Lonster, look, I understand that you are simply communicating what you believe in the most honest way you can but what is there to say in response to this? How could I or anyone every falsify anything you say if this is how you allow yourself to think?
Originally Posted by Lonster
If you permit antinomy to exist within your theology then nothing you believe can ever be falsified because counter examples and logical arguments or even Biblical arguments against what you believe don't constitute proof that you're wrong, only that someone hasn't the ability to understand how your are right!
This attitude toward rationality is almost pandemic among Reformed believers (i.e. Calvinists), which, if you ask me, doesn't make any sense given Martin Luther's attitude toward what he called "plain reason". He refused to recant his beliefs UNLESS shown by "Scripture AND plain reason". And the two MUST come together or else there is just no way that anyone could ever tell which of the hundreds of Christian sects are wacko and which are closer to the truth.
Now as for our being sinful and imperfect creatures, yes, of course we are sinful and yes it most certainly cannot be denied that we are not as smart as we would be had Adam not eaten of that Tree in the Garden of Eden but that only makes sound reason all the more important! It is the only tool, I say again, it is THE ONLY TOOL that we have to separate our sinful passions and our fleshly pride from a pursuit of the truth. Not even the Bible can be rightly understood or applied without the use of sound reason.
Further, did you realize that the Bible teaches us that God is Logic? In the same sense that God is Love, God is also Logic. The Bible comes right out and says it as plain as day but out English Bible's obscures the passage to the point that most people would think you were nuts if you uttered the phrase "Logic is God" but that is precisely what the Bible says in the first chapter of John. Notice how the following passage is talks about how the universe was made in a logical fashion and without logic there is no understanding or comprehension...
John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic (Logos), and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
To reject logic is to reject the very light of the world; it is to reject the Son of God Himself.
The law of contradiction states, in the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time"
With the idea of color and red, the two ideas are part of the same discussion of category.
If I say that I am red with anger however, you'd understand something completely different. The color of emotion is really not talking about a physical color at all. I'm so blue (even though I'm not really 'so' blue at all and it has nothing to do with color spectrum). Rather than pointing to a stolen concept, it points to a different misconception that is lost in the previous logic that color must be associated with red.
So you are correct, if you are using the words "red" or "blue" or "yellow" or whatever in some other context than the actual color that one sees with the eyes then there is probably not any sort of contradiction. But be that as it may, there can be no such thing as yellow darkness or existence without duration (i.e. time).
"We are not rational being without Him." - What a great summary of John chapter 1!
In regards to time specifically, I rather understand the perception of time and am constrained to incremental steps with physical properties that demand I remain in incremental sequence (this is a physical property of space but I can only perceive time). I am not certain that 1) our understanding of time is inerrant 2) that what I understand to be rational must necessarily apply to God even if it becomes irrational to do so because my rational mind can rationalize irrationality. We may be sincere, be we can all be sincerely wrong. I want to be rational and right, but at the same time (again my theological stance) I feel constrained by the fact that I am only able to see through a dark glass. I have to believe God must necessarily have intervened with His thoughts or we'd be intellectually lost and rationally lost because we are not rational beings without Him.
Let me put it too you in the form of a question...
If I cannot persuade you on rational grounds then how can I persuade you at all?
In my view, since God the Son is Logic, you cannot do the latter without the former.
I pray this does not become exasperating, but rationality is not my pinacle. Rather glorifying God is my imperative.
God is rationality Lonster! God NEVER acts in an irrational manner because He cannot deny Himself or act contrary to His nature. If this were not so, God would be arbitrary and utterly unknowable. Indeed, it is the very fact that rationality flows from the person of God that we are able to know that logic works in the first place. If God is "super-logical" (i.e. above logic) then we are lost in a world of complete ignorance.
I certainly believe rational thought is very important, but it is not the pinacle of importance for me if my mind is truly subject to the fall. How much I am able to rationalize is the important question. Regardless I have to believe God has interjected Himself into our rationality and logical capacity, that He acts in a way that most often can be seen rationally, and that He desires for us to know Him if even with limited capacity. That said, He's a little too big for my rationality to often encapsulate.
Okay, call me stupid if you like (not really) but I just can't figure out what the "PM" part of OV/PM is referring too. I know the OV means Open View but can you clue me in on what PM means?
Thanks for this. It helps me to see that we both approach this from a similar perspective with differing conclusion. It doesn't matter at all if it was a physical transportation or a mental one. I do recognize the OV/PM view here but our bases are different.
Yes, possible and even probable but not pre-written history.
I see this as a view of future events as if they had already happened, you, I believe, see them as a possibility scenario if I am understanding that view.
Wow! An intellectually honest Calvinist! I don't mean to insult your fellow Calvinists but around here such a beast as yourself is a rare sight indeed!
I always ask the second question. "I know what I think this means, but does it mean what 'I' think it means?" If I didn't ask this second question at least (which leads to many others) I wouldn't even be in this discussion because a reformed theological perspective already negates it.
If you stick around TOL for very long, might I be so bold as to say that if you keep that up you won't be a Calvinist for very much longer.
I'm curious to know what you mean when you say "theology is not silent on this issue".
Not bad thinking from one angle but theology is not silent on this issue.
A discussion on this topic would necessarily rabbit trail off the main. I don't believe there is a philosophical dilemma as it is answered in theology. For this thread however, it would be difficult for me to address on philosophy merits alone.
Do you mean that the Bible is not silent or are you actually talking about the intellectual discipline of interpreting the Bible called "theology"?
Resting in Him,