Looking for Biblical reference

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297045#Comment_1297045

Sorry, Amodeo and Christian but none of those come close as I am thinking of cases where nature (and likely God) has two contradictory features at the same time. Think of a photon being both a particle and a wave or God being both immanent and transcendent,i.e. God is both immanent and not immanent (a contradiction) and God is both transcendent and not transcendent (a contradiction). Neither change nor lies enter into it.

Roy

I'm not sure you will find a singular verse which states that "God does not contradict Himself".

What you will find (and you already know this) are verses that make assertions to Gods nature, what He is and what He is not.

The reader then reasons out that "God can not contradict himself" because of what that reader thinks that nature implies.

Define what it means to contradict ones self then ask "Can God do anything that meets that definition". Would doing any of those things violate what has already been asserted as being aspects of His nature.

Violating His nature (I think) would be, in and of itself a contradiction. Since God can not (or maybe more accurately will not) violate His own nature, he cannot contradict himself.

I realize that this becomes a "Theology" argument. I don't think a single verse makes that statement. By putting several verses together one could make the Theological argument that this is true (by interpretation).

Rosie Perera

If the author did not provide a biblical reference to support the statement, then you don't have to assume that one exists nor spend your time looking for one. If you couldn't find one in three hours that satisfies your criteria, then there probably isn't one.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297053#Comment_1297053

If you couldn't find one in three hours that satisfies your criteria, then there probably isn't one.

I wish that were true but sometimes I am so far off on how other Christians denominations read a verse, that I can't see what is obvious to others -- although this is most often adding an "only" to the verse. In this particular case, I've read the statement by several authors in somewhat different contexts but always simply asserted as if "everyone knows that ..." But this particular time, I was reading Asian logic in which this is as reflexively false as it is reflexively obvious in Western logic. So, I wondered it anyone tried to Biblically support the assertion rather than relying on Aristotle. As I could find the topic discussed in logic books written by authors working in seminaries, including sola scriptura seminaries, I thought people who had studied in those seminaries might have been taught the biblical background that is omitted in the logic texts.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297053#Comment_1297053

Some have quoted examples where God has contradicted himself by doing the opposite of what it’s written in the Bible. Acts 10:34 says God is no respecter of persons yet he made an exception with David when he committed adultery with Bathsheba. David should’ve been put to death, but just because he confessed his sin he got a break and did not die. If it would’ve been someone else, God would’ve put him to death. And there are other examples like this.

I’m not sure if this fits what you’re asking.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297053#Comment_1297053

I’m not sure if this fits what you’re asking.

DAL

Wow so an edit now posts 2 copies, the original and then the edited one.

NichtnurBibelleser

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297063#Comment_1297063

Pope Benedict XVI refers to John 1

Thank you everyone. It is useful to know what scripture passages are reasoned from, the fact that is it human reasoning not explicitly Biblical, and that it is unconscious Hellenization. I am better prepared now both to defend and to deny the statement ... and know that exploring the logicians such as J.C.Beall's Amazon.com: The Contradictory Christ (Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology): 9780198852360: Beall, Jc: Books and Amazon.com: Divine Contradiction (Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology): 9780192845436: Beall, Prof Jc: Books, Jayant Burde's Buddhist Logic and Quantum Dilemma: Jayant Burde: 9788120835528: Amazon.com: Books. Hopefully, I will find some Asian theologians that will be useful. Given we've had a century of quantum mechanics, I'm surprised no conservative physicist has addressed the matter.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297111#Comment_1297111

MJ: There are couple of ways to address this:

First....

The implicit assumption behind your question seems to be that God has to express all of His character in the Bible. Otherwise, you won't be looking for a Bible verse to back up that claim being made by the author. I am not sure that this is a correct assumption.

Let's say that, from the Bible, we know that A implies B and nothing else. Let's also say that, from the Bible, we know that B implies C and nothing else. Then can we not infer that A implies C? God doesn't have to explicitly state that A implies C because He expects us to use the brains that He has endowed us with to make the connection.

Second...

Let's first define contradiction. So here is my attempt: If we make 2 statements and both statements cannot be true at the same time, then one is contradicting the other.

Statement "A": None of the students in my class cheat on their assignments.

Statement "B": Some cheat on their assignments.

The above 2 statements contradict each other. In other words, one of my statements is a lie. That is why when we say that someone is contradicting themselves, we say that the person is going back on what he/she said earlier.

This is the angle that most of the people who have responded to you have taken. They have given you examples of a God who cannot lie and, therefore, cannot contradict Himself.

