why we know the things we know, because we come to know God Himself. We experience God, and we really experience Him, not some other thing. Those experiences are real.

This means even further that not only can we not understand God, we cannot even express it. As St John of Damascus said "Neither do we know, nor can we tell, what the essence of God is, or how it is in all, or how the Only-begotten Son and God, having emptied Himself, became Man of virgin blood, made by another law contrary to nature, or how He walked with dry feet upon the waters. It is not within our capacity, therefore, to say anything about God or even to think of Him, beyond the things which have been divinely revealed to us, whether by word or by manifestation, by the divine oracles at once of the Old Testament and of the New."

We know God only because He has made Himself known. And the truest and best expression of God is not logic or anything like it, but the righteous living lives which manifest both the person and the existence of God.

I do not have to accept that logic is part of the revelation of God, or some necessary part, or that we can use logic to establish some kind of criterion of truth against which to test revelation. I certainly do not have to accept is as some kind of philosophical form or eternal abstract with a quality of existence that you're putting forward as axiomatic. On the other hand, we should take great care to avoid expressing falsehoods, and logic is a mechanism to guard the cataphatic statements we do make against error. This makes it all the more important to understand its inherent limits.

Quote:

---

He says that there is no way to logically hold all 3 of these together. I agree. They don't fit at all. Which leads to the question: Are the any other biblical alternatives? According to the Catholic Church, the EO's, the anabaptists, Arminius, and even (sort of) Melanchthon… yes, there is. It looks like this:

---

You don't actually believe this line of argumentation.

If we swap Justifiation for the concept of the Supremacy of the Pope, I can make the exact same argument that:

"Are the any other biblical alternatives? According to the Catholic Church Lutherans, the EO's, the anabaptists, Arminius, and even (sort of) Melanchthon… yes, there is. It looks like this."

You, (I assume), will say that statement is now false, yet it's also your words with one small change to swap Rome for Lutherans.

So arguing that because someone disagrees with you, we must consider that a viable alternative isn't necessarily relevant to the conversation.

--------------------

Quote:

---

Both camps use the same Bible to arrive at their conclusions. So what we have here is not a difference in biblical text, but a difference in interpretation. When the pastor says the 3 premises, as he defines them, are taught in the bible, this is dependent upon who is reading the bible. Some people agree, but (statistically) most don't. The majority of Christians belong to a denomination that reads the exact same words this pastor does, but concludes God desires synergistic salvation. So how do we know who is correct?

Maybe we can say "scripture interprets scripture" is why Luther got it right when the others didn't. The problem is that Arminius and the Anabaptists agreed with "scripture interprets scripture", but came to a very different conclusion than Luther. So we can see two groups using the same framework of scripture's authority arriving at opposite conclusions on monergism vs synergism. Calvin also believed "scripture interprets scripture", but instead of disagreeing on premise 2, disagreed on premise 1. Here we see two groups using the same framework of scripture arriving at opposing conclusions of universal grace.

I'm not saying that this video is dogmatic or anything, nor am I saying I have interpreted his views perfectly. I'm offering my opinion for you to tear apart or agree with as you see fit.

---

This is the crux of the last couple of pages of conversations among multiple people. I, and certainly the Reformers would not agree this is a correct statement.

First, the obvious. Including the Anabaptist in the discussion is a bit of a non-starter. Just not a relevant group for a multitude of reasons (legalism, charaismatic system, etc).

Second, you have a faulty premise.

You say: "Calvin also believed "scripture interprets scripture."

This isn't correct. Calvin clearly relies on logic and reasoning (he was a lawyer after all). This is why I grouped Rome and Calvinists in the similar bucket of trying to explain too much. Transubstantiation vs Calvin's view of Lord's Supper.

Luther famously met with Zwingli and on the debates around the Lord's Supper, Zwingli said that the man Jesus can't possibly be in the Lord's Supper because how can a man be in more than one place? Luther famously carved "is means is" on the table and when Zwingli made a philosophical argument, Luther just pointed at the table.

Zwingli and Calvin would sign the same document about the Lord's Supper.

So no, Calvin doesn't believe Scripture interprets Scripture. Instead, he relied on reason and logic as his guide and that led him to incorrect statements.

