Hi, All!

I went to bed last night at about 8 because I had school starting again Monday
morning. I begin teaching at 8AM and so I try to get
up at 3 Am for prayer and to get some school work done before I begin to teach.
So, when I woke up and turned the computer on and saw
this thread I was just laughing because of course I want to put in my two cents
into this discussion. However, it would have to wait
till the late afternoon when I got back home from teaching. Well we had quite a
nice snowfall and our winding roads to the college
through S turns going up and down the hilly country we are in, are quite
treacherous even in a light snow. So, school was canceled
today and so I can get to work on the this thread, now, on a subject dear to my
heart, logic.

I will begin my responses to your statements with [J and end with ].

I have 10 or 11 posts that I put together and I just scrolled down and answered
what I could. If I have left anything out that you
want me to deal with, I will! If I say anything that prompts you to respond,
please do! If I need to define anything, tell me, I will
try!

Blessings to all of you in the Love of Jesus!

Jon

Post 1

Subject: [faithmaps] Is Logic Eastern or Western or Both? Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002
18:07:18 -0500 From: "Stephen Shields"
<sshields@...> Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
<faithmaps@yahoogroups.com>

Dan wrote:

Chris, I am sorry, but in order to get to the place, where you even begin to
articulate that you accept or believe that God loves you
by FAITH, you are going to have to use some very particular, Western logical and
epistemological norms to achieve such knowledge. You
want to escape from the Western epistemological captivity, but you are going to
have make a number of epistemological and logical
decisions before you begin to express a faith that God loves you. You are going
to have to trust in a lot of Western logic to get you
to the place where you *believe* Jesus loves you personally. So, since you are
so insistent on pitting the rational against faith, I
am curious how do you know Jesus personally loves you?

ss

Just a quibble here, Dan, and I'm actually pretty sure you agree. You use the
term Western logic. Now I would be interested in jon
gold's thoughts on this, but logic is logic and Western logic could be seen as
they way Westerners express logic. i.e. logic itself
transcends Eastern and Western distinctives. I'd be interested if John could
refer to historical instances of Eastern logic and what
that might look like.

[ J Hi, Stephen!

Dan is using the term ‘western logic’ because of Chris’s topic which he calls
“Western Epistemological Captivity” [By the way, Chris,
I like your phrase very much and would seek to be a help for the liberation from
such captivity for anyone who has been bewitched by
it.] Of course, Stephen I agree with your comments about logic as being not tied
to west or east since it is transcontinental! I would
refer you to I. M. Bochenski’s “A History of Formal Logic” Notre Dame University
Press 1961 and reprinted by Chelsea Publishing Company
1970, p. 416-447. Bochenski quotes various translated texts from ancient Hindu
and Buddhist sources and extracts from them valid
logical forms such as

(1)If P then Q. Therefore, it is not true that P and not Q.


And (2) If P then Q. Therefore, if not Q, then not P.

A logical form is the form of a proposition. Form, in Propositional Logic, is
determined by logical concepts such as conjunction,
disjunction, conditional, biconditional, negation. A proposition is the use of a
sentence to utter something that is true or false. A
valid logical form is a form such that if the initial statements, premises, are
true, then the conclusion must also be true. An invalid
form would be where it is possible for the premises to be true and for the
conclusion to be false.

Both of these forms are valid and can be found in any “Western logic” text book
that deals with Propositional Logic.

Examples in English that embody these forms are uncountable! I give one example
for each of the two forms:

(1) If there is water on the Planet Jupiter, then there is oxygen on the Planet
Jupiter. (If P, then Q) Therefore, It is not true that
there is water on the planet Jupiter and that there is not oxygen on the planet
Jupiter. ( It is not the case that P and not Q).

The two propositions are in fact logically equivalent which means it is
impossible for one of them to be true and the other false in
any logically possible world. A logically possible world is any set of
circumstances that is free from contradiction.

This discussion needs to be clear that the word ‘logic’ is ambiguous and there
are legitimate senses of the word ‘logic’ where West
and East do differ. These differences again are not really major differences
but differences of emphasis. I can find examples of
eastern thinking in western thinkers such as Aquinas and Heidegger. [R. H. Blyth
Zen in English Literature is a classic book showing
how much zen insight there was in the West!] And there are many western modes of
thinking embedded in the Asian religions and
philosophies. It is permissible to talk about the logic of differing conceptual
systems and such talk is fine. I think it is
absolutely legitimate.

The only problem I have is when people use the “Western Logic” and “Eastern
Logic” distinction to repudiate or denigrate or just plain
avoid FORMAL LOGICS. Note, there is a plurality of formal logics, and more
coming into being all the time, that deal with all kinds
of structures to be found in time and in nature both at the macroscopic and
microscopic levels, to deal with the analysis of concepts
including the concepts of knowledge and belief. (SEE Jaako Hintikka’s 1967
classic on epistemic logic called “Knowledge and Belief.”
So, there is not just one formal logic. Aristotle’s logic is not the only logic
either. The logical forms, I used above are found in
the East and in the West, in Stoic logic.