Now, we can link points #1 and #2 together. If God cannot lie, then God cannot contradict Himself because for a contradiction to exist, one of the statements has to be a lie. Thus, He doesn't have to explicitly state that He doesn't contradict Himself; it is enough if He says in the Bible that He cannot lie.

I hope I made sense.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297207#Comment_1297207

I had written the above in Word and it looked nicely formatted, but when it got posted all the formatting has been removed. I tried editing and posting and still the formatting has been lost. What am I to do to maintain formatting?

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297208#Comment_1297208

I had written the above in Word and it looked nicely formatted, but when it got posted all the formatting has been removed. I tried editing and posting and still the formatting has been lost. What am I to do to maintain formatting?

When you want to paste from Word, use this icon. It will maintain the formatting.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297210#Comment_1297210

There are couple of ways to address this:

The implicit assumption behind your question seems to be that God has to express all of His character in the Bible. Otherwise, you won't be looking for a Bible verse to back up that claim being made by the author. I am not sure that this is a correct assumption.

Let's first define contradiction. So here is my attempt: If we make 2 statements and both statements cannot be true at the same time, then one is contradicting the other.

Statement A: None of the students in my class cheat on their assignments.

Statement B: Some may in fact cheat on their assignments.

This is the angle that most of the people who have responded to you have taken. They have given you examples of a God who cannot lie and, therefore, cannot contradict Himself.

Now, we can link points #1 and #2 together. If God cannot lie, then God cannot contradict Himself because for a contradiction to exist, one of the statements has to be a lie. Thus, God doesn't have to explicitly state that He doesn't contradict Himself; it is enough if He says in the Bible that He cannot lie.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297210#Comment_1297210

1Cor10 31">
I had written the above in Word and it looked nicely formatted, but when it got posted all the formatting has been removed. I tried editing and posting and still the formatting has been lost. What am I to do to maintain formatting?

When you want to paste from Word, use this icon. It will maintain the formatting.

Thank you Rosie. That was super helpful.

Logos maintained the formatting not 100% (it didn't maintain the numbering, 1., 2.), but close to 100% and that's good enough.

Thank you.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297046#Comment_1297046

Think of a photon being both a particle and a wave or God being both immanent and transcendent,i.e. God is both immanent and not immanent (a contradiction) and God is both transcendent and not transcendent (a contradiction)

I do not have the book you mentioned at the beginning, but is this really the sense that the author meant? Or does he mean that God's revelations do not contradict themselves? For some reason, Reasoning with Catholics Through the Scriptures does not seem like the kind of book that is meditating on the ontological attributes of God.

But, in any case, I think this you are using an unusual definition of contradiction. The law of non-contradiction generally states that something cannot be both B and not B simultaneously and in the same sense. For the dual nature of light to be a contradiction, we would have to demonstrate that wave is equivalent to not being a particle and that we are using wave and particle in the same sense. It would be very hard to show that being a wave is equivalent to not being a particle since the idea is that all particles have particle-wave duality; light is just the most convenient way to detect it. So, being a wave is not the opposite of being a particle but an entailment of being a particle.

Similarly, your example of immanence and transcendence assumes that immanence could be reasonably defined as "not transcendence" and that God is transcendent in the same sense that He is immanent. Those may be true, but I do not think they are self-evidently so. It probably goes beyond forum bounds to discuss the relationship between the two ideas and to biblically define transcendence and immanence. Deciding if a passage teaches that God does not contradict Himself depends on a common understanding of what contradict means.

I think it would be very surprising to have a text that explicitly teaches the law of non-contradiction. It seems like it was basically assumed in both the Jewish and Greek backgrounds of the New Testament. The fact that it was the Greek perspective is probably self-evident, but Neusner sees resolving apparent contradictions as a key purpose of the Mishnah.
[quote]

So, to conclude, the mixed grid tells us that the system defends against the threat of contradictory results of classification by showing how classification works to solve problems of contradiction and resolve the challenge of the excluded middle. The affirmative case, we shall now discover, is that classification can always disentangle mixtures and settle issues of connection and subsidiarity. And through that demonstration the Mishnah tediously and repetitively makes its one positive statement throughout. So we turn to the problem of mixtures, the one with which we began our work, and which directs our attention to the end and purpose of the Mishnah: the demonstration that the many are really one, and the one, many.

Jacob Neusner, Judaism as Philosophy: The Method and Message of the Mishnah (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004), 188.