We must be speaking past each other here. Let me be clear: I have no issues with any of the quotes you posted from any of those saints. You clearly don't either. So what we have to do is figure out why we aren't on the same page somehow. I have many, many more quotes that I can post, and I would be happy to do so, because each of these quotes from the fathers are saying that philosophy/reason/knowledge/logic/ comes TO us FROM God. It is something He sends down to us. It is a truth that HE reveals. I sincerely fail to understand how you can say that I'm subjecting God to the rules of logic when I am clearly (at least from my perspective) saying that logic comes from Him to begin with. How can He be subject to something contingent upon Him? That makes no sense.

I don't know a single orthodox Christian philosopher that would disagree with this. The reason I explain the backgrounds of the 3 philosophers you referenced was to show that only people who want to remove God seek to find a logical framework that doesn't need Him. It has nothing to do with appealing to authority, but understanding where these guys are coming from. Bringing atheistic worldviews that intentionally remove God from the equation into a Christian conversation doesn't make any sense, and should be tossed out. And they mostly have been by all philosophers other than the post-moderns (and considering the LNC to not be self-evident is distinctly postmodern. Not sure why you'd say otherwise)

If you can find me a church father that didn't believe ration/logic/philosophy is a gift from God, I'd be happy to read up on it. What I do find are plenty of comments like this from Clement of Alexandria, an Eastern Father:

Quote:

---

"Before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it is useful for the development of true religion, as a kind of preparatory training () for those who are gaining the faith through demonstration. For 'thy foot will not stumble' if you attribute good things, whether belonging to the Greeks or to us, to Providence. For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and New Testaments; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. But perhaps philosophy was given to the Greeks directly by God, as their own covenant, being a stepping-stone to the philosophy which is according to Christ..."

---

The only reason you can say I am subjecting God to logic is because you refuse to recognize my position that logic itself comes from Him, despite my position being fully orthodox. And it leads you into errors like this:

Quote:

---

Explain how the reality of God is beyond all change and is perfectly One, but the One is perfectly plural and the plurality is perfectly one. You may just call this paradox, but that's a fancy way of describing contradiction

---

.

We've literally already done this. We have explained the Trinity by distinguishing the persons from the essence of God. The hypostatic union is divinely revealed to us to explain Jesus through logical, metaphysical language. The very fact that we can do so is why we can call it a paradox. It doesn't break the laws of logic, but is still beyond our ability to fully comprehend. This is the definition of a paradox. If the solution broke the laws of logic, then it would cease to be a paradox and become a contradiction. By definition, they cannot be the same thing. Paradox is most certainly not a fancy word for contradiction. For something to be logical, it is not necessary that it is fully comprehended. Mystery =/= illogical and I don't see any evidence to the contrary outside of post-modern philosophy.

Similarly, I think you are incorrect in your understanding of "understanding" and "express". We profess that the doctrine of the trinity is a true claim. In that way, we have come to "understand". Understanding comes from without, the trinity was revealed by God, therefore we "understand". However, since we are not God, we can't fully comprehend it. Our formulas are an "expression" of the truth, because it is limited by human knowledge. But the truth itself still exists outside of human observation. It is not dependent upon us, therefore it is not a mere expression.

The two don't have to conflict in the manner in which you seem to think they do. I see no reason to be as adamantly against it as you are. For example,

Quote:

---

You literally said "if a doctrine is illogical, then it is untrue by definition"

---

Shouldn't give you heartburn. Here is an example of why:

Quote:

---

"For it is impossible that He who is the unchangeable and simple essence should do anything contrary to His own nature; for to do so would be to be other than He is, which is absurd. Therefore, God's power is not to be measured by the capacity to do what is contrary to Himself, but by the perfection and immutability of His own nature."
Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium, Book I

---

According to Gregory (and many others) to claim God's nature as contradictory as you did is "absurd".

So yes, if a doctrine is illogical (meaning a clear contradiction) it is not true. As soon as you recognize, as the fathers did, that knowledge comes from God and not man, you can reconcile this easily. So when an atheist asks "can God make an object so heavy He can't lift it" we don't have to accept the illogical position of saying yes. It's stupid. We can say, as the fathers did, that logic emanates from Him. To do the illogical is to defy/change His very nature. This would strike against God's immutability.