Logical structures reflect structures found in nature as it exists in space and
time. The logical form “If P, then Q” is claiming in
Propositional Logic, that ‘P” is a sufficient condition for ‘Q”. So, “If P,
then Q” is a conditional form of proposition or a
hypothetical. It does not claim that what ‘P’ refers to exists, nor does it
claim that whatever ‘Q’ refers to exists. What it does
claim is that the existence of P, if it did exist, would be sufficient for the
existence of Q. So, if there was water on the planet
Jupiter, that would be sufficient for there being oxygen on the planet Jupiter.
In terms of the second valid argument form: If P, then
Q. Therefore, If not Q, then not P. An example would be, If there is water on
Jupiter, then there is oxygen on Jupiter. Therefore, if
there is not oxygen on Jupiter, there is not water on Jupiter!

A classic work easily available is Scherbatsky’s Buddhist Logic in 2 volumes
reprinted in paperback by Dover Press. He shows the
tremendous similarities between Buddhist Logic and various strands of Western
Philosophy.


I have taught Chinese, Japanese, and Iranian Students logic over a 30 year
period and most of them were western math students and
western science students!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All this means is (1) as a matter of
fact, the sciences were developed mostly in the west
and sometimes on the basis of eastern insights, (2) mathematics and logics were
mostly developed in the west. But the current
excellence of science and math and logic by eastern practitioners in their own
countries testifies to the transcontinental and
transnational status of these sciences.

Some of the reasons for this are that eastern world views tend to promote a
reality beyond nature and in spite of the beautiful and
wonderful eastern art portraying nature with unspeakable beauty, there world
views tended to downplay nature.

Western theism Jewish, Muslim, and Christian saw nature as God’s creation to be
studied and cherished as learning more about God from
its study. Western theism presupposes stability of the laws of nature and of
natural processes, certainly a presupposition for doing
science. The popular books by Capra and others trying to make connections
between eastern thought and physics are interesting but they
do not go as deeply into the phenomena of the subject matter as Torrance in book
after book on these same themes written from a
Biblical and theistic point of view. Aquinas has a powerful ecological theory
of being and this resonates powerfully with eastern
thinkers who have studied him.]


post 2

Subject: Re: [faithmaps] Is Logic Eastern or Western or Both? Date: Sun, 6 Jan
2002 15:45:38 -0800 (PST) From: "John O'Keefe"
<gink@...? Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
faithmaps@yahoogroups.com

stephen,

firs, it's been a while from the last time i addressed one of your posts -
usually it's because i agree with you :) i get tired of
emailing "dittos" out - besides, if i did people might think me a rush follower.

i think dan has a good point when he speaks of "western logic." "logic," as
used in a western tradition, is very, very linear in
nature

- a follows b follows c follows d on and on untill y follows z. an "eastern"
form of logic is different. if we look at it in terms of
histroy we can see the difference -

in a western mind, histroy follows a "logical" pattern - 1,2,3 on to

2002. yet for a "eastern" histroy - logic is unimportant - events from
generations are combined, intertwined and rewoven into a rich
story. if you examine the texts of the "sri bhagavata purana" you would find a
rich, vitial mix of story, myth, truth - all with the
goal of teaching a moral lesson - to a western mind the text has no "logical"
progression of understanding - but to an eastern mind, it
is completely logical - eastern logic that is.

johnok

{J Hi, John! You make good points, here John but I think you are
equivocating on the word ‘logic’, here. I cannot speak for Dan,
but I am pretty sure that Dan meant by ‘western logic’, formal logic. I have
tried to suggest above that in terms of FORMAL LOGICS
there really is no difference between eastern and western logic since they often
use the same logical structures. A few of which I gave
an example of. What you are referring to is difference in thought patterns in
the way something is communicated and presented. Even
here I do not think these differences are so much cultural as of emphasis since
I think we can find in the west patterns of
presentation that fit your description. Certainly, ‘reason, ‘thinking’ and
‘logic’ are words with multiple usages and these usages are
all legitimate in the appropriate contexts. Certainly, formal logics will be
linear but all that is doing is reflecting that things
exist in time, events exist in time, and that certain kinds of human thinking is
time bound in that one thought follows another. These
are structures that all humans live through whether they pay attention to them
or not and this is why there is more common ground than
meets the eye between differing cultures. There is our common humanity and the
common nature we all live in and are part of no matter
how differently we may interpret it. Logics tend to be about linear structures
and also about the opening and closing of possibilities
as this happens through the unfolding of time and the events in time both in the
east and in the west.]


post 3

Subject: Re: [faithmaps] Is Logic Eastern or Western or Both? Date: Sun, 6 Jan
2002 17:48:53 -0600 From: "Dan Brennan"
<dan.brennan@...> Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
<faithmaps@yahoogroups.com> References: 1

Stephen wrote:

Dan wrote:

