Replies

I think your response was a straw dog response.

Roamer_1

was not, to me

saying reason had no use ever.

However, as you have noted, it is not fool-proof.

Reason IN ABSOLUTE TYRANNICAL ARROGANT CHARGE can far too easily drive the train off the tracks.

Most of us have seen the math proof demonstrating that 2 + 2 can equal 5.

Truly, reason and faith are complementary. But reason cannot substitute for faith, if it could then the Greeks by mortal reasoning could have known God.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - I Corinthians 1:18-25

Man is not the measure of God.

Reason IN ABSOLUTE TYRANNICAL ARROGANT CHARGE can far too easily drive the train off the tracks.

From where sit, THAT would be the straw dog.

And it's important to distinguish between the proposition "reason errs" and "Man errs in his use of reason."

Most of us have seen the math proof demonstrating that 2 + 2 can equal 5.

I have not. I would like to.

I have seen these, what, advices not to depend on human reason, or that it doesn't apply in this or that sort of instance. But it seems that its inapplicability is alleged when reason seems to lead to a conclusion which is deemed problematic.

If I say "(1)Mary is the mother of Jesus; (2)Jesus is God; (3) Mary is the mother of God," and THEN somebody says that is leaning to my own understanding, or whatever the phrase is, how am to know when I am leaning to my own understanding and when not? What is the 'canon' and how is it applied?

Can anybody explain this? Can it be explained reasonably? These are real questions, I am not thinking three moves ahead. I just don't see how the case goes from your side.

Roamer_1 says, Human reason has it's place, no doubt, but that place is not in trying to discern the things of YHWH.

Is that statement a "thing of YHWH?"