I'm rushing to finish this, so maybe I'll still fail to make my point as well as I would like, but I'll state this again clearly: I am NOT subjecting God to logic. Logic comes from Him and helps us to understand Him to the best of human ability. He is not forced into complying with logic anymore than He is forced to be a Trinity.

ETA this one from John of Damascus:

Quote:

---

"Since it is necessary for those who wish to speak or hear about divine things to begin with the study of logic, I have composed, to the best of my ability, this little introduction to dialectics, collecting what seemed useful from the works of the philosophers. For logic is a necessary tool in every discipline, and especially in theology. It does not produce truth but helps us to discern and defend it.

Logic is a gift of God, given to man so that by it we may define, clarify, and distinguish what is true from what is false. But one must not imagine that logic can fully comprehend or encompass divine things, which surpass all human reason. Rather, it should be used humbly, as a servant to faith, and never as its master."

---

There are so many more, but I've already made this post forever long

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quote:

---

He says that there is no way to logically hold all 3 of these together. I agree. They don't fit at all. Which leads to the question: Are the any other biblical alternatives? According to the Catholic Church, the EO's, the anabaptists, Arminius, and even (sort of) Melanchthon… yes, there is. It looks like this:

---

You don't actually believe this line of argumentation.

If we swap Justifiation for the concept of the Supremacy of the Pope, I can make the exact same argument that:

"Are the any other biblical alternatives? According to the Catholic Church Lutherans, the EO's, the anabaptists, Arminius, and even (sort of) Melanchthon… yes, there is. It looks like this."

You, (I assume), will say that statement is now false, yet it's also your words with one small change to swap Rome for Lutherans.

So arguing that because someone disagrees with you, we must consider that a viable alternative isn't necessarily relevant to the conversation.

--------------------

Quote:

---

Both camps use the same Bible to arrive at their conclusions. So what we have here is not a difference in biblical text, but a difference in interpretation. When the pastor says the 3 premises, as he defines them, are taught in the bible, this is dependent upon who is reading the bible. Some people agree, but (statistically) most don't. The majority of Christians belong to a denomination that reads the exact same words this pastor does, but concludes God desires synergistic salvation. So how do we know who is correct?

Maybe we can say "scripture interprets scripture" is why Luther got it right when the others didn't. The problem is that Arminius and the Anabaptists agreed with "scripture interprets scripture", but came to a very different conclusion than Luther. So we can see two groups using the same framework of scripture's authority arriving at opposite conclusions on monergism vs synergism. Calvin also believed "scripture interprets scripture", but instead of disagreeing on premise 2, disagreed on premise 1. Here we see two groups using the same framework of scripture arriving at opposing conclusions of universal grace.

I'm not saying that this video is dogmatic or anything, nor am I saying I have interpreted his views perfectly. I'm offering my opinion for you to tear apart or agree with as you see fit.

---

This is the crux of the last couple of pages of conversations among multiple people. I, and certainly the Reformers would not agree this is a correct statement.

First, the obvious. Including the Anabaptist in the discussion is a bit of a non-starter. Just not a relevant group for a multitude of reasons (legalism, charaismatic system, etc).

Second, you have a faulty premise.

You say: "Calvin also believed "scripture interprets scripture."

This isn't correct. Calvin clearly relies on logic and reasoning (he was a lawyer after all). This is why I grouped Rome and Calvinists in the similar bucket of trying to explain too much. Transubstantiation vs Calvin's view of Lord's Supper.

Luther famously met with Zwingli and on the debates around the Lord's Supper, Zwingli said that the man Jesus can't possibly be in the Lord's Supper because how can a man be in more than one place? Luther famously carved "is means is" on the table and when Zwingli made a philosophical argument, Luther just pointed at the table.

Zwingli and Calvin would sign the same document about the Lord's Supper.

So no, Calvin doesn't believe Scripture interprets Scripture. Instead, he relied on reason and logic as his guide and that led him to incorrect statements.

---

In the first half of your post, that wasn't the argument I intended to make. I'm not saying if more people believe one thing over the other it must be true. It would be problematic for me to do so because it's rumored that Arianism was the most popular view back in the day. What I am saying is that if a view that is held defies logic, and another view is available to us, we should consider the logical view, provided it is still scripturally sound. We don't abandon scripture in lieu of logic. Instead we test our interpretations of scripture to see if they are correct.