Chris, I am sorry, but in order to get to the place, where you even begin to
articulate that you accept or believe that God loves you
by FAITH, you are going to have to use some very particular, Western logical and
epistemological norms to achieve such knowledge. You
want to escape from the Western epistemological captivity, but you are going to
have make a number of epistemological and logical
decisions before you begin to express a faith that God loves you. You are going
to have to trust in a lot of Western logic to get you
to the place where you *believe* Jesus loves you personally. So, since you are
so insistent on pitting the rational against faith, I
am curious how do you know Jesus personally loves you?

ss

Just a quibble here, Dan, and I'm actually pretty sure you agree. You use the
term Western logic. Now I would be interested in jon
gold's thoughts on this, but logic is logic and Western logic could be seen as
they way Westerners express logic. i.e. logic itself
transcends Eastern and Western distinctives. I'd be interested if John could
refer to historical instances of Eastern logic and what
that might look like.

Dan: Quibbles are okay. I was using "Western" here, because of Chris' push to
get past the epistemological captivity of the "West" as
it were. But, there is much good to be found in "Western" logic, inasmuch as it
depends upon the self-revealing God of the
Scriptures. A continual theme which rises in our discussions here is the issue
of prematurely raising the

* mystery* card to silence privileged and necessary logical relationships
grounded in the Christian God.

Blessings in Jesus, Dan


[Hi, Dan! A fascinating research project about formal logics. Since formal
logics deal with necessary truths, what kind of necessary
truths must they be if they are the contingent creations of the Biblical God?
Here is another problem, logics like maths have
applications in nature regardless of what part of the world we talk about. What
is it about nature that allows for both the successful
applications of maths and logics to it?]

post 4

Subject: RE: [faithmaps] Is Logic Eastern or Western or Both? Date: Sun, 6 Jan
2002 20:29:01 -0500 From: "Stephen Shields"
<sshields@...> Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
<faithmaps@yahoogroups.com>

jok wrote:

firs, it's been a while from the last time i addressed one of your posts -
usually it's because i agree with you :) i get tired of
emailing "dittos" out - besides, if i did people might think me a rush follower.

i think dan has a good point when he speaks of "western logic." "logic," as
used in a western tradition, is very, very linear in
nature - a follows b follows c follows d on and on untill y follows z. an
"eastern" form of logic is different. if we look at it in
terms of histroy we can see the difference -

in a western mind, histroy follows a "logical" pattern - 1,2,3 on to

2002. yet for a "eastern" histroy - logic is unimportant - events from
generations are combined, intertwined and rewoven into a rich
story. if you examine the texts of the "sri bhagavata purana" you would find a
rich, vitial mix of story, myth, truth - all with the
goal of teaching a moral lesson - to a western mind the text has no "logical"
progression of understanding - but to an eastern mind, it
is completely logical - eastern logic that is.

ss

You may be right, john. My gut instinct, I must say, remains the same - that
logic is logic is logic wherever you are. I know jon's
taught logic for decades so I'm hoping he can give some insight into this.

Stephen Shields sshields@... http://www.faithmaps.org "tools for
navigating theology, leadership, discipleship and church
life in postmodernity" over 500 links and articles

[J Hi, Stephen! I think I have replied to this in various statements above!]

post 5

Subject: Re: [faithmaps] Is Logic Eastern or Western or Both? Date: Sun, 6 Jan
2002 19:37:56 -0600 From: "Dan Brennan"
<dan.brennan@...> Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
<faithmaps@yahoogroups.com> References: 1

Stephen wrote:

ss

You may be right, john. My gut instinct, I must say, remains the same - that
logic is logic is logic wherever you are. I know jon's
taught logic for decades so I'm hoping he can give some insight into this.

Dan: I think, Jon and I are going to be one on this. Logic is logic wherever
you are is only valid because of a presupposition of the
unchanging character and internal coherence of God. A Western materialist view
of logic has no ontological ground to stand on, and
therefore doesn't have any metpahysical properties to ensure the necessary
relationships of logic. Logic is logic wherever you are
because of God's eternal, unchanging, and omnipresence.

Blessings in Jesus, Dan


[J Hi, Dan I agree with what you say abut I would also go and affirm that
everything that is created has logical structures embedded in
it. So that while logic, as do all created things, originate from God, logical
structures are embedded in the creatures that God
creates as well which is how, we humans can devise symbolic formulae that
reflect these embedded logical structures and on their basis
also develop a priori more ramified and complicated logical structures on the
foundations of the elementary ones found in nature. I
agree with what you say about the materialist. I would say that one of the main
schools of Hinduism is materialist, so we could say
eastern or western materialist!]

post 6

Subject: Re: [faithmaps] Is Logic Eastern or Western or Both? Date: Sun, 6 Jan
2002 21:05:35 -0500 From: "Caroline Wong"
<caroline@...> Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
<faithmaps@yahoogroups.com> References: 1 , 2

Dan: I think, Jon and I are going to be one on this. Logic is logic wherever
you are is only valid because of a presupposition of the
unchanging character and internal coherence of God. A Western materialist view
of logic has no ontological ground to stand on, and
therefore doesn't have any metpahysical properties to ensure the necessary
relationships of logic. Logic is logic wherever you are
because of God's eternal, unchanging, and omnipresence.

