Fundamental question of philosophy and theology.

I maintain that not all truth is propositional. "God is Holy" is a proposition, yet to explain what is meant by holiness is more than mere words can describe or comprehend. I maintain that certain aspects of God cannot be fully expressed propositionally.

__________________
Philip
Potomac Hills Presbyterian Church (PCA) Leesburg, VA
Attending Reformed Presbyterian Church, Lookout Mountain, GA
Student Covenant College

The Importance of Being Orthodox

Do you grunt or draw pictures? How exactly does one do this?

It is popular with many who have mystic leanings to speak this way, but if the finer things in God's revelation are mystic and symbolic, then why didn't God give us the holy comic book? Why? Because, God is the Logos, the Logic, the Reason, the Discourse, or whatever else you'd like to use to translate logos. God is not the picture, or the symbol, or the grunt.

Cheers,

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."

I'm not sure what is meant by "truth is propositional". Do you mean to say that there are things that are true that are not propositions? How? It seems the property of being "true" or "false" belongs to propositions...

__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis

Well, lets see you express a truth which is not propositional. And how do you "explain what is meant" without using "mere words"?

__________________
Lance G. Marshall
Pastor
Georgetown, Indiana

Hello Gents,

When Jesus says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life...," it seems to me that He is using 'truth' as a predicate nominative. So, Jesus Himself is in some sense truth, and Jesus ain't no proposition. Now, my point here is not to agree with P. F. Pugh, but rather to point out that his question is ill-formed. He needs to define what he means by the terms 'truth' and 'propositional.' I think if he does this, then we are in a better position to determine whether or not the following statement (which expresses a proposition ) is true or false.

P: All truth is propositional.

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona

And at the same time "I am the truth." is a propositional statement. Either it is true (He is the truth), or it is false (He is not the truth).

A proposition, speaking grammatically and philosophically proposes something which can be either affirmed or denied. Thus not every sentence in the bible is a proposition; some are questions, commands, etc.; nevertheless all of God's Word is TRUTH and all truth can be expressed propositionally.

__________________
Bob, elder, RBC Louisville. 1689 LBCF

"... Of such also, or of those who make a credible profession of being such, all those particular churches consist, which constitute our Lord's visible kingdom. ... Consequently, all the subjects of His government must have spiritual dispositions, , and yield spiritual obedience- obedience proceeding from an enlightened understanding, an awakened conscience, and a renewed heart."- Abraham Booth 1788

Truth: that which is unshakeable and certain, regardless of whether we are certain of it.

My contention here is that certain truths about God's nature cannot be expressed propositionally because all proposition are finite, whereas God's nature is infinite. Therefore no proposition or set of propositions can be said to fully describe God's nature (which is truth).

Can I explain the trinity propositionally? No, unless I want to start a cult.

P: Not all truth is propositional.

If you do not use propositions to explain the trinity, what do you use to express anything about the trinity to another person?

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 10:52:30 EST-----

Can you express that without using a proposition?

If there were TRUTH that could not be expressed propositionally, then of logical necessity it could be neither affirmed or denied. That we may express the Trinity propositionally and expect from the believer an affirmation does not imply that either the man proposing the proposition or the man affirming the proposition possesses exhaustive knowledge of the Trinity.

Hello Gents,

I think this discussion is best resolved by allowing P.F. Pugh to get very clear and explicit as to what he means. Here is the proposition under discussion - P: All truth is propositional. P.F. Pugh's position is that P is false. However, it is still unclear what he means by the terms 'truth' and 'propositional'. He did define 'truth' as...

This seems to fall short. For instance, if Jesus was in some sense the truth, then according to P.F Pugh's definition Jesus was unshakeable. However, it seems likely he was shaken while hanging on the cross when "the earth shook and the rocks split." Now, I realize this is silly and I am sure P.F. Pugh means something different than this, but he has not made it clear as to precisely what he does mean. Everybody is getting hijacked by P.F.'s claim when he has yet to adequately express what he means. My advice is to see if P.F. can adequately define his terms, and if he is able to only then see if you agree or disagree.

Brian

Quite so. I have defined proposition and if P.F. Pugh wishes to use the word differently then that will take us down another road.

And in His divinity, Jesus is unshakeable and certain. I would affirm that Jesus is talking of truth in this sense when He says "I am the truth."

A proposition is an absolute statement that can be either affirmed or denied.

My goal here is to avoid the common Reformed error of reducing the Christian faith to a series of propositions and leaving aside aspects of theology such as God's love, which is non-rational (as opposed to irrational).

Of course not--I'm finite. Propositions are a concession to our finitude.

Harder question: What are propositions?

__________________
Patrick
Covenant (OPC), Brighton, MI

This conversation will go nowhere if terms are not clearly defined. Also, assertions need not apply.