So in your papal example, I would say that the pope's role may be the Catholic view, the EO view, or any number of protestant views without being illogical. Someone is right and others are wrong, but neither have taken an illogical stance. If someone holds an logically contradictory stance, then we can know for sure their stance is wrong. But overall, that debate is going to be settled in other ways.

For the second half of your post, I'd ask clarification. Calvin and Arminius stated they believed they we using scripture to interpret scripture quite explicitly. Several prominent Anabaptists as well. So are you saying that Calvin, Arminius , the Anabaptists, etc did not claim they were using scripture to interpret scripture? Or that they thought they were but they were just doing it incorrectly?

You've moved the goalposts quite a bit here, or maybe its more of a motte and bailey. We started with "God made arithmetic" and "laws of logic have always existed through God independent of human reasoning" and "pure and good logic exists independent from humans" and "if a doctrine is illogical, it is untrue".

Now you say "philosophy came to us from God" and say because St Clement says "perhaps philosophy was given to the Greeks directly" we have to say "logic itself comes from God"? OK sure, in the sense that all things which are good come from God. In that respect language comes from God, and sunlight, and water, and your sense of taste.

Quote:

---

The hypostatic union is divinely revealed to us to explain Jesus through logical, metaphysical language

---

And no, literally no. The hypostatic union is divinely revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and the encounters of the prophets, apostles, and saints with God. It is ineffable. There is a limited, symbolic communication of that revelation through the use of logical, metaphysical language.

Quote:

---

The very fact that we can do so is why we can call it a paradox. It doesn't break the laws of logic, but is still beyond our ability to fully comprehend. The definition of a paradox. If the solution broke the laws of logic, then it would cease to be a paradox and become a contradiction.

---

Paradox and antinomy are built from self-contradictory or impossible statements. They're built on self-contradiction. "A paradox is a seemingly sound piece of reasoning, based on apparently true assumptions, that still leads to a contradiction." There are apparent paradoxes, which are not actually contradictory, but an actual paradox is so by way of contradiction, or at a minimum asserts a contradiction, often through self-reference.

A thing cannot be both one and many. We either must defy the category of oneness, or of manyness, or make a separation or distinction where the oneness applies to one but not the other, which is the proposed solution: the godhead is one, and the persons are three, therefore unity and multiplicity apply simultaneously but to different categories. This is a bit suspect as we need to affirm perichoresis, the mutual indwelling of the persons of the trinity, which means oneness and threeness are simultaneous. So we arrive back at at an apparent contradiction, which we can always solve by asserting another layer - and limiting our language. You will never fix this. You can never "solve" it to completion with logic, because logic is inherently limited by symbolic reality and relation to created things, which cannot contain all of reality, much less the uncreated. "What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?"

Quote:

---

For something to be logical, it is not necessary that it is fully comprehended

---

The laws of logic are coherent and intelligible. Therefore they cannot explain the Trinity, they can only explain the explanations. They aren't even strictly true, at least not absolutely; they are formulas, symbols, which reflect and point to truth, but are fundamentally and knowingly inadequate for expressing that truth, which remains beyond in mystery forever. You cannot understand God. You cannot understand Him through logic. You may know God, but you cannot know Him through logic.

Your last statement is just, like, your opinion, man. I'm happy to agree that God endowed man with a rational spirit, and gave man faculties to know Him, and to know about Him. I'm also happy to say that logic or reasoning or philosophy is an activity of those faculties. I see no reason whatever why we need to go further and elevate logic to a pre-existing eternal abstract.

When you say "logic emanates from Him" or "logic has always existed" you're coming close to elevating logic to the level of God's eternal energies, to grace, which is to say that you are making logic God. God's eternal energies, like love, are why we can say cataphatic things about Him without error; what we can describe, we describe of His energies, and they are eternal, so they are God. This is why we can say "God is love" as well as "God is justice" or truth, or mercy, and so on. If logic is a pre-existing category of being, emanating from God, you should confess "God is logic". But... that feels pretty sketchy.

If we lower the bar a bit and say "logic is a good thing, and every good gift comes from God" then who would argue with that? beyond acknowledging some need to agree on what kind of "thing" logic is?