So in other words logic is coherent and valid and ... well, logical... because
of who God is. Or are you claiming it's really how
God's mind works? Well, that certainly crowns logic as the indisputable tool to
apprehend God.

But what if, in understanding God, logic is only one of the tools. True, God is
eternal, unchanging and omnipresent. But He is also
relational. He is love and joy personified. What if one of the tools we were
using to apprehend God clashed with what logic would
tell us - like on the issues of infant salvation or exclusivism or eternal hell?
Would you shut off what your heart cries out and
listen only to what your mind can deduce? Was it Augustine who wrote, "The
heart has reasons reason knows not of"?

Just musing on a Sunday evening and trying to avoid starting housework.

Grace,

Caroline

[J Hi, Caroline! You stated “Or are you claiming it's really how God's mind
works? Well, that certainly crowns logic as the
indisputable tool to apprehend God.”

I cannot speak for Dan. But I will add my 2 cents! Given Isaiah 55:8-11 it
would be rash to claim that human logics, though creatures
of God, show how God’s mind works!


You said “But what if, in understanding God, logic is only one of the tools.
True, God is eternal, unchanging and omnipresent. But
He is also relational. He is love and joy personified. What if one of the
tools we were using to apprehend God clashed with what
logic would tell us - like on the issues of infant salvation or exclusivism or
eternal hell? Would you shut off what your heart cries
out and listen only to what your mind can deduce? Was it Augustine who wrote,
"The heart has reasons reason knows not of"? “


[J Logic is a wonderful tool for developing human understanding and yet I know
of no logician who would claim it is the only tool. It
one tool among others. Logic, by the way deals with relations of all kinds from
a logical point of view which is one view among many.
Unfortunately, since modernism took over, westerners tend to split an integrated
reality into incompatible fragments and make value
claims as which is more important, heart, reason, faith, reason, reason,
feeling. All of this is tragic and unjustified by fact. It
seems to me and to more than a few others that God created entities that are
holistic and that each entity has many aspects non
reducible to any of the others and the logical aspect is a legitimate aspect of
creatures as are other aspects including in regard to
humans their feelings, moods, poetry etc. (Dooyerweed was, in His New Critique
brilliant on these points!) There ought not to be a war
between the aspects but rather the growing awareness of the integrity and the
beauty of God ‘s creation where these aspects are not
torn asunder. Humans, from modernism on, try to do this and it is a sad
mistake. Now to your interesting question:

“What if one of the tools we were using to apprehend God clashed with what
logic would tell us - like on the issues of infant
salvation or exclusivism or eternal hell? Would you shut off what your heart
cries out and listen only to what your mind can deduce?
Was it Augustine who wrote, "The heart has reasons reason knows not of"? “ ”

{J Here is my response to your thought provoking question and statements that
follow it. First of all Scripture is available. I find
that Scripture makes no general claim about all infants who die as to where they
go. Reformed theologians, knowing that Scripture is
silent about this have often tended to say that they think it is probable that
God saves such infants though they know that the
Scripture does not explicitly say this. It is speculative. I hold that people
can only be saved through Jesus Christ and that there
is a hell. I believe the Bible teaches both. Yet I pray that God will save
everyone who is alive! Why? Well, I do not want to see
anyone go to Hell! I would love Bin Laden to become a born again Christian and
be saved!!!!!! Since the Lord saved me and brought me
to know Him, I know that I am under the great Commission and therefore am bound
to share the Gospel as often as I can with as many
people as I can..... Yes, there is a problem with my logic here, and as a
logician I know that! I also think that it is ok. My task
and every Christian’s task is to reach people with the Gospel. I believe that
it is God who saves and so I leave the results with
Him. I do not know enough about God’s mind but I know that the Isaiah passage
tells me His mind is way higher than mine and way higher
than human logics which he used in Scripture for us, and He tells me that His
Word will never return to Him empty and so I rest content
in His great wisdom and my great ignorance of what He is doing!!!!!!!!

In other matters Caroline, I use deductive logics as a check on the fallibility
of my reasoning. That is, if I think I understand
something that I am reading, I often put that understanding into the relevant
logical language and make deductions to see what would
have to be true, if my understanding is true. Sometimes I find that the
deductions show me that my initial understanding has to be
corrected and so I go back to the text to be corrected. Other times, it turns
out that I have predicted what the author says in a
later part of the text, I have some confirmation that I am understanding the
author. Logics, there are thousands of them, are tools
for finite human understanding. In no way to they give us any infallible
insight into God’s mind. What we know of God’s mind comes
from Scripture and from the events that happen and both Scripture and the events
are such that we will never have, at least in this
life, exhaustive knowledge of anything, least of all our selves. Our knowledge
of God’s mind also comes from the manifold ways that
the Holy Spirit works in us and on us and in and on those brothers and sisters
whom we are blessed to know and communicate with.


