PREDESTINATION; LIVE BY GRACE; NOT BY WORKS (WEEK 8)

St. Louis Center for Christian Study ^ | Greg Johnson

[hosepipe]

LoL...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

All statements presume the fundamental principle of logic, which has its foundation in metaphysics (i.e. the science of being as being). In isolation there can be no "illogical" statements (not to be confused with unintelligible statements). Only *combinations* of statements can be illogical, when the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The above is a false generalization of “logic” insofar as it represents “formal logic” as “logic” when there exists other forms of logic and disputes among them involving philosophy, language, mathematics, etc.

A significant omission relevant to the present sidebar is “non-classical logic” which rejects bivalence – true v false, the law of the excluded middle.

For instance, Scriptures include both commandments (free will) and prophecies (predestination.) Under bivalence, if everything is predetermined, commandments are illogical and conversely, if nothing is predetermined, prophesies are illogical.

My assertion in the present sidebar is “non-classical logic” – i.e. that both predestination and free will are Truth for the simple reason that God has spoken both. Or to put it more broadly, we cannot apply formal logic (esp. Aristotlean logic) to God because of the observer problem.

Or to put it another way, faith and reason are complementary - but reason cannot substitute for faith. His ways are higher than our ways, His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.

As another example, even though God is perfect by definition He nevertheless has overridden the “laws” of the physical creation (including physical laws and formal logic) in performing miracles recorded throughout Scripture (and others not recorded in Scripture) – the most astonishing of which was The Living Word of God Himself becoming enfleshed through a virgin, physically dying on a cross for our sins, raising Himself up on the third day, sitting at the right hand of God the Father.

If we applied formal logic to our understanding of God, we could not accept that He would make a creation less than perfect. We could accept no miracles under formal logic, i.e. we'd be Deists.

Nor could we accept both the prophesies which pointed to and were fulfilled in Christ and the commandments of God, e.g. judge not that you not be judged, forgive that you shall be forgiven, honor your father and your mother that your days may be long in the land God gives you, choose ye this day whom you will serve (and many other such if/thens.)

Lurkers interested in the myriad facets of logic might want to start here: Logic

As to your assertion that logic only applies to a combination of statements, whereas that is true concerning “formal logic” – especially Aristotlean logic - it does not always apply to “informal logic.”

For instance, the statement ”Mr. Jones, how can you favor gun legislation when you own a pistol?” is a logical fallacy (circumstantial ad hominem.) Dolhenty Archive: The nonsense traps

Moreover, I assert that many if not most all ad hominem arguments are not stated as a combination of statements, e.g. “The author is a liar” “You are an idiot” etc. The conclusion is not formally drawn, it is suggested.

Lurkers, here is a good source reference for: Logical Fallacies

We are engaged here in a rather fascinating sidebar of “God and Logic” which has many paths to explore – none the least of which is the philosophical and theological roots of the term “Logos” - word v logic, etymology of rational (ratio) etc.

If you would care to author an article on the subject, I would love to contribute to the discussion!

More importantly, there are several truly outstanding philosophers, theologians and logicians on this forum who would have much to contribute. I've pinged a few as a "heads up" so they can be thinking about it.

But I strongly suggest you do it after Thanksgiving as many will be too busy over the Holiday.

[1000 silverlings]

oooohhh, wear the chamois

[hosepipe]

Interesting challenge with the crux of the matter hidden within(the challenge)..
"The Observer Problem"...

What seems probable and "logical" to the proverbial (metaphorical) "frog in a well".. communicating to other frogs in other wells.. is drama waiting to happen..

Indeed what is logic.. and logical and real?...
1st reality and 2nd reality loom in the future of such a conversation.. I see where you are going with this.. Its been done before on Free Republic(in threads) as a sidebar.. but never(in my experience) as the main conduit of conversation..

Suggested title of the thread...
What are you "Observing" while vacationing on this planet?...
With, you know, a few words of encouragement.. d;-)..

[cornelis]

A well-wrought explanation.