(Thinking what that might be - if not eternal - then a created thing, even if it predates human creation. In this way we could suggest considering it a logoi, a principle or will by which God orders creation. These are from eternal ideas in God, created, making logic a reflective orderly structure in creation, though not itself eternal or divine. But this would be theologoumena and I can't see why anyone would insist upon it strongly one way or another.)

Quote:

---

What I am saying is that if a view that is held defies logic, and another view is available to us, we should consider the logical view, provided it is still scripturally sound.

---

First, we can't simultaneously claim "Scripture interprets Scripture" and "lets take the logical position when we think it fits." We can certainly use logic and philosophy to try and understand Scripture, but it should be the secondary role, not the primary.

An obvious example is the Trinity. Makes no logical sense. The logical answer that could also be "proved with Scripture" is modalism or the view that there's one God who takes 3 forms.

Very logical and Scripture "supports it." John 10:30 "I and the Father are one.."

Yet our concept of the Trinity defies Logic.

Second, even as a synergist, you still agree with the concept of universal grace. Where you differ (and it is really the more interesting concept) is that after God's grace is given to man, somehow man is capable of doing truly good works, and that we should somehow get credit for those. I don't think it actually stands up to Scriptural scrutiny, but a different discussion.

--------------------

Quote:

---

For the second half of your post, I'd ask clarification. Calvin and Arminius stated they believed they we using scripture to interpret scripture quite explicitly

---

I haven't dug into Arminius in a bit, so I'm not going to comment on that. I'd want to refresh myself on all their claims.

Calvin is quite easy though. He absolutely relied on logic and reasoning as opposed Scripture.

Two simple examples:

Lord's Supper: This is what he agreed to with respect to the relationship of Jesus with the bread and wine:

"And that no ambiguity may remain when we say that Christ is to be sought in Heaven, the expression implies and is understood by us to intimate distance of place. For though philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies, yet as the body of Christ, bearing the nature and mode of a human body, is finite and is contained in Heaven as its place, it is necessarily as distant from us in point of space as Heaven is from Earth."

He just outright says it here.

Double Predestination:

When you read Calvin and his followers, they clearly avoid verses like John 3:16 (and others) where we see examples of universal grace.

In these cases, and as we talked about earlier here, in order to get to double predestination, by definition you have to redefine the word "all" or "world" to not be a universal term, but to narrow it down to only the elect or chosen or whatever limiter you want to use.

Examples:

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

(I tried to be diverse in my selection).

In each of these, Calvin necessarily narrows the term "world" or "all," not because Scripture demands it or supports it, but because it's the only way to justify double predestination. He started with the doctrine in mind and changed the meaning of the verses to fit it.

Part 1:

In the post you originally responded to, I said "God made 1+1=2" I can supply a number of early church fathers that believe the logic of numbers (and order in a more general sense) comes from God. Can you provide a single church father that suggests otherwise? Also, can you show me where I've backed down from this position?

I also said "laws of logic have always existed through God, independent of human reasoning". Saying that God gives us logic is simply me rephrasing what I said in order to clarify. Can you show me how these two statements contradict?

I said "if a doctrine is illogical, it is untrue". I clearly have not backed down from this in any way whatsoever. Can you show me where I have?

Why would you say I have moved the goalposts, as I'm not asking for any more evidence that I did originally. I would say this accusation is factually inaccurate.

I also reject the motte and bailey accusation, as I'm clearly holding the exact same ground I did at the beginning, and have merely offered clarifying language. In case you think I have backed down, let me be clear: that I still stand by these original claims. Can you show me why you think I backed off of my original claims?

Part 2:

In the spirit of seeking clarification, I'd like to ask the following:

I will agree with the statement that Jesus is the divinely revealed hypostatic union. Will you agree that the metaphysical terminology in which we explain this union is also divinely revealed? Or are these merely human constructs, not guided by the Holy Spirit? In other words, is it possible that the the first 6 ecumenical councils' explanations are solely human works, and as such, have possibly defined Jesus and the Trinity incorrectly?

What philosopher or philosophical framework do you reference when you equate antimony and paradox? Kant is the first philosopher I can find that formally attempts this, and as shown previously, he did so because his intent was to craft a logical framework that didn't need God. Can you find any early Christian fathers that would agree with him?

