Superglue – 3: The “Logic” of the Laws of Logic

It is interesting to see how the law of non-contradiction is applied in real life by those who uphold the belief that this law is the ultimate standard, or test, that must be used to determine if a statement is true. Remember the law of non-contradiction is this: something cannot be one thing and something else at the same time. A cannot be non-A at the same time.

When it comes to an application of this principle, there are some challenges. Most of all, they occur in this area when the idea of libertarian free will comes to the surface. The idea of libertarian free will is that man is a blank, his environment is a blank, and his will is a blank. Anything that interrupts that blank thus becomes an interference to man’s will and therefore human will is no longer free. Thus, in this plan, God cannot have an eternal decree because it takes away the blank environment and interferes with the libertarian free choice of man.

An application of the laws of logic occur in philosophical thought when men attempt to answer the question “what is true?” Non-theistic thought ends up with the notion there is no truth, which, if this statement were true, violates the laws of logic.

In theology you get similar kinds of statements: “We all come to the bible with presuppositions. We come with doctrinal baggage. You must get rid of the doctrine and do your exegesis first, then develop your doctrine from that.”

Now you ask this question: “Is it your doctrine — doctrine, by the way, just means a body of belief — that I must abandon doctrine in order to create the ‘blank environment’ of the human mind so that ‘correct doctrine’ is determined?”

See the problem of logic here? It is not possible to get rid of doctrine before you come to the text to do your exegesis. It is simply a matter of one person’s doctrine that requires you to abandon doctrine in order to exegete the Scriptural text.

Since it appears doctrine is impossible to abandon, the question, then, is which doctrine should you come to the text with? And to figure out the answer to this one, you have to get your epistemology in order and decide if you will start with God and who he is, or man and who he is. Further, it will be necessary to ask if it is even possible to know man and who he is without first knowing God and who He is.

When someone says “get rid of doctrine” before you come to the text, what they really mean is “get rid of your current doctrine and come to the text with my doctrine.” More particularly, what they mean is abandon your current doctrine about God and adopt mine, then when you read the text you’ll come to the same conclusion I do.

You think God exists outside of time? Abandon that belief and accept that God is also a creature of time and that time has always existed.

You think God is omniscient about all things? Abandon that belief and accept that God is only omniscient about things that have already happened and neither he, nor any one else, has any idea what is going to happen tomorrow.

You think God is omnipotent, he can do anything. But can God create a rock that is so heavy he cannot lift it?

You think God infallibly determines whatsoever comes to pass? Abandon that belief and recognize that man’s libertarian free will must operate in a blank environment in order for it to be free so that God is the great Reactor rather than the divine Initiator.

The real issue, thus, is not the law of non-contradiction: it is the doctrine of God.

“You see here that if you would just adopt my doctrine about God, about man, about man’s ‘free’ will, and came to the text with those presuppositions, you would make the same conclusions about the texts that I do. But because you come to the text with your Calvinistic doctrine, you don’t make the same conclusions as I do.” Duh! So? Is that a compelling reason to change?

In order to establish “libertarian free will” it is essential to deny the eternal decrees of God. In other words, it is necessary to establish a “blank slate” system so that exegesis of the Scripture alone takes place with no preconceived doctrine.

If such an environment were possible, intellectual and moral judgement becomes difficult, if not impossible. Imagine a family where there is no moral environment — the equivalent of the blank slate of libertarian free will. The parents may “suggest” rules of right and wrong, but they may not do anything in the environment to interfere with their child’s free will or his disposition to act one way or another.

To do this, of course, the parents would have to abandon conception of the child, because the act of conception and birth creates an “environment” that is no longer a blank slate. The child is influenced by the parents before birth while still in the womb. He has the DNA of both parents. The child is influenced by his surroundings, the way he is nurtured, the colors of his bedroom, the type of music that he hears. All these influence his opinion and judgements.

While this family analogy is not an exhaustive one, there is sufficient here to illustrate the point. A point made by St. Paul in Romans chapter 1 when he said that:

“18 What is revealed is God’s anger from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people who in their wickedness keep suppressing the truth; 19 because what is known about God is plain to them, since God has made it plain to them. 20 For ever since the creation of the universe his invisible qualities – both his eternal power and his divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they can be understood from what he has made. Therefore, they have no excuse.”

You see the point. There is no excuse because there is no blank slate.

But, says the proponent of libertarian free will, there must be a blank slate in order for man to be held responsible for his decisions. So you ask, “Why does there have to be a blank slate in order for man to be held responsible for his choices?”