Since everyone in the original audience probably accepted the idea that contradictions implied falsehood, there is no reason for it to be explicitly written. But there are texts imply it. 1 John 1:10 comes to mind: "If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." If logical contradictions are possible, then John's argument does not follow (us saying that we have not sinned and God saying that we have sinned would not make Him a liar because both could be true at the same time and in the same sense).

I know you do not need me to tutor you in Logos, but for the sake of others, I right-clicked 1 John 1:10 to see what kind of tagging might be helpful for finding other relevant texts and found that the NT is tagged with grammaticalConstructions:Protasis. That search led to examples where the New Testament lays out a structure that seems to assume the law of the excluded middle (Matthew 6:14-15, 22-23, 10:13). I did not make it very far in this broad search before right-clicking my original verse again to look for some tagging to suggest a contradiction, and searched for SGNTSyntacticForce:negative INTERSECTS grammaticalConstructions:Protasis, where there would be a negation within a protasis.

This helped me find 1 Corinthians 15:15-16: "We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised." In this case, B is the statement that some of the dead are raised. Claiming both B (with regard to Christ) and ~B (the dead are not raised) would mean the Apostles were misrepresenting God.

1 Corinthians 1:17-19 treats saying both "yes" and "no" at the same time as contrary to the faithfulness of God, and in a lesser sense, maybe Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12 make the same case.

If the Law of Non-Contradiction is assumed and saying both A and not-A is a lie, then it follows that God's true revelation does not have the sense of both A and not-A and that if God claims to have the attribute A then He does not have the attribute not-A. If this is the case, the passages Amodeo and Christian provided complete the argument.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297207#Comment_1297207

The implicit assumption behind your question seems to be that God has to express all of His character in the Bible.

This is an interesting perspective, that I need to play with a bit. My search for specific backing came from the sola/solo scriptura stance of the author, combined with interest in acculturation of Christianity in East Asia as well as an interest in reading Scripture in light of Jewish debate (logic) rather than the Christian Aristotelian overlay. So, I choose issues where contemporary Western logicians, Jewish "logicians", and East/South Asian logicians had all struggle with the issues. These are primarily (1) the law of the excluded middle (non-contradiction). - which quantum logic, paraconsistent logic, and multi-valued logic (may) deny. This led me down an interesting rabbit trail of asking how we update our description of God to acknowledge out growing understanding of the nature of the world. Note that most East/South Asian logics deny the law of the excluded middle - it's very much a western thing. Also consider of J. C. Beall's Divine Contradictions and The Contradictory Christ (2) the assumption of a single implicature in deduction which is called into question by J.C. Beall in his Logical Pluralism. Note this is a scholar who often applies his work in logic to theological topics.

I understand your argument and its validity if one assumes Aristotelian logic, but I fear I fall into the apophatic theology camp if Aristotle becomes part of the canon.

Note that I have requested both the analytical theology and the logic books to be added to Logos.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297218#Comment_1297218

But, in any case, I think this you are using an unusual definition of contradiction.

My primary response is given above. Thank you for taking the time for a detailed response. I'm not convinced by Neusner, The Halakhic Mind by Joseph B. Soloveitchik IIRC takes a more fuzzy position. For my birthday, I was given The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist Metaphysics and the Catuṣkoṭi by Graham Priest which "translates" East/South Asian logic into non-classical Western logic and opens several "new" avenues to discussing God in the context of logic. I am skeptical of any Christianity or hermeneutics that requires classical western logic in the canon. The examples I chose of particle/wave and immanent/transcendent are not ones I'd go out of my way to defend, they are simply common examples used to explain the impetus for non-classical logics. I appreciate your effort in using Logos to research the issue - it's a method that had not occurred to me.

Christopher Randall

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297232#Comment_1297232

MJ, So your question is not for a Bible verse to support the law of non-contradicting, but the logic behind it. Since the logic being used to come to the conclusion is "Aristotle," it then requires a verse that specifically says "God does not contradict himself." The problem with this is that the Bible is only what God has revealed and not his entirety.

The thing I'm wondering is how does truth become known without a form of logic? For example, Paul in Galatians says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." This has a logic problem that is influenced by or similar to Greek thought that is being used today. You cannot have 1 statement that contradicts a previous statement, otherwise it would be false. You cannot have something contrary to the truth and it be okay.

Now your argument about transcendent/imminent could be seen as paradoxical truths. In other words, it is a both/and instead of an either/or. They are truths that complement instead of contradict. God is both fully transcendent and imminent. Or how about DAL's statement on David. God is both fully just and gracious/loving. It is within His will to do either and either is acceptable and non-contradictory.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297232#Comment_1297232

1Cor10 31">The implicit assumption behind your question seems to be that God has to express all of His character in the Bible.

