Continuing this discussion, a
friend and I have been interacting via email. With all argument you tend to
have to keep peeling back layers and get back to basic definitions of your
terms and concepts.
No surprise my friend is a bit
uncomfortable with some of my language concerning logic. I say no surprise
because again, for those of us reared in the West...this is default thinking.
He inquired concerning logic and wondered if I would agree that logic itself it
'built into humanity and at least analogous to the Mind of God'?
In response I raised an issue
concerning logic itself. What is it? What is its nature? Not easy questions to
answer. Is logic objective? Is it something intrinsic to creation or can we go
even further and say reflects the Divine Nature?
What if logic is in fact
subjective? What if it is dependent upon our human ability to frame, decipher,
and categorize? In response to my friend, I raised a question....
Is logic empirical?
If so, then it is problematic
to assert that logic somehow reflects the divine nature. Does logic reflect the
nature of God....things are logical because they are true? Things that are true
are therefore logical?
Most Christians would answer
these questions in the affirmative. They would say that for something to be
true...it has to be logical. And if something is logical than it is true.
I think this is to
misunderstand logic. Logic is about teleology. It is about structure, a
fundamental mechanism of creation. It is part, a deeply embedded part of the
laws of nature.......or to put it differently...Logic is our way of revealing
and explaining the laws of nature.
Logic is about taking words,
concepts, ideas and placing them in categories by which they can be weighed,
measured and explained. Essentially it is a way of attaching a mathematical
element to concepts which we can only understand with language. It is verbal
math or mathematizing (quantifying) language.
This gets into the whole debate
between the Clarkians who insist that God communicates propositionally. This
ties God's communication to language...and they would argue language has to be
clear to have meaning. Language has to be coherent (logical) for it to make
sense and function or else God is communicating nonsense or even less-than
truth to us. If it is propositional than we can clearly and to a large degree
'fully' understand (through development) the message communicated. For the
Clarkian 'mystery' is basically an invalid concept. It just means you're poor
maths student.
Van Til and his camp argue from
a different standpoint. They seem to echo the Idealist position that knowledge
to be rightly called knowledge has to be comprehensive. Unless you can know
something in its fullness or entirety than you cannot claim 'to know' it.
Obviously as creatures we cannot 'know' comprehensively so therefore we can
only know by 'analogy'. God 'Knows' and when we 'know' a bit of it....we're
merely echoing (by analogy) some aspect of the full Truth only He can know. We
think His thoughts after Him.
While I would not quite 'sign
on' to the Van Tillian position, the Clarkian position regarding propositional
logic and communication I can flatly reject.
Logic takes words and concepts
and converts them into a form of mathematics. Mathematics deal with quantities,
spatial capacity, and ideas that can to some extent be demonstrated or
observed. This is empiricism. Granted it's not the same type of sense-observation
we usually associate with that term....nevertheless, we're talking about
phenomena that we must apprehend via our senses in order for us to declare it
valid.
Essentially we're saying
(admittedly on a sophisticated level)....if it doesn't make sense to me, if I
can't understand it (according to some kind of coherent level) then it must not
be true.
Many theologians (I'm thinking
of Sproul for example) will say that a mystery is never contradiction. It's
logical, we just don't have the tools (yet) to figure it out. Over time, we may
come closer. In eternity we may learn much more, and even then there are some
things we will never fully understand....but ultimately if we had the math (so
to speak) we 'could' figure it out.
I reject this. Sproul would say
I embrace contradiction and insult the Deity. I would say the rationalistic
tendency he exhibits insults the Deity by reducing him to formulae that man can
pick apart through an empirical method.
He would say the logical
coherence is part of God's character. I would say God is completely beyond any
of our paltry and miniscule methodologies.
Logic isn't part of God....it's
part of the creation. It demonstrates teleology but the teleology itself is not
Divine. To me this is worshipping the creation/creature instead of the Creator.