It was Pascal, a great mathematician and author of a great book Pensees or
thoughts that said this and He is right. We humans hardly
know ourselves and often are self-deceived. He was Augustinian n his theology.

Saving knowledge of God is revelational and it comes through the Holy Spirit to
the whole person. Logic can never do this for anyone.

Blessings, Caroline!

Jon

ps. My reply on John 3:16 is developing and I shall begin to post what I would
like to share in small and hopefully digestible
installments. ]



post 7

Subject: Re: [faithmaps] Is Logic Eastern or Western or Both? Date: Sun, 6 Jan
2002 20:58:43 -0600 From: "Dan Brennan"
<dan.brennan@...> Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
<faithmaps@yahoogroups.com> References: 1 , 2 , 3

Hi Carol!

Dan: I think, Jon and I are going to be one on this. Logic is logic wherever
you are is only valid because of a presupposition of the
unchanging character and internal coherence of God. A Western materialist view
of logic has no ontological ground to stand on, and
therefore doesn't have any metpahysical properties to ensure the necessary
relationships of logic. Logic is logic wherever you are
because of God's eternal, unchanging, and omnipresence.

Carol: So in other words logic is coherent and valid and ... well, logical...
because of who God is. Or are you claiming it's really
how God's mind works? Well, that certainly crowns logic as the indisputable
tool to apprehend God.

Dan: Logic is required in a very fundamental way to express to Jesus... "To Thy
cross I cling, nothing in my hand I bring." "Come Holy
Spirit and descend upon us" requires logic. Yes, there is coherency in even the
smallest expressions of faith as we pursue God. It is
a tool for us to glorify and enjoy God with. It is a tool for us to praise Him
with. It is a tool for us to cognitively appreciate
relationships. It is a tool for us know God. One uses this tool to infer that
this object is an idol and is drawing me away from the
true and living God. The Bible is filled with stories teaching us drawing
binary distinctions, not this, but that. Of course logic
can be an idol. When you use it in an autonomous, self-centered, process apart
from depending upon God, you end up with the autonomous
foundationalism, where the reasoning process precludes God.

[Hi, Dan! I agree with what you say here! I aim here to provide a few examples
from Scripture that provide examples that illustrate
some of what you say here.

In Romans 11:5-6

v.5 Paul states “So too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

v6.But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace
would no longer be grace.” ESV translation.

The logical form of the verse would be this: If G, then not W, otherwise
if, G and W, then not G.

Paul is saying here that election is unconditional in the sense that it is not
conditioned by works that people do. [He also said this
very clearly in Romans 9:10-13] It is a pure gift of God’s grace.

The ‘otherwise’ is saying if it was not true that if G then not W, then both G
and W, nullify grace! { This is no because the negation
of ‘if G, then W’ is logically equivalent to ‘G and W.’

Of course what Paul is denying is the synergist model that both grace and human
works are necessary for election and salvation. By
works, he means the “works of te law” that he denies in Ephesians 2:9 and not
“the good works” he affirms in Ephesians 2:10 as the
result of the changes that God brings about in His regenerated, elect, people
and their responses of good works, that God has
foreordained for them to do. So Paul is making the claim that grace and works
are incompatible bases for election and only grace is the
basis, hence unconditional election based on the gratuitous gift of grace to
whom He chooses. John 5:21, 15:16; Romans 9:6-11 and
9:14-18 and 9:21-33.

Of course the objection form James 2 can come up here. It can easily be shown
that James and Paul do not conflict in what they say
about works, faith, and Justification, as most Bible students know. If anyone
wants to go into this fine, we can! I wrote a paper a
long time ago that showed that Paul and James actually agree with each other. I
used propositional logic to show this. This paper was
very well received in professional circles. It is in my precomputer days but it
will resurface in a book I hope to finish by the end
of this summer on Logic and the Doctrines of Grace.]

Here is another example:

Matthew 12;22-32. Jesus heals a demon possessed man.

The Pharisees claimed that Jesus healed by the power of Satan. Jesus then in
this a passage gives the following argument:

(1) Either I cast demons out by the power of Satan or the Kingdom of God has
come upon you.

(2) If I do this by the power of Satan, then Satan casts out Satan.

The deduction, he leaves to them to make. The statement about their sons is
relevant in the context of his conversation but not
relevant to the argument which is about Jesus!

What logically follows from the two premises above?

(3) The Kingdom of God has comer upon you!

The first premise gives the two alternatives, the Pharisees’ interpretation of
Jesus’s healing and the other alternative that Jesus
healed by the power of God and manifested the coming Kingdom of God in doing so.

The second premise is a denial by Jesus that he cast out demons, the devils
helpers, by the power of the devil, since the devil is not
going to allow for his helpers to be displaced like that. So, the second
premise functions as a negation of the Pharisees’
interpretation. The logical form of the argument looks like this:

(1) S or G Premise 1
(2) Not S Premise 2
(3) G Conclusion ]

This valid argument form is so common it has a name: “disjunctive syllogism.” ]




Carol: But what if, in understanding God, logic is only one of the tools. True,
God is eternal, unchanging and omnipresent. But He is
also relational. He is love and joy personified.