This is an interesting perspective, that I need to play with a bit. My search for specific backing came from the sola/solo scriptura stance of the author, combined with interest in acculturation of Christianity in East Asia as well as an interest in reading Scripture in light of Jewish debate (logic) rather than the Christian Aristotelian overlay. So, I choose issues where contemporary Western logicians, Jewish "logicians", and East/South Asian logicians had all struggle with the issues. These are primarily (1) the law of the excluded middle (non-contradiction). - which quantum logic, paraconsistent logic, and multi-valued logic (may) deny. This led me down an interesting rabbit trail of asking how we update our description of God to acknowledge out growing understanding of the nature of the world. Note that most East/South Asian logics deny the law of the excluded middle - it's very much a western thing. Also consider of J. C. Beall's Divine Contradictions and The Contradictory Christ (2) the assumption of a single implicature in deduction which is called into question by J.C. Beall in his Logical Pluralism. Note this is a scholar who often applies his work in logic to theological topics.

I understand your argument and its validity if one assumes Aristotelian logic, but I fear I fall into the apophatic theology camp if Aristotle becomes part of the canon.

Note that I have requested both the analytical theology and the logic books to be added to Logos.

The number of words/phrases that I don't know in the above para or two is staggering. This is clearly above my pay grade and I need to step aside.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297258#Comment_1297258

Yes, I acknowledge that we are on shaky ground re: the guidelines.

question is not for a Bible verse to support the law of non-contradicting

My question is what are the grounds for assigning the quality of non-contradiction to God. One of my favorite verses is Isaiah 55:8 because I think it keeps humanity humble. Or put another way, I grew up in an era when "your God is too small" was a common complaint. It led to a surge in interest in Eastern thought (Alan Watts, Thomas Merton, William Johnston) and the initiation of the Classics of Western Spirituality series. The result is that by age 20, I was prepped to have a gut reaction against constraints on God that could be reduced to western suppositions.

how does truth become known without a form of logic?

First, it depends upon how far you wish to stretch the definition of logic vs. other forms of rational thought. The Bible shows us that truth can be conveyed by narrative, Judaism shows reasoning primarily in the form of debate and text analysis, usually referred to as rules of halakhic or dialectic reasoning - with a very limited logic toolset. Yes, I am aware of the work of Avi Sion in constructing a more formal Jewish logic; unfortunately, his mutilation of South Asian logic leaves me unwilling to trust him even on his home turf. Most of the reasoning used in the workplace is based on informal logic patterns or fallacy recognition. Unfortunately, works like Analysis and Argumentation in Rabbinic Judaism (Studies in Judaism): Neusner, Jacob: 9780761825272: Amazon.com: Books are not in Logos.

You cannot have something contrary to the truth and it be okay.

What you don't understand is that half the civilized world (that using Hindu or Buddhist influenced logic) has allowed contradictions for millennia without problems; remember they came up with the concept of zero. It is the Greek-Arab influenced logics that have forbidden it - and they have been forced to adopt logics without the contraint (quantum logic, paraconsistent logic) in order to handle real-life situations.

I could rephrase my gut reaction as "why should I accept the law of non-contradiction being applied to God when (a) I know it cannot be applied consistently in His creation and (b) I cannot find Biblical proof?" OR more broadly, must all theology be apophactic to be consistently true?

But seriously, when I posted I was genuinely simply asking for a coherent sola scriptura perspective not a discussion on dialethesism. I assumed that for evangelicals titles such as Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought | Logos Bible Software would have discussed the issue. They're in my library ... I guess I should read them.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297262#Comment_1297262

For anyone actually interested in exploring the limits of language and logic, which for most of us is God, this is an excellent book for which I have put in a request. Please use the table of contents rather than the blurb to see if it is of interest to you. Vote for it at Beyond the Limits of Thought 2nd ed. Edition by Graham Priest | Logos

Beyond the Limits of Thought 2nd ed. Edition by Graham Priest

Amazon.com: Beyond the Limits of Thought: 9780199244218: Priest, Graham: Books

This volume has sections directly related to theology such as:

Cusanus on God
Aquinas' cosmological argument
Anselm's cosmological argument
The inconceivability of God ...

And much of what does not explicitly reference God is essential for theology.