Again I'm not suggesting we
abandon all logic and live in a mystical mush. For statements to have meaning,
there must be some concept of logic. We can work out deductions from the text,
but I think we had better be pretty cautious and careful about it.
The Bible is not primarily a Systematics
or even a source for doctrinal formulation. It is a Redemptive-History a
revelation of Jesus Christ. It is God's Word-Oracle. We interact with it....but
not as dissectors, but as humble supplicants.
Our natural inclination is to
answer the Bible is both a systematics 'and' a Redemptive-History. Pardon my
use of logic here, but that doesn't work well and many realize it. The way it
is currently framed (post-Vos) is to say Biblical Theology informs Systematic
Theology. But once you employ system-method it in the end will always be the
final arbiter. Biblical Theology may help the System to be a little less rigid,
a little more broad....indeed a bit better. But in the end, even Vos was a
proponent of Systematic Theology. This point is made again and again by the
apologists of Systematic Theology...and I think they're right as far as that
goes.
I just go much further and if
I'm right then their entire methodology is cast down.
Logic cannot pick apart or
dissect the metaphysical realm. Our job is to submit and when it seems
contradictory or a-systematic....even incomprehensible....then we submit.
The focus of doctrinal
formulation should be thematic and Christocentric. While in many cases this may
take us to roughly the same place as the Systematician, our means of arrival,
our posture, and our application is likely to be different.
Rather than formulate syllogisms
and derive doctrines that we can claim are 'good and necessary consequence'....
we follow thematic structures and even if they're not always perfectly packaged
or exact... we submit to them.
Dialectics is not a system
tool. It's not a way for us to 'connect dots' in our more complicated system.
Admittedly our way of thinking tends more toward a multi-dimensional model
versus what we would see as a rather flat two-dimensional way of thinking that
often manifests itself in Systematics.
But the Dialectic is just a way
of verbally acknowledging that our finite logic-dependent minds are identifying
a discrepancy. We're not engaged in taxonomy or categorization. We're simply
saying here's a point that we have to leave unresolved....mystery. The
Incarnation is the perfect example of this.
This also plays out in the
realm of hermeneutics....which should be our theological foundation. Many of
the system-problems start in the realm of hermeneutics....or to put it
differently the systemic pre-commitments show up in the realm of hermeneutics
which are then projected into the system.
Think for example of 'out of
Israel I have called my Son.' You'll recall Luther had a problem with that, the
Apostolic use of Hosea....shaky hermeneutics....the way he was reading the
text. Or look at his problems with James vis-a-vis Paul. The Apostolic way of
structuring not to mention the Apostolic hermeneutic with regard to the Old
Testament defies systematic definition.
Look at the problems the
Theonomists and others have with Psalm 72 or Psalm 2? We would say these Psalms
apply both the reign of Davidic kings, the Spiritual kingdom of Christ and the
eschatological Kingdom. The Theonomists want a formula for this. They want to
know which verse applies to which. They would argue its primary if not solitary
meaning and application is for 'this age' the pre-eschaton.
I think of JM Kik doing this
with Matthew 24. His Preterist reading demands that he divide at a certain
verse and say....this part applies to 70AD and this part applies to the 2nd
Coming. He can pick the verse that's the dividing point.
No, it all applied....to both
and more. We understand this because thematic structures like Perspective and
Idiom are paramount...not systemic cohesion. That's not even on the table for
consideration.
I need a lot more time to work
out and explain all aspects of this. Right now it's contained on many sheets of
paper in note-form and in my head. Logic must play a part in how we read the
Bible...it's basic to the function of communication.
However, logic cannot be used
to probe or dissect...otherwise we risk subjugating the Text to our empirical
criteria. Give this a couple of hundred years and a few generations and your
descendants will work out the implications of an empirical criteria. Eventually
they'll pick every doctrine apart because none of them will stand that test.
