Faith or logic

Are faith and logic incompatable?

Nope.

Faith must be built upon a truth that is found in the bible. Logic says if God said so then it is so even if I do not understand it. My faith is in what God said therefore because of the logic that God is perfect then God is right.

I was saved by grace through faith in that I put my faith in Christ. My logic does not understand eternal security but by faith in what God said, I am eternally secure. Basically I back my faith by the Word which is only logical. The scriptures reflect the perfect will of the Lord and God is always right.

I'm non-KJVO and I highly question any KJVO who may claim that I don't use faith. I simply use logic and cut down the KJVO myths by testing those myths by scripture and historical facts.

Does "prove all things" mean to examine and try everything in the light of scripture, or something else?

I would say that it means to prove your doctrines by the scriptures. I would also say that it means to prove your life by the scriptures. If I hear something new concerning God said "this or God said that" you better believe that I will be first in line to test it by the scriptures.

 

Logic and faith go hand in hand. I will go as far as to say that faith is kind of an extension of logic. What I mean is that since I do not know it all, I cannot use perfect logic. But, the logic I do use points me in the direction of faith. I.E. I believe the spiritual teachings of the Bible because the historical and physical things of the Bible can be (and have been) proven true.

 

Faith and logic are two means of attaining the truth. Truth never contradicts itself.

TC is absolutely right.

We could not even have the beginnings of faith if we could not logically approach the text of scripture. That is precisely what is meant be "rightly dividing" and "proving all things".

 

Man's logic is limited by his finite mind. God can and does use logic when it fits His purpose, but He does not need to rely on it to work out His plan. Note the universe--here's where you can apply God's logic. Yet, when we try to apply logic to the miracles in the Bible, we cannot! We can have logic and faith existing together (in man's finite understanding), but we cannot force our logic on God. Ultimately, our true belief must be borne of faith, not what seems logical and reasonable.

 

Then why do you persist in doing so? In your mind, it makes sense somehow that only the KJV is God's Word in English. He never said it. He never implied it. You dreamed it up according to your logic or else borrowed it from someone else who did then claimed it as faith.

'Ultimately, our true belief must be borne of logical and reasonable, not what seems to be faith.'

Neither statement is true or false standing alone.

You still want to create a false dichotomy. True faith and true reason/logic NEVER contradict each other. Truth is ALWAYS consistent with itself.

 

From a human standpoint was the virgin birth logical? How about the feeding of the five thousand?

I'll take faith, you can have logic.

 

]

Where in Scripture are faith and reason/logic shown as mutally exclusive? They are not. Where faith is appealed to over logic, it is because human reason CANNOT UNDERSTAND, not because human reason is inherently faulty and can not be trusted. The heart of unregenerate man is dark and dead, blind, etc., but that does not mitigate him being able to reason the existence of a real God. Aristotle did it very well. The Athenians, did they not had a monument to the Unknown God. Paul is shown using logic and reason to present the gospel in Athens. If logic and reason are dichotomous propositions, then surely God's Spirit would not have moved Paul to do so, or do you think he did that under his own power, without God's sanction?

 

Right! Amen! Terry, I second.

 

logic is human reasoning, but for the regenerate man, faith is a logical faith, not an irrational faith.

I have posted the reasons already. Dr. Bob and others have given numerous Scriptures.

In order to have faith we must know some things about God. We must know what God says. These require a MIND. The mind reasons. I can not have faith without some kind of knowledge. If that knowledge is not reasonable or logical, it can't truly be from God. Why? Because if logic exists, it can only exist in God as a perfect logic. The Creator can not put in His creation what He does not Himself possess. This is axiomatic. I reason logically. While I might not reason perfectly, I know that, because I am able to reason and use logic, then my Creator must be purely logical. I know this through faith which comes to me because of what I know about God and about myself. My faith rests in God, because my knowledge about God is reasonable. Where my faith lacks, my reason informs and bolsters my faith. Where my reason lacks, my faith supports and assures.


Those that would dismiss logic as human reasoning, clearly are on shaky ground.

Human logic can be wrong. Elephants are pink. Nelly is an elephant. Elephants are pink. Problem, there is no such thing as a pink elephant. I have logically reasoned from a false premise.

I can arrive at the same conclusion with the same propositions using "faith."

Faith is only as good as the object of faith. If the object is God, then we must ask ourselves if the propositions on which we say we have faith in God are, indeed rational, because we reason, and because we reason and we know God reasons, we must conclude, based on both faith and logic that God is a God of perfect reason. Just because you use faith, that does not mean you are always right. If faith is irrational, it is only because your logic is faulty. If your faith is rational, your logic can still be right, but your faith can still be wrong, e.g. misplaced. The issue therefore is the object of your faith.

No KJVOnlyist can reason from Scripture or scholarship correctly. They're "faith" can not be in God, because they assume the truth of their own belief in they're version of the Bible rather than anything that Bible says about itself. Nobody says the KJV is not God's Word; nor do we reject the proposition that God preserves His Word. What we dispute is the ONLY part of the doctrine that asserts that His Word is only preserved in the KJV. There is NOTHING in Scripture to support that notion, nor can it be proven by logic alone, nor does it make the best sense of all the available evidence. Therefore, we submit that the faith of the KJVOnlyist is in God only in a secondary sense. It is grounded in their own experience, their own irrationality, their own selves first, and that, is by definition, dependence on human reasoning over faith.

Faith and reason are not an either / or propositon. To allege otherwise is the fallacy of the false dilemma. There is another choice. It can be both/and. In Scripture it is always presented as a both/and proposition, never an either/or propostion. Therefore, we assert that those asserting faith and reason are exclusive propositions are incorrect and their "faith" is not faith in God at all, because God presents faith and reason as working in concert not in opposition.