Amazon blurb: [quote]This second and extended edition of Priest's classic includes new chapters on Heidegger and Nagarjuna, as well as reflections on reactions to the first edition. Praise for previous edition: "a splendid tour de force, one which should be read by every philosopher..."--Philosophical Quarterly "[H]ighly entertaining and provocative...an engaging and instructive tour through some of the most perplexing features of our own conceptual finitude..."--TLS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297261#Comment_1297261

The number of words/phrases that I don't know in the above para or two is staggering. This is clearly above my pay grade and I need to step aside.

I apologize. You are probably feeling much as I feel when my nephew's son talks about interesting cases; his business is roadside repair of diesel engines. I forget to watch my vocabulary when speaking of logics.

A translation out of logicese:

What caused concern for me was that a sola scriptura person was putting forth an attribute that depended on Western Aristotelian logic; the implication does not hold in the logic of South Asia. So, I looked at Western logic, Eastern logic, and Jewish Talmudic thought and saw two principles that were causing problems:

The law of non-contradiction (also known as law of the excluded middle) which is denied in some Western logics (quantum logic, paraconsistent logic, etc.)
The law of a singular result in deduction which is denied by pluralism, etc.

I acknowledge that if I confine myself to Aristotelian logic, your argument is valid.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297275#Comment_1297275

Knee jerk reaction, without having given this question the thought it deserves, is that at least when it comes to immanence, the issue for me here is me.

Immanence depends on my ability to understand/comprehend/grasp God. It depends upon the extent to which God chooses to reveal himself as well. But if man kind's collective IQ went up by I dunno, 100 or 1000 points or so, what more might we grasp from what's already been revealed? Unless immanence is arguing that all people across time, IQ, education, and biblical education levels (and mental health statuses too) all have the same ability to fully grasp God.

Since immanence depends on my ability to understand what's been revealed, perhaps a more intelligent me would find everything graspable. The issue perhaps at that point isn't so much a contradiction in the nature of God, but an inherent limitation that exists to wildly varying degrees within the fallen nature of the human race. What's graspable by you, and what's graspable by my 3 year old non-verbal cousin with autism, and Prader-Willi will never be the same. He may never develop the language skills prerequisite for this discussion.

I was reading an article about linguistics the other day, that made the case that humans are actually getting dumber as time progresses. EG you'd expect ancient languages to be simple and crude Something like "uggg hungry, need eat". But what they were finding is ancient languages are far more complex than what we see today. English has a handful of verb modes (moods? tenses?), and Sanskrit for instances has 500. By comparison, from the perspective of an ancient speaking and writing in Sanskrit, modern English is basically "ugg hungry, need eat".

Maybe followers of God from five thousand years ago with stronger language(s) could have more easily grasp and articulated complicated things like the Trinity without stepping into error.

I don't know if I can make the case that God never contradicts himself. But generally where I perceive contradiction the failure lies in my perception.

This isn't the same as saying this verse proves God doesn't contradict himself or that God couldn't contradict himself, just that I don't think he's done so given the examples provided. Nor can I think of a satisfying example where he does. This may be apophatic. But it's the best I've got this morning before coffee .

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297278#Comment_1297278

Also, I can't think of a bible verse that says a human can know everything about God. There are things he chooses to reveal about himself. I think it's safe to posit that there are things God chose not to reveal about himself. So I doubt the Bible would declare God as fully Immanent to humans in our current state. Maybe in our glorified bodies in eternity we will have a better chance at fully grasping God.

Other definitions of Immanence refer to his physical nearness to us here in this point of time, and geography.

I assume you have been using the former definition rather than the latter?

Yasmin Stephen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297262#Comment_1297262

I assumed that for evangelicals titles such as Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought | Logos Bible Software OR Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought | Logos Bible Software would have discussed the issue. They're in my library ... I guess I should read them.

MJ., both of these titles are the same book - did you mean to link two different books?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297275#Comment_1297275

1Cor10 31">The number of words/phrases that I don't know in the above para or two is staggering. This is clearly above my pay grade and I need to step aside.

I apologize. You are probably feeling much as I feel when my nephew's son talks about interesting cases; his business is roadside repair of diesel engines. I forget to watch my vocabulary when speaking of logics.

A translation out of logicese:

What caused concern for me was that a sola scriptura person was putting forth an attribute that depended on Western Aristotelian logic; the implication does not hold in the logic of South Asia. So, I looked at Western logic, Eastern logic, and Jewish Talmudic thought and saw two principles that were causing problems:

The law of non-contradiction (also known as law of the excluded middle) which is denied in some Western logics (quantum logic, paraconsistent logic, etc.)

The law of a singular result in deduction which is denied by pluralism, etc.

