Truth Revisited.

[gordon 2]

I am thinking about truth, and I suppose with spur from the often heard, or read statement, " Word of Truth".

What is the "truth" that qualifies the word to a highlighted or vaulted item, which is not only the ordinary and possible to error account, but the "word of... (specifically)...truth without error? And what is this "truth" that makes the word stand out as frankest word, a word of undisputed purity? A word, a sentence scheme, a verse, a book, inspired by God, set to scroll?

So I look up the dictionary definitions for truth. Nothing fits. Not honesty, not fact or reality, as all these thing can be swayed by opinion. And so I come onto "principle" in the margins and perhaps a serendipitous example.

Principle:
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
"the basic principles of Christianity"

Could the word of truth be recognized as exceptional wisdom due the basic principles of Christianity and the fundamental principles that all have a equal access to disciplined reason and logic within on what at least some of the basic principles are and what more what is disciplined reasoning itself?

Fragmented due to undisciplined reason more than fragmentation and divisions due to the disagreements as to the the basic principles of Christianity might just be the worldly culprit of division (s) and the devil in the principles of Christianity and NOT a failing of supposed false baptisms and accusation of not a baptism common to all.

So what is the basic principle of reason to which all may access? So reason has its genesis from true premise.

So Christianity affirms that in the beginning was the Word...or Logos submitted as a first premise.


"Gordon Clark (1902–1985), for instance, a Calvinist theologian and expert on pre-Socratic philosophy, famously translated Logos as "Logic": "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God."[25] He meant to imply by this translation that the laws of logic were derived from God and formed part of Creation, and were therefore not a secular principle imposed on the Christian world view."

So since the logic within reason is from the beginning design of Creation... why do we fool around with it within Christianity or as Christians? Why do some logical mindsets today within Christianity turn to positive outlook and positivity while others to the negative and conspiracy out of news said Good News?

I suggest that possibly logic within reason has lost its fundamental truth within and its true premise. Logic can issue from the worldly and like a snake it can hide into our reasonings and Christian reasonings today seem not immune. Principled logic within the Good News seems to have gone bi-polar for many today as if they were sourcing from more than one God. Do we see the devil in the detail of our reasonings or the Divine's will in it? What will Christian history in the future say on us? That our reasonings our were focused on the wholesomeness of life and its logic or the opposite.


* Notice: All quotations and definitions are due to Google search and Wikipedia et al and for which I have found no stress or shame. The Gordon Clark quote seems possible--but besides I find it interesting that "secular principle imposed" is set as opposed to "from Creation formed" regards logic within reason.

 

[hummerpoo]

You may have come accross this in your research; if not, it provides some direction, or focus, on the importance of the issue — What is our relationship to our Creator? or, "In the likeness"?

Because my opinion is based on The Simplicity of God, I tilt toward Van Til, with some doubts, but have not studied it deep enough to express a choice of one or rejection of both.

church history - What was at issue in the Clark-Van Til controversy? - Christianity Stack Exchange

 

[gordon 2]

You may have come accross this in your research; if not, it provides some direction, or focus, on the importance of the issue — What is our relationship to our Creator? or, "In the likeness"?

Because my opinion is based on The Simplicity of God, I tilt toward Van Til, with some doubts, but have not studied it deep enough to express a choice of one or rejection of both.

church history - What was at issue in the Clark-Van Til controversy? - Christianity Stack Exchange

Thanks for this.

It seems a lot of fuss for little return in my view. I would say that Logic as a word to replace Logos is a word with lots of meaning(s) that are missing--- however I understood it as an example of how to approach the meaning of Logos in the English language considering the origin of the meaning of the word. ( English is perhaps a poor language to translate Logos.)

What I get ( and perhaps too easily) is that in the beginning was God and God's attributes was distributed in his creation to some degrees. Regards communication with man and reasoning with man there is a bed rock to which man can assess and appreciate. This two way communication can be done logically and reasonably because logic and reason are common to both God and man-- in quality if not in quantity. The problem comes in when this quality is substituted with mediocracy in logic and reason usually from conditioning due to a lie or purposely a deception--as in the serpent's purposeful lie to Eve---or today's conspirant!


I find it strange that Jesus would say " And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." or that His heart would become a heart of flesh in man and after the cross that the River of Jordan continues to be unfordable.

 

[StriperAddict]

I find it strange that Jesus would say " And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." or that His heart would become a heart of flesh in man and after the cross that the River of Jordan continues to be unfordable.

Strange? How so?

Perhaps His words are answered in un-stoppable union of His own making? And His own unbreakable - unchangeable covenant made with Father?

Hebrews 6
17 In the same way God, desiring even more to demonstrate to the heirs of the promise the fact that His purpose is unchangeable, confirmed it with an oath (testament, covenant),
18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to hold firmly to the hope set before us.