Thank you for your definition of proposition.

The bolded portion of your comment is compounding the problem. You must explain what is meant by your proposition that "God's love...is non-rational". I simply do not know what you are talking about.

__________________
Chris
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte (PRC)
Student, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
SC

...hope is nothing but the nourishment and strength of faith.
~ Calvin's Institutes III.ii.43

What I mean by saying that God's love (in particular) is non-rational is that there is no logical reason why a just God should love sinners. Also, God created us as emotional beings in His own image. Emotions are non-rational.

I believe that you are setting up a false dichotomy between knowledge and love which is carrying over into your (IMO) still clouded grasp of propositional truth.

God's knowledge and His love are each infinite attributes of His character. They are not conflicted.

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.

Our knowledge of and assent to the propositions of His Word are likewise bound up in one another.

God commands us to love Him with both heart and mind.

Mark 12:30 'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment.

He commands us thus because we are to reflect His character:

WLC 95 Of what use is the moral law to all men ? A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God

I deny "there is no logical reason why a just God should love sinners" the answer is manifestly Jesus Christ. A just God loves sinners in Jesus Christ. Perfectly logical--just like God.

I do not mean to steer the OP down a rabbit trail so I will back away if and until we get to the heart of the OP.

Grace and peace,

Philip,
I'm concerned that you may not be appreciating the simplicity of God or the nature of rationality. Our rationality is a shadowy reflection of God's thought. You mustn't think that there are these abstract rules of rational thought to which even God must submit. Rather, God is who he is, and it is because of that that WE have rules of thought. God does not think inferentially. We do. God's thought is one seamless whole. And logic does not stand independent of God. It is wholly dependent upon him.

As to the simplicity element, you must understand that God is what he has. His being cannot be divided up, so that one attribute (love) can be distinguished and even set over against another (reason). You need to understand that our idea of love and our idea of reason are shadows that have their true essence in God. We partake of these things by way of image-bearing. We may be able to abstract God's love for heuristic reasons, or so that we, who have finite minds, can discuss it. But that does not mean that God's love is really distinct from his reason. We HAVE to think that way. We HAVE to talk that way. But we KNOW that God's love and reason cannot be truly distinguished that way. The doctrine of divine simplicity prohibits it.

So, you might say that human love is non-rational. But you cannot say that divine love is non-rational, anymore than you could say that divine reason is unloving.

As for truth being non-propositional ... Okay. Once we realize that God is truth, we cannot regard truth itself as a proposition, but a person (or three). But I'm not sure what mileage you seek to get out of that fact. What are you driving at? Our minds do work by inference. Our thought is discursive. Once you speak of truth in human conception, you're probably bound to move into propositions. You need to clarify whether you are talking about truth itself (which is incomprehensible), or our conception of truth, which is dependent upon God and his revelation.

__________________
Clark Brooking
Pastor
Living Hope Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Clarksville, MD

I'm sure God can explain the trinity propositionally. We are not the measure of things and just because we can't explain the trinity propositionally does not mean it cannot be done by God. We may not be able to express all truth propositionally because of limitedness and lack of knowledge, but the same cannot be said for God.

If you can't explain the trinity propositionally, the word is not "cult", the word is "heretic". The doctrine of the Trinity is itself a set of propositions.

Cheers,

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 11:26:57 EST-----

God does not have emotions. Emotions are when a person is moved by external fources to an involuntary response. God has never had, nor will He ever have emotions.

Nice try though.

Cheers,

Hello Gents,

The proposition under discussion is - P: All truth is propositional. Philip believes P to be false. He is trying to define what he means by the terms ‘propositional’ and ‘truth.’ His latest definition for ‘propositional’ is…

Technically, this is not a definition for ‘propositional’ but rather ‘proposition’. Let’s assume from the definition given he means the following…

Propositional (def.): ‘X’ is propositional if and only if ‘X’ is an absolute statement that can be affirmed or denied.

It is unclear what Philip means by ‘absolute’ in ‘absolute statement’. Nevertheless, let’s apply this to P.

P’: All truth is an absolute statement that can be affirmed or denied.

If this is what Philip is saying, then on the basis that “Jesus is the truth,” I would agree that P’ is false. Jesus is not an absolute statement that can be affirmed or denied. He is a person. Taken in this sense, my guess is that everyone else on the board would agree as well. Case Closed?

Now, based on what has been said in this thread by Philip and others, the above does not feel quite right to me. To say that P’ is false on the basis that “Jesus is the truth” uses the term ‘truth’ in a rather broad sense – a sense that Philip may or may not have originally intended. He has yet to define clearly what he means by the term ‘truth’. (He did attempt an earlier definition, but it was insufficiently clear.) Philip, when you use the term 'truth' what do you mean? Also, just to keep things moving, what does 'absolute' mean in 'absolute statement'?