For instance, Scriptures include both commandments (free will) and prophecies (predestination.) Under bivalence, if everything is predetermined, commandments are illogical and conversely, if nothing is predetermined, prophesies are illogical. My assertion in the present sidebar is “non-classical logic” – i.e. that both predestination and free will are Truth for the simple reason that God has spoken both. Or to put it more broadly, we cannot apply formal logic (esp. Aristotlean logic) to God because of the observer problem.

What you said!

We should add a caveat. The concept that you call bivalence is itself the product of logical analysis. This means that while we may easily posit the concept bivalence, this act does not reveal the depth of the synaptic relation between the associated elements. More care is needed to understand it. Plus, the association varies when a third or more element becomes involved. Given that the world is a multitudinous plurality of things, we can become shortsighted by simplifying the relation into a nondescript dualism.

Another note. The idea of nonclassical logic is not that profound, but easily overlooked. For any system to work, we have to agree on first principles. The most important of these is one of scope (which is often presupposed, and thus often not considered a first principle). The observer phenomena is one that designates scope.

In this regard, we can say that the law of non-contradiction also applies for nontraditional logical analysis. Again, this bears out the fact that the concept of non-contradiction does little to reveal the scope of the system. But the law does require limit. There is no principle of noncontradiction apart from limit.

(For some reason this reminds me of Porphory's Isagoge and the classification terms genus and species.)

[cornelis]

adiaireton8: So if you want to avoid using logic, you have to avoid language.

hosepipe: What a blessing it will be when language becomes obsolete..

Why not take a short through our ramblings and wish for the obsolescence of human nature?

[blue-duncan]

"oooohhh, wear the chamois:

The chamois speedoes are tooo dangerous for the amateur or the dilettante. In order to get one you need to show some identification that you are over 21 years of age and three recommendations from the opposite sex that your wearing it will not cause them immediate and lasting revulsion. It's kind of a spiritual thing and our products liability insurance will not cover falls due to pride.

[1000 silverlings]

three recommendations from the opposite sex

I can only come up with one, and she's against, I'll have to invest in alpacas I guess

[hosepipe]

[ Again, this bears out the fact that the concept of non-contradiction does little to reveal the scope of the system. But the law does require limit. There is no principle of noncontradiction apart from limit. ]

Scope!... Hmmmm... Observing the Trees or the Forest?..
or even Observing the planet... Yes, I agree.. scope is important to the Observers vista..

Limits; rejecting this solar system, galaxy, universe and BEYOND might be wise.. cause that would all be hear-say evidence.. Scope is very important to an Observer.. unless he's day-dreaming in a 2nd reality..

[adiaireton8]

Your answer seems to be that you don't find in Scripture any distinction between "election to grace" and "election to glory", and therefore, you can know infallibly that the term 'elect' in Col 3:12 means "election to glory".

Now you see how your interpretation of this verse depends entirely on 'sola scriptura', i.e. the notion that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority, and is perspicuous and self-interpreting to all. You don't find a distinction between "election to glory" and "election to grace" in Scripture, therefore such a distinction does not exist.

I would say an apostate (probably several) have read this verse and probably used it on a number of occasions. So?

Because if apostates-to-be have thought that this verse applied to them, then just because you think this verse applies to you does not show that you are not an apostate-to-be. In other words, the verse can't show you that you are elect for glory if apostates-to-be can also believe that it shows them that they are elect for glory. For then the mere fact that you believe it applies to you is not a sufficient condition for being elect to glory, for apostates-to-be also believe it applies to them.

-A8

[hosepipe]

[ Why not take a short through our ramblings and wish for the obsolescence of human nature? ]

Human nature is taken care of when we evolve from being a primate..
or born again into another creature.. observing with updated eyes..

[cornelis]

Another? Will it be human?

[hosepipe]

[ Another? Will it be human? ]

What are humans.. except a spirit riding a Donkey?..
The Donk dies the spirit continues..

[cornelis]

The Ape resurrects.

[hosepipe]

[ The Ape resurrects. ]

But with a new conduit.. updated de-bugged and ready for action..

[adiaireton8]

Can you point FK and myself to some concise doctrinal writing that clearly defines the purpose of Holy Spirit from the Catholic perspective? I'm sure we would be appreciate the clarification.