I acknowledge that if I confine myself to Aristotelian logic, your argument is valid.

Thanks for trying to explain. I did Engineering in my undergrad and there were no social science classes that were required for us to take. It was science and nothing else including last two years of high school. So I haven’t been exposed to any of the stuff you talk about.

But I think I can still make one point. To do that, let’s start with a fact: God is the creator of all truths (Aquinas and Calvin have stated the same in their own words). All truths, therefore, by definition, have been set in eternity past. Truths always exist and, by definition, do not change since the beginning of time. All we do as human beings is discover truths set in eternity past by God. Our perception of truth might change (earth is flat to earth being a ball), but truths never change.

The truth that you are trying to discover in an attribute of God – whether God can contradict Himself or not. The truths set by God are INDEPENDENT of the logic you use (Aristotelian, Asian, Jewish…) to arrive at the truths. Why? Because all truths are set in eternity past. The logic is just a mechanism or a tool by which you arrive at the knowledge of the truth. Therefore, the type of logic cannot determine the truth, which is set by God (sorry to have to repeat this truth again!). Thus, I don’t see the need to examine what logic is used to arrive at the truths.

Perhaps I am missing the whole point of your argument.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297306#Comment_1297306

It was science and nothing else

Ah, I should have worded it in terms of mathematical logics rather than philosophical logics ...but think of it as the British using the plural "maths" rather than the American singlular "math". The British are more accurate. In the same way it is logics not logic.

The truths set by God are INDEPENDENT of the logic you use (Aristotelian, Asian, Jewish…) to arrive at the truths.

I agree. However, the concept "eternity past" rather than "eternal now" is new to me. I think I understand.

Thus, I don’t see the need to examine what logic is used to arrive at the truths.

Yes and no -- I think that when one is relying on a restricted logic to restrict God's freedom, one needs to question the logic. Aristotle knew he was simplifying to make his logic deal with only true and false. He recognized that in the real world there was also indeterminate - I think he used the example of a ship arriving tomorrow.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297294#Comment_1297294

did you mean to link two different books?

No, I meant only one link. sorry. I'll correct the post.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297279#Comment_1297279

Immanence depends on my ability to understand/comprehend/grasp God. It depends upon the extent to which God chooses to reveal himself as well. But if man kind's collective IQ went up by I dunno, 100 or 1000 points or so, what more might we grasp from what's already been revealed? Unless immanence is arguing that all people across time, IQ, education, and biblical education levels (and mental health statuses too) all have the same ability to fully grasp God.

I didn’t know anything about immanence before today, so I went and read some. Your definition seems reasonable. Given your definition of immanence, I agree with you. The truth is the truth set by God in eternity past. We are all trying to grasp the truth. We can write the following:

Perception of truth = True truth + Error.

So each person’s error will be different as you say. This makes immense sense. The more knowledgeable you are, the lower the error.

Since immanence depends on my ability to understand what's been revealed, perhaps a more intelligent me would find everything graspable. The issue perhaps at that point isn't so much a contradiction in the nature of God, but an inherent limitation that exists to wildly varying degrees within the fallen nature of the human race. What's graspable by you, and what's graspable by my 3 year old non-verbal cousin with autism, and Prader-Willi will never be the same.

Once again, I agree. Truths, by definition, cannot contradict each other. Thus, when we are faced with a contradiction, we have to go back and examine our Perception of truth. It must be the case that some of the truths that we perceive to be truths are in fact falsehoods.

He may never develop the language skills prerequisite for this discussion.

I was reading an article about linguistics the other day, that made the case that humans are actually getting dumber as time progresses. EG you'd expect ancient languages to be simple and crude Something like "uggg hungry, need eat". But what they were finding is ancient languages are far more complex than what we see today. English has a handful of verb modes (moods? tenses?), and Sanskrit for instances has 500. By comparison, from the perspective of an ancient speaking and writing in Sanskrit, modern English is basically "ugg hungry, need eat".

Maybe followers of God from five thousand years ago with stronger language(s) could have more easily grasp and articulated complicated things like the Trinity without stepping into error.

Here, I disagree. The understanding of the truth is different from the communication of the truth. The understanding happens with our minds, so the language we use to communicate with each other should have no bearing on our understanding of the truths. I can understand the concept of Trinity, but without the right language I may not be able to communicate my understanding.

generally where I perceive contradiction the failure lies in my perception.

I totally agree. Truths can never contradict each other and, since God is the creator of all truths, any contradiction is a failure of our perception of truths.