Dan: One of the interesting passages for me is John the Baptist being filled
with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb. It's a very
interesting passage for Christian thinkers.

Carol: What if one of the tools we were using to apprehend God clashed with what
logic would tell us - like on the issues of infant
salvation or exclusivism or eternal hell?

Dan: That's a great question. On the issue of infant salvation, if you have
been reading, I can't say one way or the other because
there are many specific Biblical themes which bear on this. The Bible does have
promises about the children of believing parents. But
if we are honest, the Word doesn't give us any clear at all about every infant
salvifically "covered" for a period of time. Wouldn't
that be just terrible--to have this age of accountability deal where God
terminated the point at like 12 years and six months and on
the next day the child died while still in a state of unbelief? I have never
bought this age of accountability deal.


[J The age of accountability is a theological construct invented for synergistic
theological purposes. It is contradicted by such
verses as Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:3 and by the death of infants!
Since physical death is a punishment on the human race
for sin, and infants who die are human! Though I do not think they die because
of any sin that they do...after all sin is a state
before it is acts of sin.And infants are in the state of sin unless they have
been regenerated.]



Anyway, Carol, I use my logic here to firmly trust in the Lord to take care of
this issue. I can say with great integrity when an
infant dies, he/she is in God's hands. God is good, righteous, just, holy, and
He's loving on top of all that.

To answer your question, if you have faithfully examined the Word, and your
reasoning process that this is what God teaches, you humbly
submit to His Word, don't you? Our emotion doesn't determine reality. God
determines reality. Do you have a different approach?

Carol: Would you shut off what your heart cries out and listen only to what your
mind can deduce? Was it Augustine who wrote, "The
heart has reasons reason knows not of"?

Dan: It all depends. The above quote could be used for not doing chores around
the house!! :-) The above quote could be used for many
things in which we don't want the Lord to shape our hearts in a particular
direction. You certainly wouldn't use this to commit
adultery, would you? Nah. That's immoral. Well, there is a morality (some on
this list would just roll their eyes with this one :-)
involved in your theological beliefs. Some people are unwilling to submit their
hearts to God even if they knew it was true. That is
one of the essential aspects to self-centered sin. Believing your heart is in
better touch with reality than God's heart. It all
depends, Carol.


[ J Hi, Dan good answers, or at least I think so to Caroline’s poignant and
good questions and statements!!!!!! My two cents!]


Blessings in Jesus, Dan

post 8

Subject: Re: [faithmaps] Is Logic Eastern or Western or Both? Date: Sun, 6 Jan
2002 22:44:58 -0500 From: "Caroline Wong"
<caroline@...> Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
<faithmaps@yahoogroups.com> References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4

Dear Dan;

Dan: Logic is required in a very fundamental way to express to Jesus... "To Thy
cross I cling, nothing in my hand I bring." "Come Holy
Spirit and descend upon us" requires logic. Yes, there is coherency in even the
smallest expressions of faith as we pursue God. It is
a tool for us to glorify and enjoy God with. It is a tool for us to praise Him
with. It is a tool for us to cognitively appreciate
relationships. It is a tool for us know God.

Me:But it really doesn't require logic at all as I've seen the most illogical of
persons saying "Come Holy Spirit" and He comes. If I
were to sit down these people and tried to iron out their thinking so that it
conforms to the rules of logic, they would first be
bemused, then befuddled and then would probably get mad at me. Perhaps it helps
a rational, logical person that the above statements
can be shown to be logical. Somehow, I don't think "logical" is the primary
filter most people would wash those statements through.
They don't believe BECAUSE it's logical. They believe by faith and by the
testimony of the Spirit within them.

[J Hi Caroline! Well I could imagine a good many ways where your scenario
would come to pass. I agree also with your statements
here. God must come and convict us of our sins and show us the Lord Jesus as
our only hope, before we can savingly believe. Logic
comes in later in attempting to understand the very complex and big book called
the Holy Bible and it comes in when the new born
believer has to begin to face the daily struggle between the old person and the
new person within him or her. Logic can be useful just
in the daily struggle of thinking through the new and the old elements of our
lives that we daily have to deal with in this fallen
world. In no way can logic bring us to Christ or to a saving knowledge of Him.
That is, our use of logic! But, and I think this is
what Dan may mean, logical structures are embedded in every created thing, in
every sentence produced by a human. There are logical
structures involved in repenting and turning from sin to the forgiving mercy of
our wonderful Lord....In Romans 12:1, we read,

“Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to
present your bodies as a sacrifice-alive, holy, and pleasing
to God-which is your reasonable service.” NET translation.

The Greek text USB 3rd edition has a word for logic that is translated as
“reasonable.” The new EVS agrees in a note on this verse
with the NET.