Brian

Yes, I was wondering about that 'absolute' element in his definition as well. I seem to remember him using the same term in another thread to means something quite different. Thanks for highlighting it for discussion, Brian.

When Jesus said that he was the truth, he was using a metaphor much like when he said he was the door. So the term truth in, I am the truth, and, all truth is propositional, is being used in different senses. Jesus was not claiming he was truth qua truth, but rather what he says is true.

__________________
Richard Kairelis
Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCNA (Prarie View, IL)
Chicago, IL

I could not disagree more.

Then you must show how Jesus's statements to be the truth and a door are different in that respect.

As for my answer: as far as humans can conceive of and apprehend truth, yes, it's all propositional. But God does not think in terms of propositions.

__________________
Ben Maas. . . . .Facebook
In college, attending First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), Ada, OH, and
Belle Center Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA), Belle Center, OH
When at home, attending Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC), Mansfield, OH

“Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life.”
-Jonathan Edwards-

I don't think that burden falls on me. I simply stated that I disagreed.

But there are numerous differences. For one thing, a door is concrete; truth is abstract. For another, a door is created; truth is not. For yet another, while I suppose there is a standard of sorts, a template, if you will -- the unifying category "door" in the mind of God, God is the definition of truth. The latter distinction isn't a hill I'd die on, but once we connect it with the second distinction, it has more force. Truth is coterminus and correlative with God because God's character is truth. It would be far more difficult to say the same of "doorness".

One thing that we should bear in mind, though, when we consider metaphoric language, is that God is the source. A rock is hard because God is steadfast. The reason the metaphor works is because the creation reflects his character.

I don't have it on me right now, but Vos published an article entitled something like "True and truth in John's Gospel," and it's included in that collection edited by Gaffin. I'm pretty sure that the article is relevant to answering the question. Perhaps I'll get a chance later to re-read it.

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

I still don't think John 14:6 can establish that God Himself is truth. His word is truth (John 17:17).

If we start saying that God is truth, then we must say also that according to our human understanding truth can be non-propositional. And I'm pretty sure that is impossible to demonstrate.

Ok, real quick, I'll define an absolute as something that must be either rejected or accepted as whole (ie: you can't accept one part and not another).

Truth, as I stated before, is that which is certain and ultimately indubitable (we, as humans and sinners, of course, will doubt the truth, so in one sense truth is dubitable).

I'm not setting God's love against rationality here, but in a complementary position, much like free will is not set against God's divine decrees.

Part of what I'm trying to get at here is that there are parts of divine revelation that are not propositional in nature. I would consider an experience of God's presence to be a revelation here. I may be able to say "I felt God's presence", but I will not be able to express exactly why or how.

The elephant in the room here is a term that I have used before that I will define--numinous: the experience of feeling the presence of something wholly other. I realize that the term is popular among liberals, the neo-orthodox, and Anglo-Catholics, but I think it needs to be considered in Reformed circles as well.

I would argue that for every Christian, there is, at times, this feeling of the numinous that signals God's presence in a unique way and leaves no room for doubt.

Never even heard the word before. Thanks.

Although I would certainly say that we can have numinous experiences, I would yet say that humans cannot describe them, not because of some objective indescribability, but because of our finitude and present inability to do so. So in that case, truth is still propositional as far as human apprehension goes. We would be able to describe numinous experiences if we had significantly more knowledge.

Of course, there's still a difference between, for instance, feeling happy and having cognizance of the proposition "I am happy." But in that case you do not need to resort to numinous experiences, just to any example of emotion.

The numinous is a particularly apt example, though, because it deals with an awareness of a spiritual realm (and BTW, Satan can, I believe, make use of the numinous, as it is a feature of world religions other than Christianity) and, for a Christian, of God's presence.

I don't think more knowledge would aid us in describing the numinous. The description, for example, in Isaiah 6 of the throne room of God provides great knowledge, but all of the propositions concerning what the prophet experienced merely encircle the actual experience. Even in the reading of it, inspired as it is, there is more in the experience than mere words could ever describe. As it is, the description always sends a tingle up my spine.

Personally, the best expressions of what the numinous feels like are expressed in art rather than propositionally. Music, in particular, can convey something of the numinous. I also think that places may have a sense of God's presence in a unique way (thus why God had the tabernacle and temple built to exact specifications). Gothic cathedrals, in particular, but here I'm just describing my own experience, not any general principle. God uses different vehicles to convey His presence for different people.

Unfortunately, no major works on the subject have been published except for Rudolf Otto's The Idea of the Holy which is, at best, neo-orthodox (though it does contain, I think, some great insights on the effect of certain biblical passages). C. S. Lewis hints at the concept, but doesn't develop it. I'm hoping some reformed theologian will pick up on the topic, but so far it's mostly an Anglican/Roman Catholic thing.