The defense of libertarian free will then gets shifted from the “blank slate” approach to another: “You cannot have eternal decrees and man’s free will at the same time. The idea that John is fated to get run over by an 18-wheeler at 3:00 pm tomorrow goes against everything we know about life.” Now the blank slate idea is abandoned for the idea that “everything I know” — my experience — is the standard.

Look at the logic here. Put aside temporarily the word “fated” because it is a misrepresentation of the Augustianian-Calvinist view, and concentrate on the epistemological logic: “It goes against everything I know about life.”

In other words, “everything you know about life” is the foundation of determining what is true or false. Now you’re back to epistemological kindergarten: what you know cannot be the foundation of what is true or false because you don’t know everything. And that is logic.

So you see how the law of non-contradiction may not be so much an application of the axioms of human thought as it is an application of an epistemological approach that has the wrong foundation. It puts human knowledge and experience as the ultimate determination of true or false rather than what the word of God says. The law of non-contradiction as it is promoted by some, is held as a standard that even God must live by, much in the same way that back of Plato’s god was the Good which both God and man must adhere to.

You can anticipate the response: “But God’s eternal decrees cannot conincide at the same time as man’s free choices: This is a self-contradication: free will cannot be free will if God’s will is at the back of all man’s free will’s decisions?”

Why not? Because it is a self-contradiction and it “disagrees with everything I know about life.” But you don’t know everything . . . . And you’ve come full circle, yet again. See the problem? No alleged self-contradiction will be allowed when you exegete Scripture and the reason for this is found in human reasoning, not the Scriptures.

But if the Scriptures actually teach God’s eternal decrees and man’s responsibility, then what are you to do with the laws of logic? See how the logic works its way out: nothing in the Bible will be interpreted in any way that destroys the idea that the eternal decrees and man’s responsibility are self-contradictory. The are the given environment of the Creator and the creature.

But what if God’s assertion of both his decrees and man’s responsibility are not, in fact, a self-contradiction in logic? What if God says both things exist simultaneously? Who’s definition of self-contradiction are you to accept? Either you are to maintain your current version of the laws of logic or else adjust them to what Scripture teaches.

The issue is the starting point. Will it be man’s “everything I know about life” or what is found in the infallible Scriptures? Will the starting point be man’s application of the laws of logic, or what the Scripture says, so that you adjust your ideas of the laws of logic to conform with what Scripture says?

God is not, and cannot be bound, by any laws of logic. He is the one who says “I am”, the ultimate reference point in everything. He is not bound to the laws of logic any more than he is bound to the Greek concept of the Good. He is God and he is only bound to himself.

There is one final appeal: “If the Scriptures are not logical, you could not read them.” This statement is made as if the law of non-contradiction as applied to libertarian free will is the standard of logic that is in the Scriptures.

And therein lies the fundamental difference between Augustine, Luther, Calvin on the one hand, and Pelagius, Arminius and those promoting libertarian free will on the other. It is, after all, a debate about whose logic is to be used in determining what is true or false. Will it be man’s experience or what is written in Scripture?

“But God cannot write something that is self-contradictory to man?” And your response will be, “Why not? Who says he can’t? Did God tell you that or even imply it? But you haven’t even proven that God has actually written something that is self-contradictory.”

This is a repeat of the ‘faith alone’ argument. Some people think ‘justified by faith’ is a contradiction with ‘justified by your works.’ Does this appear self-contradictory to man? Probably, but because they are clearly written in the Scripture, it is a mistake to remove the contradiction to man by allowing one to overrule the other. It is obviously not contradictory to God.

Epistemology. How do you know what is true or false, and how do you know that you know? What is the ultimate standard, God or man, Scripture or man’s sense of the laws of logic? Therein lies the fundamental presupposition. And how you answer that question will determine the remainder of your theology.

You say you don’t have an answer to this issue of epistemology? Oh, yes you do. This is inescapable for every human being. You may not have a thought-out response, but every time you think and act you reveal your basic presupposition. The question is: does your basic presupposition conform with what the Scriptures teach?

To have no presupposition is to presuppose the “blank slate” which in itself is a presupposition. Biblical or not biblical? When the Scriptures declare time and time again that God controls the actions of men in order to bring about his decrees, the picture and the logic are both clear.

So now the question becomes this: Are you willing to accept what the Scriptures teach and make so clear? God does control the free actions of his creatures without which all prediction is nothing but guesswork. And, at the same time, he holds men accountable for their decisions. Illogical? To some people’s ideas of the “laws of logic” maybe. But since they are not the standard, you have no choice but to get back to Scriptures and make sure what you read really is what you read.

Still not sure? Read Isaiah chapters 40-48.