 

Fallacy of the false dilemma. There is a difference between what is not logical and what is not explainable by scientific means.

Logic is a process of sound reasoning. It is not "human reasoning" or attempts to explain via science." When we say your faith is not logical, we are saying your faith is not based on sound thinking, lacks systematic consistency, etc.

Tell us, how is it possible for God to sanction illogical and irrational reasoning processes in us? We reason, and we use logic in order to reason. Reason fails either because the premise is false, we lack sufficient information to arrive at a correct conclusion or explanation, or we simply make false associations/use logical fallacies.

However, we know that we can not possess a quality that the Creator does not possess. We can reason that God exists with atheists. How? By using correct logic via the cosmological argument. We can also reason certain things about God, because we know that what we possess as a quality intrinisic to our abilities, that does not possess in some measure. Whereas ours are contingent and imperfect, those things in Him are perfect and absolutely infinite and actual. For example, I reason. Therefore, God reasons and He does so perfectly. I use logic to know if my reasoning is sound. Therefore, God must possess logic as well, and He must use it perfectly. God performs miracles with purpose and means. Therefore, based on my reasoning regarding God, which is logical, and the veracity of His Word, which is also logical, I can rest assured that each and every miracle in the Bible is, in fact, LOGICAL, even if I can not use scientific means to understand it, and, when I personalize this, (eg. what I can logically conclude, like "Jesus is Lord," and say therefore that Jesus is THE Lord and thus MY PERSONAL Lord), I have faith, and my faith is supported by sound reasoning, and I can further rest in the faith that where I might not understand, God does, because I can use faith and reason together to fill in the gaps, so that where one fails the other assures and informs. Faith and reason are not the same, but they are compatible and work in concert not in opposition).

 

Now that is logical. Thanks, C4K.

On another matter:

Of course, a single counterexample is enough to destroy any logical argument. In this case, following your line of reasoning: we possess a sinful nature, therefore God possesses a sinful nature.

 

Terry_Herrington asked:

From a human standpoint was the virgin birth logical? How about the feeding of the five thousand?

What is illogical about either of those? Contrary to the laws of nature, yes, but contrary to logic? Nope.

Questions such as "Can God create a four-sided triangle?" touch on questions of logic. Questions about miracles do not.

 

C4K asked:

Are faith and logic incompatable?

Absolutely not. Faith is properly grounded in truth, and truth is by definition harmonious, therefore consistent, therefore logical.

 

The only problem would be if the faith one possesses was not the truth.

 

Brett said:

Of course, a single counterexample is enough to destroy any logical argument. In this case, following your line of reasoning: we possess a sinful nature, therefore God possesses a sinful nature.

However, properly speaking, our sinful nature is not a quality we possess, but one we lack. It is an absence of good.

 

This is not logical, says Mr. Spock. Actually, this question is rhetorical. A triangle is the "name" we assigned to a three sided object.

Why don't you ask a question such as: "If God can do anything, can God create a rock that He cannot move?"

 

Of course, a single counterexample is enough to destroy any logical argument. In this case, following your line of reasoning: we possess a sinful nature, therefore God possesses a sinful nature. [/QUOTE]

No, that is not so, and here is why...(Did you really think I'd let that slip by ).

Causes are like the effect only in the actuality communicated. Hot eggs are like the hot water in which they boil, but the hardness is not like the water that causes it. Somethings are due to the finite and limited potentials in the things that receive the actuality. We are like God in many things, but not all things. We possess a sinful nature, but that does not necessitate that God possesses a sinful nature, because sin itself is a contingency not a perfect actuality. God is not contingent, yet we are. That does not necessitate that God is contingent. Since the cause is pure actuality, we should not attribute all contingencies to the cause of the effect. Actual perfections can be attributed to the cause from the effect, but not vice versa. Where we know, we reason God has knowledge. Where we know imperfectly, we reason God knows perfectly. Where we sin, we, therefore know God has no sin.

Sin has to do with goodness. We define good as that which is desired for its own sake. If there is such a thing is good, which is necessary for the discussion and value of what is good, we conclude that good exists, and, because we affirm a ground to all being, we conclude that this Ground, God, is therefore, among other things Good.

The desire for good things is implicit in us. This is undeniable, because to deny that it is true, we must use the intrinsic value of our own intrinsic good to assert the validity of our denial. We are caused. Therefore, our desire for good is caused. Therefore, the cause of good must cause it in us, and, since potentialities in us must have a logical ground of being, which is God, we conclude that God is good. Moreover, being purely actual, God's goodness is purely actual with no potential. If goodness lacks no potential and is purely actual, it can not have any evil in it, because evil, by definition is the absence of goodness. Since sin is evil. We conclude God has no sin in Him. God, being pure actuality, must be either purely good or purely evil. If He is purely evil, then there would not be anything good, e.g. no such thing as a concept of doing things or valuing things for their own ends (intrinsic good, like the value of personhood which we must exercise in order to deny all good). Since such things do exist, we know God can not be evil. Since God is pure actuality and must be either purely good or purely evil, He must therefore, be purely good because it is an undeniable statement that there is such a thing as intrinsic value. .

This proves therefore, that God has no sin in Him and the same principles show that God is a God of perfect logic and can not be illogical in anything He does.

WHEW! Thank you Dr. L. Russ Bush for teaching me Philosophy of Religion all those years ago!

 

It's absolutely logical. It's exactly what had to be.

What would be illogical would be for Christ to be divine and not have God as his father.

Given Jesus divine nature, it's exactly the sort of thing one would reasonably expect. Jesus' miracles were evidence of his divinity.

How are you going to know what to have faith IN without evidence for what you ought to believe?