Being with, or better, within, is the unshakeable promise of the better oath, or covenant.

 

[hummerpoo]

Thanks for this.

It seems a lot of fuss for little return in my view. I would say that Logic as a word to replace Logos is a word with lots of meaning(s) that are missing--- however I understood it as an example of how to approach the meaning of Logos in the English language considering the origin of the meaning of the word. ( English is perhaps a poor language to translate Logos.)

What I get ( and perhaps too easily) is that in the beginning was God and God's attributes was distributed in his creation to some degrees. Regards communication with man and reasoning with man there is a bed rock to which man can assess and appreciate. This two way communication can be done logically and reasonably because logic and reason are common to both God and man-- in quality if not in quantity. The problem comes in when this quality is substituted with mediocracy in logic and reason usually from conditioning due to a lie or purposely a deception--as in the serpent's purposeful lie to Eve---or today's conspirant!


I find it strange that Jesus would say " And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." or that His heart would become a heart of flesh in man and after the cross that the River of Jordan continues to be unfordable.

O.K.

I suppose I will continue to watch for (in scripture. spirit, and experience) the communicable intellectual attributes of God (knowledge, wisdom, and veracity)* being exemplified qualitatively, or even univocally, in man; IOW, wisdom of man that intails aseity, immutability, perfection, eternity, immensity, and unity.

It occurs to me that I might also need to figure out to what God could apply the intellectual activity that we call reasoning, in which we apply logic to observations to draw conclusions. What observation could He need to investigate? Of what possible conclusion is He unaware?

*L. Birkhof, Systematic Theology, Part 1, VII, B

 

[Madman]

Thanks for this.

It seems a lot of fuss for little return in my view. I would say that Logic as a word to replace Logos is a word with lots of meaning(s) that are missing--- however I understood it as an example of how to approach the meaning of Logos in the English language considering the origin of the meaning of the word. ( English is perhaps a poor language to translate Logos.)

What I get ( and perhaps too easily) is that in the beginning was God and God's attributes was distributed in his creation to some degrees. Regards communication with man and reasoning with man there is a bed rock to which man can assess and appreciate. This two way communication can be done logically and reasonably because logic and reason are common to both God and man-- in quality if not in quantity. The problem comes in when this quality is substituted with mediocracy in logic and reason usually from conditioning due to a lie or purposely a deception--as in the serpent's purposeful lie to Eve---or today's conspirant!


I find it strange that Jesus would say " And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." or that His heart would become a heart of flesh in man and after the cross that the River of Jordan continues to be unfordable.

This is 700+ pages of words I have to look up and philosophers I must stop and go bone up on, but it is great. With winter coming on I started on my second read.

https://www.fidelitypress.org/book-products/logos-rising

 

[gordon 2]

O.K.

I suppose I will continue to watch for (in scripture. spirit, and experience) the communicable intellectual attributes of God (knowledge, wisdom, and veracity)* being exemplified qualitatively, or even univocally, in man; IOW, wisdom of man that intails aseity, immutability, perfection, eternity, immensity, and unity.

It occurs to me that I might also need to figure out to what God could apply the intellectual activity that we call reasoning, in which we apply logic to observations to draw conclusions. What observation could He need to investigate? Of what possible conclusion is He unaware?

*L. Birkhof, Systematic Theology, Part 1, VII, B

I'm not going to put a line of stone between you and I. But I must say this, or quote this:

Someone said this in King James:

"Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

and this:

"For every creation of God is good, and nothing that is received with thanksgiving should be rejected,"

Someone in King James is writing that God assessed everything He made as good and some Christian seems to have the same assessment regards everything received, ( barring that I'm reading with little attention.)

I suggest that perfection is shared within eternal life, perhaps not all the time, perhaps some of the time, perhaps not on all subjects, but on some subjects. I understand as well that some human beings have the skill to test spirits---which provide for perfection not unlike the God's perfection.

Yet who am I...? All I know is that love might just be intense with me for a week, but with God for all time, but in the intensity of that one week... an angel carried me with the perfection of a successful heart surgery. Who am I? I am no more a puff of wind for that is for the most part what mostly I was. I am rather alive to the perfection in the esteem of my Lord's assessment regards all his creation through our Lord Jesus son of God, son of Mary and Joseph. Or to know that all of creation was esteemed good in the spiritual sense by God and then by a disciple of Jesus, is perhaps a perfection of wisdom from its very source to which I claim as mine due God's will for all man.

No there will be no rock walls between my brothers and sisters... except they are heaps to clear the fields for seeds.

In any case, I think Abraham was a man who did not fear and that his fearlessness was possibly due to faithfulness, and God rejoiced to find a man like Himself fearless and faithful.