No. The Holy Spirit, being God, has no purpose.

but you must not have read newadvent.

That would be a non sequitur.

It was from St. Anselm's writings, in the spirit of the traditions of the fathers, the Church reinvented themselves in regards to the Atonement.

Anselm's writings do help us understand the atonement better.

The blood atonement is no longer the Catholic belief.

Where does any official Catholic document say that?

I have already shown above (#453) that you just made up something about the Catholic Church denying the "indwelling of the Spirit". On that account, I'm not just going to accept your assertions concerning what the Catholic Church teaches. On the subject of the atonement, I am going to stick with the Catechism over your unjustified speculations. The Catechism (1992) reads:

"Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men."

Are you done making false accusations, or do you want to keep digging your hole deeper?

-A8

[cornelis]

OK (not to wear it too thin) this new conduit does not make human nature obsolete. Being a creation is a limitation. And sooooo . . . the obsolesence of language doesn't rid us of the supposed problem.

[HarleyD]

Now you see how your interpretation of this verse depends entirely on 'sola scriptura', i.e. the notion that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority

Oh please. You've offered no support for either interpretations and you haven't specified which one you are arguing. Where did you get your interpretation? I doubt if any of the church fathers made such a distinction. I would check out what the early church fathers but right now I'm "roasting chestnuts on an open fire".

However, just to let you know, I have been meditating on our conversation. I have taken the liberty of drafting a email for you to Paul since undoubtedly it would mean so much more coming from a Catholic:

Dear Saint Paul;

Recently Harley and I have been having a conversation about what you really meant in your letter to the Colossians about "the elect". Specifically, when you say "as the elect of God" do you really mean that we are "elected" in that God specifically chose us like the Israelites or do you mean that we may be elected if we do a bunch of good things the rest of our lives. You were the number two man at the Vatican (before there was one) for a while but you've neglected to clarify this matter.

I know you all must be busy these days with all the petitions that are prayed to you; all that running to our Lord would tire anyone out. However, it would mean so much to our Protestant friends if you could have Peter, Mary or someone just pop in at Fatima and clarify the matter. Heck, we'll take Joan of Ark provided she doesn't wield the sword against our Protestant friends. This is a gentler and kinder Catholic Church these days.

Life has been tough since Martin Luther but I'm sure you can straighten out the matter. I would pray to Mary that she would intercede with Christ and that He would include me as part of the "elect". After all anything the Mother would ask of the Son won't be refuse, except this issue (and others too lengthy to go into).

Thanks a bunch. Give my regards to Saint Peter. Love ya.

Cordially,

A-8

PS. Could you have Peter clarify his first letter as well where he states "to the elect". Thanks.

Just clip and mail.

[adiaireton8]

Oh please. You've offered no support for either interpretations and you haven't specified which one you are arguing.

I am the one who has asked a question, so I don't have to offer support for anything. I asked a question: How can we know now with certainty that we are elect for glory. You answered by appealing to Col 3:12, which says, "Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender feelings of mercy . . . .". I asked how you knew that the term 'elect' there referred to "election to glory". You responded by saying that you don't see any distinction in Scripture between "election for glory" and "election for grace". I replied by showing that it would only follow that there is no such distinction if you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Otherwise, your not seeing something in Scripture would not entail that it isn't in Scripture. If you have missed the distinction in Scripture between election for glory and election for grace, then your justification for believing that Col 3:12 shows you to be elect for glory is undermined. So your justification for believing that this verse shows you to be elect for glory depends upon a prior assumption, namely, that you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture. And therefore, that just backs up my original question to the following question: How do you know that you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

-A8

[hosepipe]

[ this new conduit does not make human nature obsolete. ]

Is human nature ... human(physical), or spiritual in essence?..

The scope of whats human and the scope of whats spirit should be defined.. before you can define which is which..

The conduit is not the contents because the current conduit is made of atoms (whatever they are)..

What is spirit made of?... I know, I know, I don't personally know either..

Could be, more important than the vista OF the Observer, is the vista of Observing the Observer, Observeing.. Like in this conversation.. Know what I mean?... LoL..