This would be ‘reasonable’ perhaps in a different sense of ‘reason’ than that
of formal logic, but it is close given the Greek Word
and given all that God has done for His people in bringing them to new life and
a knowledge of Himself......]



Dan:The Bible is filled with stories teaching us drawing binary distinctions,
not this, but that. Of course logic can be an idol.

Me:Yikes, let's not get into that. True tons of binary statements that are as
plain as day when they appear together but major
paradoxes when you pile all of them together. It's why we have such lively
debates here.

Dan: To answer your question, if you have faithfully examined the Word, and your
reasoning process that this is what God teaches, you
humbly submit to His Word, don't you? Our emotion doesn't determine reality.
God determines reality. Do you have a different
approach?

Sure, of course. But I've learned to trust intuition and what my heart tells
me. And yes, I know about the verse in Jeremiah that
says the heart is deceitful but that is off set by other verses that speaks well
of heart knowledge. My denomination is filled with
theology that men have crafted in the cold, harsh light of logic - solid,
impregnable and brutal. Perhaps they should have listened to
their hearts more for our God is loving and kind and merciful. At the very
least, they should have listened to the people's pain.
Sometimes when I hear kids at bible college debate hot topics like divorce and
homosexuality, I often think, one year as a pastor would
cure all that.

[J Well I did not hear the conversations you heard. So I am not clear what 1
year in the pastorate would cure. I have had 22 years
and it is very hard to hold to the Bible and also to deal with sin, mine and
others....the love I know from the Lord is in terms of the
cross, only the cross is the basis for why He can be compassionate, loving and
merciful to those whom he shows these things, these
wonderful things.....that is a tough love that agape love from the cross and it
does not justify human harshness, insensitivity, or
arrogance at all, but God’s love also does not violate his holiness or his
hatred for sin.]

There are lots of people here who have had their theology whipped around when
they became pastors. Suddenly, they found themselves
exploring other angles - not because they yearned to be disobedient - but
because they found their pat answers so unsatisfactory. Some
pastors left the ministry due to burnout, some did harden themselves to toe the
denominational lines and some came to new insights like
Brian McLaren and wrote a book.

Grace


[J Pat answers are never good. People are different and situations are
different! Pastors need to listen to what is said and done and
be prayerful to the contexts from which what is said and done emerge but we also
need to go by the Word and have no intention of
compromising it. I grant that life is messy and often it is hard to know which
passage of scripture, if any, applies to a situation
and when that happens, I will pray for more and more guidance and help from
God’s word to be of service to the Lord and the person or
persons I am ministering to in the often difficult situations of life.]

Caroline

post 9

Subject: Re: [faithmaps] Is Logic Eastern or Western or Both? Date: Sun, 6 Jan
2002 22:06:53 -0600 From: "Dan Brennan"
<dan.brennan@...> Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
<faithmaps@yahoogroups.com> References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5

Hi Carol!

Dan: Logic is required in a very fundamental way to express to Jesus... "To Thy
cross I cling, nothing in my hand I bring." "Come Holy
Spirit and descend upon us" requires logic. Yes, there is coherency in even the
smallest expressions of faith as we pursue God. It is
a tool for us to glorify and enjoy God with. It is a tool for us to praise Him
with. It is a tool for us to cognitively appreciate
relationships. It is a tool for us know God.

Me:But it really doesn't require logic at all as I've seen the most illogical of
persons saying "Come Holy Spirit" and He comes. If I
were to sit down these people and tried to iron out their thinking so that it
conforms to the rules of logic, they would first be
bemused, then befuddled and then would probably get mad at me.

Dan: We all express various inconsistencies, some of us more than others. But,
expressing "faith in Jesus" is a logical process
whether or not it is acknowleged by people.

Carol: Perhaps it helps a rational, logical person that the above statements can
be shown to be logical. Somehow, I don't think
"logical" is the primary filter most people would wash those statements through.
They don't believe BECAUSE it's logical. They
believe by faith and by the testimony of the Spirit within them.

Dan: If you preach or teach Jesus to them, logic is involved in the teaching and
logic is involved in the receiving. Jesus is not
Buddha. He's not Santa Claus. There is a reasoning process involved
constantly. Intuition my be present, may be powerfully present
and I wouldn't deny that for one nanosecond. You see, one of the continual
themes which we ruminate here on faithmaps involves the
concept of faith. "They believe by faith" you say, as if what I am saying is
denying that! :-) The testimony of the Spirit reveals a
particular Person to them. He's this, not that. He's not Santa Claus, etc.
Respectfully, I think you are driving a wedge when you
state, "They don't believe because it's logical. They believe by faith and by
testimony of the Spirit within them." What do they
believe Carol? Are they believing that Jesus is a spirit' who connects with
Shirely MacClaine (sp.?)? Do they believe Jesus is
something like Santa Claus? No saving faith in which the Spirit witnesses to
their heart, leads them in a reasoning process to express
faith in Jesus, a particular Person and a particular Presence.


[J Hi, Dan!

Even more radical! Different Jesus’s! 2 Cor. 11:3-4, 12-15!]