It's a tool that cannot cut metaphysical material. It can only destroy. It's
like trying to work an ice sculpture with a flame-thrower. It doesn't work very
well.
The only thing preventing the
telos from being applied among our contemporaries is the fact that we're all
walking talking logical inconsistencies. None of us live or think in a
consistent matter with the ideas we hold. Thankfully. If we did, our world
would deconstruct before our eyes. We'll go mad. I've walked close to that
line.
We have to find an anchor to
make sense of it all....the anchor is the Word, Christ Himself.
This means our doctrines will
not be formulated in the same way. This means the nature of theology will be
different. This means our posture regarding historical theology will change.
I'm not saying it all suddenly
becomes easy. I'm not saying we don't still hold to doctrines. We do, but so
many of these doctrines will prove dialectical as we have so long realized.
Someone like Sproul would call this nonsense....in its essence
non-sensical...false...anti-Christian.
It's no wonder the
grandchildren of the Puritans and Continental Reformers became Unitarians and
in the end denied Scripture altogether. The Aristotelian method, the Thomistic
method of both Roman and Protestant Scholasticism guarantee this result. It's
the logical telos. Ask Hume. Empiricism in the end will only breed Scepticism.
The Van Tillians think they
have escaped this. I think their fundamental ideas are better, but Van Til was
dealing with a different set of questions and drivers/motivators... and their
result doesn't create a system dependent on the Bible but a system which treats
the Bible as an axiomatic starting point for the development of a new
system...a philosophically Idealistic coherent basis for Sacral Dominionism.
That's why the Theonomists have latched onto him so fiercely even though he
wasn't actually on the same page they were.
But in the end...what are the
tools for constructing this new system? The same one's Thomas and others used
to construct theirs. Their swimming in the cesspool of lapsarian tainted
epistemology. Van Til says we drink from the pure font....we're crossing the
muck on a plank...our shoes are clean.
But they don't realize the plank they walk on....is floating on the same
muck. They can't take a step without resting their weight upon it. They think
they're clean...but they can't get anywhere without getting off the floating
plank and getting their shoes dirty.
What I'm saying is...fly/levitate
across to the other side. Don't worry about crossing the cesspool. By faith
you're already on the other side.
It's interesting because Hume
took rationalism to the point of total scepticism. Kant rescued metaphysics by
essentially using the same argument Bahnsen did with Stein....the crackers in
the pantry fallacy. How do you prove the crackers are in the pantry? You
empirically observe they're in there. You get up and go look and visually verify
their presence. The atheist pursues metaphysics in the same way. Bahnsen said,
you're looking for answers with the wrong tools. God's existence is not proved
in the same way the crackers are proved to be in the pantry.
Kant basically said the same
thing. As Christians we say the answer is revelation or more specifically
special revelation....ultimately Christ himself. Kant didn't look to Christ. He
said we 'know' things innately...it's really interesting how much this is like
a re-working of Plato's forms.
He said however that instead of
a Universal...we ourselves give the meaning to these metaphysical
principles...ethics or whatever. We create a synthetic a priori and then using
what he called Transcendental Logic we go from there and build our metaphysical
system.
It's not great leap to see how
today that has translated into the 'true for you' thinking of post-modernism.
Modernism (like Hume) wants scientific (empirical) verification for everything
and assumes we can use these same tools to figure things out and develop ideas.
Post-modernism (like Kant) says
we create our own metaphysics.
Hegel just pluralized it and
viewed it in terms of social and historical processes. Looking at the Hegelian
dialectic between Hume and Kant and how that keeps playing out even today in so
many different 'spheres'...he may have been on to something.
Now it's interesting because
Van Til is kind of saying like Kant that the categories our
extra-empirical...they're of a different nature. Kant says you go to your inner self....Van
Til says go to the Bible.
But then from that transcendental point they both want to
employ logic to work out the implications and construct a system. Kant says you
use Transcendental Logic. Van Til says you use Systematics.