Also, I can't think of a bible verse that says a human can know everything about God. There are things he chooses to reveal about himself. I think it's safe to posit that there are things God chose not to reveal about himself.

I thin there is nuance here. A God whose goal is to have a relationship with us has no incentive to hide any aspect of His character that will lead to a strong, more intimate relationship with Him.

Imagine going on a serious date to learn more about the person but the date refuses to reveal where he/she is working. You’re going to cut the date short and be on your way. If you are both serious, you want to reveal all the information to each other so that the relationship grows. Similarly, God is going to reveal Himself completely in order to help us grow into our relationship with Him. Are there attributes that we don’t need to know about? Possibly. But I don’t need to worry about this. Bcos God will reveal all of the attributes we need to learn about in order to have a relationship with Him.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297317#Comment_1297317

I thin there is nuance here. A God whose goal is to have a relationship with us has no incentive to hide any aspect of His character that will lead to a strong, more intimate relationship with Him.

Imagine going on a serious date to learn more about the person but the date refuses to reveal where he/she is working. You’re going to cut the date short and be on your way. If you are both serious, you want to reveal all the information to each other so that the relationship grows. Similarly, God is going to reveal Himself completely in order to help us grow into our relationship with Him. Are there attributes that we don’t need to know about? Possibly. But I don’t need to worry about this. Bcos God will reveal all of the attributes we need to learn about in order to have a relationship with Him.

I don't disagree. at the risk of being sent to christiandiscourse.com My thinking is more along the lines of God is so far above us, and we are so tiny that perhaps by his nature there are things we especially in our fallen state, couldn't begin to understand.

Sort of like a color blind person seeing color for the first time, or a child born deaf hearing her mother's voice for the first time.

I googled the former and copied the first two links I found. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZcK-Eima-w and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQExSUZHjts

They seem almost overwhelmed by the rightness of things when they can truly see for the first time.

When we are in our glorified bodies and can truly see God; I think our reaction will be even more powerful. Not because God doesn't want to us to know him, but because as Paul says now we see as through a mirror darkly. Even the best of us. Until one day when we see stand in his presence and see him face to face. That's going to be a good day.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297318#Comment_1297318

In philosophy class one of my professors read the story of the two dimensional people that encounter and try and describe a three dimensional object. Lacking awareness of a third dimension their ability to describe it could never approach adequate. To them a ball was that time a thing appeared grew larger, and receded. Their experience naturally limited to two dimensions meant they couldn't fully grasp what it was they were encountering.

A girl I knew posited that God as described in scripture would require as many as 13 dimensions. I don't remember the details. I probably snorted and laughed when she told me. But for this conversation whether that's explicitly true or not, there is implicit truth here. For God to be God he's going to be more complicated than us and our ability to understand.

We seem to intuitively know this, and it's not an uncommon theme in our worship.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297279#Comment_1297279

Also, I can't think of a bible verse that says a human can know everything about God. There are things he chooses to reveal about himself. I think it's safe to posit that there are things God chose not to reveal about himself.

There is a reason I am a fan of apophatic theology - I believe that humans are more prone to believing that they know more than they do rather than the reverse.

However, as this thread is getting off track, I need to reiterate that this thread is not intended to be about whether God can or cannot contradict Himself. My question was based on a sola scriptura author simply asserting God could not contradict Himself. It seemed to me to be an assertion that required Scriptural proof. The examples of wave-particle and immanent-transcendent were simply common examples used to explain the need for different logics that would not draw the conclusion God cannot contradict Himself from the passages offered. As for why I use "logics", just as the Brits use "maths" because there are many types - arithmetic, geometry, algebra, linear algebra ... so I use "logics" because there are many types. And just as you need to use the right "math" to solve a math problem, one needs to use the right "logic" to solve a logic problem. So, this thread boils down to

Sola scriptura author makes assertion without evidence
I can find no sola scriptura evidence for the assertion
I ask for such evidence on the forums where many share the sola scriptura position
Some evidence is proffered
I reject the evidence because it is Biblical text + Aristotelian logic rather than universal logic or reasoning
(thread goes off track in a productive way because I veer off into technical logic and great books that everyone should love as much as I)

All of which has circled around to my trying again to understand the reason for presuppositional apologetics and its relationship to the acculturation of the expression of Christian doctrine. This is hardly where I expect the simple question to take me.

Bonus points for reading this blog The Paradoxes of God and Quantum Physics – Science with Dr. Doug (sciencewithdrdoug.com) Trust me, it is not technical, but rather easy reading to a rather uncommon conclusion.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297320#Comment_1297320

Also, I can't think of a bible verse that says a human can know everything about God. There are things he chooses to reveal about himself. I think it's safe to posit that there are things God chose not to reveal about himself.