Where did you get this definition of paradox: "A paradox is a seemingly sound piece of reasoning, based on apparently true assumptions, that still leads to a contradiction." The philosopher who most closely adheres to this definition is probably Bertrand Russell (a devout atheist). Do you have any orthodox (O or o) Christians that hold to this definition? If so, how far back can we go and still find someone who held to it?

Is God a "thing"? If not, why are we concerned if He can be one and many? Again, antinomy is largely disregarded until Kant. Can you help me understand why you hold Kantian philosophy above prior philosophical frameworks that the fathers accepted? Moreover, can you help me understand why you would appeal to a view that explicitly seeks to remove God as the foundation of logic? I'll quote John of Damascus again:

Quote:

---

"Since it is necessary for those who wish to speak or hear about divine things to begin with the study of logic, I have composed, to the best of my ability, this little introduction to dialectics, collecting what seemed useful from the works of the philosophers. For logic is a necessary tool in every discipline, and especially in theology. It does not produce truth but helps us to discern and defend it.

Logic is a gift of God, given to man so that by it we may define, clarify, and distinguish what is true from what is false. But one must not imagine that logic can fully comprehend or encompass divine things, which surpass all human reason. Rather, it should be used humbly, as a servant to faith, and never as its master."

---

I don't disagree with a single letter of this quote. Do you think my initial position does? If so, how so?

Quote:

---

When you say "logic emanates from Him" or "logic has always existed" you're coming close to elevating logic to the level of God's eternal energies, to grace, which is to say that you are making logic God

---

So since love comes from God as an eternal energy, we're making Love God? Palamas doesn't say that because love is one of God's uncreated energies that love is God. God is love =/= love is God without a truckload of qualifiers. This seems like a double standard. What about my appeal to logic is fundamentally different? In other words, why does it "feel" sketchy to you outside of the fact that you believe logic is a human construct? As I said before, a number of fathers have agreed that rational thought is grounded in God Himself. I don't think I'm making a wild claim.

This is not a Gish Gallop or anything of the sort. I genuinely look forward to understanding your view on these questions when I have time to review

Law Of The Quad said:

---

The presupposition behind your question is that life involves decisions and actions so why would it not be different with God. You must first drop the presupposition and ask without any prejudice if free will exists.

Does God initiate the opening our the eyes and ears to trust Jesus or is that the human will?

The bible tells us we are slaves to sin, we need to be set free, by God. Just like the Hebrews.
The story of redemption and restoration over and over is the work of God not of men.
We cannot free ourselves. If we can make great choices then we should be able to achieve righteousness, and yet we know we can't.

The blind see the lame walk the death hear the dead rise, these are not decisions they are acts of God.
We are told we are dead in our trespasses, dead people don't will themselves to life, and that is the issue.

This should be a comfort, not a confusion.

If you believe God gives us the choice then we have the ability to thwart God's will.

If life in faith is an opportunity that we control then how do we have certainty.

---

I'm not presupposing anything. It's the Calvinist view that presupposes that God's sovereignty necessarily excludes human free will as a part of salvation.

The bolded is a great example of your presupposition. If God gives us a choice, then how does our choice thwart His will? His will is for us to choose, so our choosing aligns with His will. Drop your presupposition and this is pretty easy to reconcile.

I'm fine with approaching the question from both the perspective of no free will and yes free will. No free will creates a ton of problems with God desiring all to be saved. Yes free will does not.

Again, when using a traditional definition of logic, the trinrity does not defy logic. Paradox =/= illogical. Not unless we want to resort to atheistic philosophical definitions of the two.

Modalism is actually illogical because all of the conversation between the son and the father are a version of schizophrenia. He is pretending to talk to a different version of Himself while maintaining that He is talking to a different "person". The trinity actually makes far more logical sense than modalism.

Second, even as a synergist, you still agree with the concept of universal grace. Where you differ (and it is really the more interesting concept) is that after God's grace is given to man, somehow man is capable of doing truly good works, and that we should somehow get credit for those. I don't think it actually stands up to Scriptural scrutiny, but a different discussion

Maybe is best for a different thread because I absolutely believe it stands up to scriptural scrutiny. It's not really that difficult, in my opinion.

And again, you're missing my point. I'm not asking you if you believe Calvin was applying philosophical reasoning. I'm asking if Calving himself said that he believed he was letting scripture interpret scripture. In other words, did he not make this claim, or was he deluded in making the claim?

