Many of you probably understand how exciting this is to me since I like to strip things down to basic logic. It makes sense, it's reasonable, and therefore must be the best viable option. So to begin heavy topics like the ones we will encounter in Doctrine III (dispensational and premillenial views concerning the doctrine of the church) with logic, I'm intrigued.
But the reason for this blog is not to share in the excitement of the approach my professor is taking at discussing these topics. No, the reason I am blogging is because I want to unpack, think through, and discuss with you a profound point he was coming to in his lecture.
We cannot 'know' anything as it refers to absolute certainty. We can only 'know' as it refers to higher probability.
Now many would see that statement and dismiss it right away saying "Of course there are absolute certainties. For example I am absolutely certain that if I jump as high as I can, I will also land back upon the ground due to gravity." But even in physics and science, anomalies occur.
You can never be absolutely certain that an anomaly will not happen at that very instant. All you can really say is, "Based upon my presuppositions of how gravity works there is an extremely high probability that I will land back on the ground." Due to unforeseen anomalies possibly occurring in any given situation, it is impossible to be absolutely certain of anything.
I know for Christians, scientists, and anyone else who claim and believe that absolutes exist may disagree with the previous paragraph at first glance. But I am not..let me repeat...I am NOT concluding that there are no absolutes.
I am not supporting the post modern thought that there are no absolutes and therefore everything is relative. That is a bunch of hogwash, and is the most illogical thing I have ever heard.
Logic tells me that absolutes must exist because otherwise our world would not be able to function. It also tells me that absolutes cannot contradict each other. For example if a=b and b≠c then a≠c. It would not make any logical sense for a=c under the previously given absolutes. Therefore there must be one overlying umbrella of truth that encompasses all absolutes.
This is where it gets tricky. If we cannot know the absolutes, though they do exist, how and why are we supposed to seek truth in any and everything we do? All we really can do is see the evidences before us, and choose the highest probable option.
It eventually all goes back to a source of truth and standard. We can come to conclusions all we want, but if our presuppositions in our standard of truth is inaccurate your foundation will eventually crumble.
People may find that standard in different places; science, Koran, Bible...the list goes on and on and on. BUT like I said there can only be one all encompassing truth, logic does not leave room for more than one standard of truth in which all absolutes fall under.
We can come to conclusions all we want but we will never know if our presuppositions are absolutely, without a doubt, accurate. Again, all we can do is see the evidences and proof before us and make a decision based upon the highest probable option. This is exactly what Martin Luther did when he stood up against the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther presupposed that Scripture is the source of truth. He constantly went back to Scripture to search for the highest probable absolute, and could only be persuaded otherwise by that very source and standard of truth. Even when he was pressured to recant his beliefs he said:
“Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted of error by the
testimony of Scripture or by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted by the
Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive
by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything...On this I take my
stand. I can do no other.” -- Diet of Worms 1521
So I guess my question to you is, where do you find your source of truth? Do you construct all of your logic off of that foundation or do you find yourself having to contradict yourself? There is only one source of truth and that truth will never contradict itself. If you contradict yourself either your logic is flawed or your foundation is not the true source of truth.
Test your foundation, see if it holds.
* * *
I hope I have accurately communicated my point without contradicting myself. When talking about logic it is easy to get caught walking in circles, hopefully I did not end up doing that. I tried my best not to.
If you find a flaw in my reasoning please let me know. Also, I am curious to hear any and all thoughts...especially those that disagree with anything I said because you'll be more critical and honest about my presuppositions and logic. :)