Van Til and his followers can be pretty exact
and say their conclusions are 'Biblical' since they believe they developed them
from the right foundation.
Kant was much more subjective
and believed the truth came out through things like artistic expression and
aesthetics....the Romantic movement....Kierkegaard, today's Emergent Church.
Clark and Van Til get to the foundation point differently but
at that point they both say....Scripture is axiomatic, and now we a priori
develop our system.
That's where I diverge from
both of them. Scripture is not the starting point....this whole way of thinking
is wrong. It's not a system-foundation. It's Christ himself. Our response
isn't....create dogma. Our response should be....worship.
Worship has profound and far
reaching implications but the question-set is totally different.
Now I know you don't agree but
do you understand in part where I'm coming from?
Empiricism in the end is always
subjective. Modernism and its child secular science believe Empiricism can be
objective. Hume and the Sceptics proved otherwise. They can use the same
logical/mathematical methods and utterly destroy objectivity and certainty. Our
senses our finite and limited and not trustworthy. They too and tainted with
bias and presupposition.
I would argue the human employment
of logic cannot free itself from this same conundrum. The laws of logic in
creation testify to teleology and make man accountable...but the laws
themselves are not divine. The meta-realm is not subject to these laws. If so,
I think in the end if were consistent we will begin to deconstruct the entire
meta-realm. There's no way to account for it.....apart from Christ. But at that
point because Christ accounts for it, I don't believe we can pick up the rusty
logic-tool again and wield it with confidence. I think we have to lay it down
and live by faith.
Kant rescued it all by
redefining what reality it is in human terms. We as individuals or with Hegel
as a plurality in history define what reality is. But as we know this too is an
absurdity and nothing but a wishful dream. In the end you can't account for it.
The Universe becomes subjective. When a place myself in those shoes....the
world grows blurry and I begin to hyperventilate. Reality is gone. I think
that's where Hume ended up. In our modern terms we have to step into the Matrix
to find meaning.
The Thomistic-Aristotelian
system sparked a new level of inquiry. Man started with the particulars, with
nature and began to think, develop, experiment. It has created the modern world
and it's ironic that Thomas unwittingly planted the seeds for the destruction
of the Medieval World which he sought to justify. It's breathtaking and
astonishing to consider how these forces work.
Presuppositionalists believe
they represent the overthrow of the Thomistic-Aristotelian-Evidentialist stream
of thought and having swept it away they now can start over. They can construct
truly Biblical blueprints for a new more philosophically consistent, coherent,
and comprehensive Christendom.
Within those circles there are
factions and debates regarding how to do this and how to deal with the
leftovers of the previous world. Do we reform it, reconstruct it, do we
temporarily abandon it and let it fall? Each Transformative school has a
slightly different take and narrative.
The Van Tillians represent a
step in the right direction...in certain areas. They are not overly concerned
with logically justifying or verifying their philosophical position. Their
re-worked Ontological Argument is more a challenge than an
argument....impossibility of the contrary. I appreciate the declarative nature
of this position in the face of the world's claims.
In other areas of thought I
think they represent a divergence, they too plant several seeds which lead the
Church into dangerous waters. But rather than something wholly new, I would
suggest what they represent is a synthesis between Quasi-Platonic thinking of
Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages and the mature Scholasticism found to be in
full bloom by the 12th century.
As long as Christians embrace
Sacralistic impulses they will be driven to think in Monistic terms. They will
be driven to develop and wrestle with social and hence political philosophical
questions. We will always wrestle with these, but they will be driven to try
and create Sacral versions and solutions to these problems.
Removing Sacralism allows us to
still engage the world but do so on a totally different plane and at that point
our embrace of meta-logical principles, Scriptural submission teaching us a
different form of logic means we can possess our own understanding and
explanations of the world and not worry that the unbeliever will find them
incomprehensible. Rather than trust in argument, and worldly wisdom we can
trust in the transformative power of the Holy Spirit...alone.