Dan:The Bible is filled with stories teaching us drawing binary distinctions,
not this, but that. Of course logic can be an idol.

Me:Yikes, let's not get into that. True tons of binary statements that are as
plain as day when they appear together but major
paradoxes when you pile all of them together. It's why we have such lively
debates here.

Dan: Good and evil. Right and wrong. Spiritual and material.

Dan: To answer your question, if you have faithfully examined the Word, and your
reasoning process that this is what God teaches, you
humbly submit to His Word, don't you? Our emotion doesn't determine reality.
God determines reality. Do you have a different
approach?

Carol: Sure, of course. But I've learned to trust intuition and what my heart
tells me.

Dan: And you learned this trust without a reasoning process, did you? :-)

Carol: And yes, I know about the verse in Jeremiah that says the heart is
deceitful but that is off set by other verses that speaks
well of heart knowledge. My denomination is filled with theology that men have
crafted in the cold, harsh light of logic - solid,
impregnable and brutal. Perhaps they should have listened to their hearts more
for our God is loving and kind and merciful.

Dan: Now you see, Carol in this statement of yours we are talking about style
instead of substance. The above illustration is not
evidence against a deep appreciation for logic.

Carol: At the very least, they should have listened to the people's pain.
Sometimes when I hear kids at bible college debate hot
topics like divorce and homosexuality, I often think, one year as a pastor would
cure all that.

There are lots of people here who have had their theology whipped around when
they became pastors. Suddenly, they found themselves
exploring other angles - not because they yearned to be disobedient - but
because they found their pat answers so unsatisfactory. Some
pastors left the ministry due to burnout, some did harden themselves to toe the
denominational lines and some came to new insights like
Brian McLaren and wrote a book.

Dan: And I was one of them. But, that is not a negative reason to incriminate a
passionate pursuit of logic in theology. I haven't
read McLaren's book, so I can't comment.

Blessings in Jesus, Dan

post 10

Subject: Re: [faithmaps] Is Logic Eastern or Western or Both? Date: Sun, 6 Jan
2002 23:44:38 -0500 From: "Caroline Wong"
<caroline@...> Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
<faithmaps@yahoogroups.com> References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6

Dear Dan;

Dan: Respectfully, I think you are driving a wedge when you state, "They don't
believe because it's logical. They believe by faith and
by testimony of the Spirit within them." What do they believe Carol? Are they
believing that Jesus is a spirit' who connects with
Shirely MacClaine (sp.?)? Do they believe Jesus is something like Santa Claus?
No saving faith in which the Spirit witnesses to their
heart, leads them in a reasoning process to express faith in Jesus, a particular
Person and a particular Presence.

It may be my misunderstanding of the fine discipline of logic. I thought that
to come to logical conclusions, one had to begin with
fundamental axioms and premises that are hopefully true and then build from
there using the rules of logic. Most people believe that
Jesus is their Saviour and they believe in the Trinity not because they worked
it out from first pricinciple; they may not even know
what the first principles are.

They believe because someone they trust said it was true. They believe because
the bible tells them so. They believe because the
Spirit dwells in their heart. Of course none of this is complete whimsy but it
sure doesn't feel like they came by what they believe
via logic. The appeal of the gospel message is as much to the heart as to the
head. I've known very bright people who just did not
grog the message of salvation. In my case, first I believed. Then I found out
the reasons why - mostly after I joined this list....
In my younger days, if you tried to elucidate my thinking, I would've been
confused. I would've told you I believe it's true but I
don't know why - beyond the fact that that bible says so. And yes, if you dug
deep enough, you'll find contradictions galore - but
luckily, I never lost sleep over them since I was young and foolish and being
illogical was okay.

The great thing about logic is that I can use it to change someone's theology.
Sort of a "well, you'll have to agree that A is true,
right? and so therefore B is true and therefore C is the right conclusion" and
they have no room for argument. Usually, I'm gone
before they can say..."Wait a minute there..."

Grace,

Caroline

post 11

Subject: Re: [faithmaps] Is Logic Eastern or Western or Both? Date: Sun, 6 Jan
2002 23:39:11 -0800 (PST) From: "John O'Keefe"
<gink@...? Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
faithmaps@yahoogroups.com

dan - you are right, we are one on this - cool.

johnok

- -- "Dan Brennan" <dan.brennan@...> wrote: Stephen wrote:

ss

You may be right, john. My gut instinct, I must say, remains the same - that
logic is logic is logic wherever you are. I know jon's
taught logic for decades so I'm hoping he can give some insight into this.

Dan: I think, Jon and I are going to be one on this. Logic is logic wherever
you are is only valid because of a presupposition of the
unchanging character and internal coherence of God. A Western materialist view
of logic has no ontological ground to stand on, and
therefore doesn't have any metpahysical properties to ensure the necessary
relationships of logic. Logic is logic wherever you are
because of God's eternal, unchanging, and omnipresence.

Blessings in Jesus, Dan



[J Blessings all!]