chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
Yep, I'd say we're in agreement.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
chbrooking said:By creating the law, and by creating logic, God accommodated his character and thought to the mind of man.
If we say logic, then we posit an equal ultimacy of logic and God. An equal ultimacy is an impossibility. There can be but one ultimate.
Maybe it would be better to understand law/logic/etc as the revelation of God's nature to man. To know these things is to, in a finite way, know part of the mind of God.
When you say knowledge is (1) "not only what Christ is” and (2) “…what He is to the believer" it prompts me to ask "Isn't the knowledge of Christ propositional and also the knowledge of my relationship to Christ propositional?" I still fail to see the difference between the two other than the accompanying emotional distinctions.
A part of me thinks I understand you--it appears you are saying the knowledge of Christ (your first clause) as mere understanding (unbelievers can have this), and the knowledge of Christ in relation to you (your second clause) is understanding plus assent to that understanding (this is the believer's experience). But, is not the latter merely describing saving faith as opposed to simply faith?
chbrooking said:So the question is, is human logic identical with the mind of God, as you seem intent to maintain, or is it an accommodation?
By the way, I'm not interested in answering the irrational rock question, any more than I'm interested in the sound of one hand clapping.
CVT Christian Epistemology said:The anti-Christian holds that any sort of fact may appear. He thinks this to be onef the most important requirements of a truly scientific attitude. On the other hand, the Christian holds that no fact will appear that could disprove the ultimacy of the fact of God, and therefore of what he has revealed of himself and his plan for the world through Christ in the Scriptures.
chbrooking said:God doesn't lie. But we can't say that he doesn't lie because there's a law against it. Rather, there's a law against it because God doesn't lie. So to ask if God can violate the law of non-contradiction is just as irrational as asking the rock question.
Like the Santa Clause argument against presuppositionalism, the rock seems childish, but is actually a valid point that needs to be addressed, not merely dismissed.
It appears that...
-Philip is trying to ensure that logic is not placed "below" God so as to allow contradictions in theology.
-Clark is trying to ensure that logic is not placed "above" God so as to make Him subservient to something.
We all agree that God never acts out of accord with His nature. We all believe that His nature is rational and logical. Therefore we all believe that He acts logically (right?).
That being the case, were God to act in a way that the human laws of logic disallowed, I would not conclude that God did not exist. I would conclude that my construction of the laws of logic were flawed and needed adjustment, or that the condescended form in which I grasp God's rationality, while sufficient for necessary human knowledge, are insufficient to account for this divine activity. It is extremely important that logic be seen as dependent upon God, and not vice versa. For example, I do not throw out Christianity because the hypostatic union is "irrational".
That being the case, were God to act in a way that the human laws of logic disallowed, I would not conclude that God did not exist. I would conclude that my construction of the laws of logic were flawed and needed adjustment, or that the condescended form in which I grasp God's rationality, while sufficient for necessary human knowledge, are insufficient to account for this divine activity. It is extremely important that logic be seen as dependent upon God, and not vice versa. For example, I do not throw out Christianity because the hypostatic union is "irrational".
Here's where we need to make sure we are clear. We have to say that absolute contradictions regarding God -- if they were possible, which they are not -- would hypothetically disprove God. (But that's like saying if God were a square circle, He wouldn't exist; it's not an actual impinging on His authority, because the antecedent can't possibly be true.) The reason for this is to avoid heresies -- imagine how many heresies could exist if the law of contradiction were denied!
But, on the other hand, this doesn't mean that anything we have trouble understanding is itself contradictory, as you pointed out with the hypostatic union. We can believe things that are beyond reason, but not things that are against reason; if we believed the latter, then we would not be using the tool God gave us.
Otherwise, with everything else you said, including the Santanians.
chbrooking said:Suppose they were sincere, how would Santa ground our logic, aesthetics, ethics, etc.? A Santanian epistemology will crumble like any other non-Christian system. Why? Well ultimately the answer is, "because it's not true."
I'm convinced that that's why many people don't like the TAG, they don't want to listen to the unbeliever.
chbrooking said:Suppose they were sincere, how would Santa ground our logic, aesthetics, ethics, etc.? A Santanian epistemology will crumble like any other non-Christian system. Why? Well ultimately the answer is, "because it's not true."
And here's the problem: once you start arguing from an external reality (ie: "you know that this isn't the case"), you have abandoned the presuppositional method, which can only prove presuppositions invalid.
chbrooking said:I'm convinced that that's why many people don't like the TAG, they don't want to listen to the unbeliever.
That's not me. I do listen to the unbeliever--but I do so so that I may understand his assumptions and not only turn them against themselves, but show how they really point toward Christ. If he believes a true proposition, I'm not going to challenge it--I'm going to build on it.
chbrooking said:Spoken like a true presuppositionalist. So, why do you claim to be a classical apologist again? Oh, that's right. You think he can legitimately (i.e., consistently) hold true propositions in a non-biblical worldview. I disagree.
How so?