That said, I'll also say that propositional truth is, of course, necessary--I am not trying to denigrate it in any way, simply to put it in its proper place in the created order and in our theology.

Just to be honest with you, your post sounds subjective in nature and idolatrous in some form.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I think I was careful to note that Satan can and does counterfeit the numinous. The way to tell (and I use this criterion, by the way, in my analysis of tongues and miracles) is, if the experience of the numinous points me toward God and His word, then it's of God. If it does not, then it's of the Devil. There is the distinction.

I will admit that there is some subjectivity involved, but it's not unlike saying that God has different callings for different people. Some are called to be Anglicans and some to be Baptists and some to be Presbyterians. I don't think it idolatry to say that we are all worshiping the same God.

1. Exactly how do you know this "numinous experience" to be true? Is it based on a "feeling"?
2. And if you can know this experience to be true, how can you communicate to another this "numinous experience"?
3. Have you been reading Schleiermacher or Otto?

These are good questions. A Mormon could reply "I know because of the burning in my bosom" which is a common answer with them.

A Quaker could appeal to the inner light.

1. If you read my clarification, I established a criteria for determining whether a numinous experience is of God or of Satan. If it points you back to God and His word, then it's from God. In other words, we know because of scripture.

2. There's the problem. It's a non-propositional experience, so it's going to be imprecise no matter how you try to communicate it. There are attempts in Edwards to try and do this, but at best, experiences of the numinous are personal evidences, not propositional.

3. Yes. In particular, I read Otto and while I disagree with his presuppositions and intellectual grounding, I think he has some good points, even if he takes them to conclusions (based on bad theology) that I wouldn't. Again, I really wish that some solid reformed theologian would write on the subject, but sadly, none have (though Edwards seems to set a stage for it).

1. So we use the propositional truths of Scripture to test the validity/truth of "numinous experiences"? I'm not sure what "points you back to" means.

2. Then there is no way I can determine the truth of your experience. That means the "truth" communicated to you through this "numinous experience" is meaningless to me.

3. Maybe the fact that no Reformed theologian has written on this subject tells us something about the subject, since mysticism does not seem to advance the Reformed cause.

Philip,
I believe that you are meaning to refer to noumenal from Immanual Kant’s Noumenon.

noumenon, in the philosophical system of Immanuel Kant, a "thing-in-itself"; it is opposed to phenomenon, the thing that appears to us. Noumena are the basic realities behind all sensory experience. According to Kant, they are not knowable because they cannot be perceived, but they must be thinkable because moral decision making and scientific investigation cannot proceed without the assumption that they exist.

Kant, Schleiermacher, and others sought to ground the knowledge and experience of the Divine apart from His Self Revelation. This is a dangerous and blind alley to go down.

Carl F H Henry said,
Schleiermacher found the essence of religion in inner feeling, but insisted that the religious consciousness stands in a relations to the religious reality even though we can pronounce no objective judgments about that reality. … Given the declared absence of transcendent rational disclosure and valid propositional truth about God, the situational possibility soon arises of internal sentiments, symbolic expressions or mythical formulations which are believed to be in touch with the ultimate religious reality, even though they can lay no claim to objective truth or historical factuality.

I implore you brother, beware all such subjective, non-revelatory mysticism. These roads do not lead to heaven.

The numinous is distinct from the noumenon, Bob. Otto, in writing, was careful to distinguish the two. The numinous is somewhat more concrete and comprehensible than the noumenon.

The numinous signals the presence of something outside the phenomena, but not wholly incomprehensible. The clearest examples of it in Scripture are described in Isaiah 6, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. This is completely different from what Schleiermacher taught because there are aspects that can be communicated, they just won't necessarily convey the message to all audiences. An unbeliever can read Isaiah 6 without having the reaction that I have, partially because He doesn't have the Holy Spirit.

On Lance's points:

1. I would say that we should judge experiences of the numinous in much the way that I (as a soft cessationist) judge evidence of spiritual gifts: if it motivates me to deepen my relationship with God and read His word, then it must be His Spirit at work.

2. Well, how does one communicate the glory of God, anyway? It ends up being more of a personal proof than anything else. That said, physical description tends to do the best job at communicating the numinous. C. S. Lewis, in particular, does an excellent job in certain of his works (The Great Divorce in particular).

3. Well, I don't think most in reformed circles have given it much thought. To someone like Gordon Clark, the appearance of something more than logical would be anathema. As for it being mysticism, unless we're going to call Isaiah, the Apostle John, Jonathan Edwards, and C. S. Lewis mystics, it's not an apt term.