The Banned said:

---

Again, when using a traditional definition of logic, the trinrity does not defy logic. Paradox =/= illogical. Not unless we want to resort to atheistic philosophical definitions of the two.

Modalism is actually illogical because all of the conversation between the son and the father are a version of schizophrenia. He is pretending to talk to a different version of Himself while maintaining that He is talking to a different "person". The trinity actually makes far more logical sense than modalism.

Second, even as a synergist, you still agree with the concept of universal grace. Where you differ (and it is really the more interesting concept) is that after God's grace is given to man, somehow man is capable of doing truly good works, and that we should somehow get credit for those. I don't think it actually stands up to Scriptural scrutiny, but a different discussion

Maybe is best for a different thread because I absolutely believe it stands up to scriptural scrutiny. It's not really that difficult, in my opinion.

And again, you're missing my point. I'm not asking you if you believe Calvin was applying philosophical reasoning. I'm asking if Calving himself said that he believed he was letting scripture interpret scripture. In other words, did he not make this claim, or was he deluded in making the claim?

---

Good. If you're accepting of paradoxes, then the Lutheran view (and I'd argue the Scriptural view) is mostly seen as a paradox and well supported.

------------

To your last paragraph. Was Calvin letting Scripture interpret Scripture? No and I don't know that I've seen him make that claim? I know Calvin most appeals to Augustine as the Father he is trying to follow, and certainly tries to claim Luther.

So is he saying Scripture interprets Scripture? I don't think that's a statement we could attribute to him and the verses I posted above are the clearest examples.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Again, when using a traditional definition of logic, the trinrity does not defy logic. Paradox =/= illogical. Not unless we want to resort to atheistic philosophical definitions of the two.

Modalism is actually illogical because all of the conversation between the son and the father are a version of schizophrenia. He is pretending to talk to a different version of Himself while maintaining that He is talking to a different "person". The trinity actually makes far more logical sense than modalism.

Second, even as a synergist, you still agree with the concept of universal grace. Where you differ (and it is really the more interesting concept) is that after God's grace is given to man, somehow man is capable of doing truly good works, and that we should somehow get credit for those. I don't think it actually stands up to Scriptural scrutiny, but a different discussion

Maybe is best for a different thread because I absolutely believe it stands up to scriptural scrutiny. It's not really that difficult, in my opinion.

And again, you're missing my point. I'm not asking you if you believe Calvin was applying philosophical reasoning. I'm asking if Calving himself said that he believed he was letting scripture interpret scripture. In other words, did he not make this claim, or was he deluded in making the claim?

---

Good. If you're accepting of paradoxes, then the Lutheran view (and I'd argue the Scriptural view) is mostly seen as a paradox and well supported.

------------

To your last paragraph. Was Calvin letting Scripture interpret Scripture? No and I don't know that I've seen him make that claim? I know Calvin most appeals to Augustine as the Father he is trying to follow, and certainly tries to claim Luther.

So is he saying Scripture interprets Scripture? I don't think that's a statement we could attribute to him and the verses I posted above are the clearest examples.

---

Paradox: A paradox is a statement or situation that seems self-contradictory or absurd, but may contain a hidden truth or be logically valid upon deeper analysis.


Contradiction: A contradiction is a logical inconsistency, where two or more statements cannot be true at the same time in the same respect.

So yes, I accept paradoxes, but I do not accept contradictory statements. To say that God wants to save everyone and He alone does the saving is fine. But if the conclusion is that He doesn't save everyone, it becomes a contradiction, not a paradox. He wants everyone to be saved and does not want to save them at the same time. Both can't be true.

Now I agree with your synergistic view of sanctification. But a synergistic view means we do play an active role in our ultimate salvation, and I don't think you'd be ok with that statement. Maybe I'm wrong. Going into the deep dive with zobel wiped my brain a bit.


ETA: most people would agree that Calvin believed, as Luther did, that tougher scriptural passages need to be interpreted in light of the simpler passages. As far as I'm aware, neither reformer actually used the phrase "scripture interprets scripture". Similar to how your story of Luther carving "is means is" isn't a historical fact, but a summary of his theology. The story doesn't pop up until the 19th century, but the underlying belief is a decent summation of where he's coming from