There is a reason I am a fan of apophatic theology - I believe that humans are more prone to believing that they know more than they do rather than the reverse.

However, as this thread is getting off track, I need to reiterate that this thread is not intended to be about whether God can or cannot contradict Himself. My question was based on a sola scriptura author simply asserting God could not contradict Himself. It seemed to me to be an assertion that required Scriptural proof. The examples of wave-particle and immanent-transcendent were simply common examples used to explain the need for different logics that would not draw the conclusion God cannot contradict Himself from the passages offered. As for why I use "logics", just as the Brits use "maths" because there are many types - arithmetic, geometry, algebra, linear algebra ... so I use "logics" because there are many types. And just as you need to use the right "math" to solve a math problem, one needs to use the right "logic" to solve a logic problem. So, this thread boils down to

Sola scriptura author makes assertion without evidence

I can find no sola scriptura evidence for the assertion

I ask for such evidence on the forums where many share the sola scriptura position

Some evidence is proffered

I reject the evidence because it is Biblical text + Aristotelian logic rather than universal logic or reasoning

(thread goes off track in a productive way because I veer off into technical logic and great books that everyone should love as much as I)

All of which has circled around to my trying again to understand the reason for presuppositional apologetics and its relationship to the acculturation of the expression of Christian doctrine. This is hardly where I expect the simple question to take me.

I keep re-writing this. I understand what you're saying about probable bias based on a worldview shaped by western education.

However, IF the answer arrived at is still the correct one (Eg 1+1=2) then whether we reasoned our way there in a western manner or an eastern one, we still arrived at the correct answer.

I guess where my understanding of your thinking breaks down is that I have never experienced two contradictory truths. If truth contradicts truth, one is truth and one isn't. OR else it is my understanding that is the point of failure. Like with light as a wave or particle. I have a story about a rhetoric of physics class taught by a Princeton grad that covered this - by the end my professor said "clever, I can't decide if you're right or wrong. I think you're probably right, but if you're right... You've given me a headache". I in a more verbose way over the course of ten pages simply said "maybe it's both and we just don't understand all the variables yet".

1+1 is always 2 ... In base 10; but 1+1 is 10 in base-2 (iirc).

But at that point, the difference is broad enough that the truths aren't contradictory (when properly communicated).

The question (can two contradictory truths still be true) almost seems to come from a post modern interpretation of truth.

IF so, perhaps that's a bias that should be addressed also.

I think the original author should have said something along the lines of God doesn't generally contradict himself. I don't like to use can't in the same sentence as God. God can do whatever he wants to.

IF two truths can't be contradictory and both still be true, God as the source of truth can't be contradictory either. IF we think they are, we just don't yet have a full grasp all the variables. Maybe one truth is in Base 10, and the other Base 2.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297322#Comment_1297322

Abondservant, I get your point. You have made a solid case; unfortunately, it is based on an assumption I am not willing to concede "two truths can't be contradictory." Because many theologians in the Catholic tradition use "both-and" logic to get around the issue, and Christian theologians of many ilks use paradox to get around the problem, I asked gemini "In theology what is the difference between both-and logic, paradox, and dialetheism logic". The latter term is a logic explored by Graham Priest, an analytic theologian.

The response:[quote]

In theology, all three terms - both-and logic, paradox, and dialetheism - grapple with concepts that seem contradictory on the surface but may hold some truth in a religious context. Here's a breakdown of the differences:

Paradox:

Most common: A statement or situation that seems to present two opposing truths that can't coexist logically. (e.g., "God is all-powerful, yet allows suffering.")
Focus: Highlighting the seemingly contradictory nature of theological concepts.
Resolution: May not offer a definitive solution, but emphasizes the mystery or complexity of God's nature.
Example: The paradox of free will vs. divine providence. Can humans have free will if God knows everything beforehand?

Both-and Logic:

Informal approach: Acknowledges both seemingly contradictory ideas without necessarily resolving the tension.
Focus: Holding onto the richness and complexity of theological concepts even if they seem logically opposed.
Resolution: Embraces the mystery or suggests a deeper truth that encompasses both ideas.
Example: God is both merciful and just. These qualities may seem to oppose each other in some situations, but both are seen as aspects of God's nature.

Dialetheism:

Formal approach: A specific type of logic that allows for contradictions to be true simultaneously.
Focus: Developing a logical framework that accommodates seemingly contradictory statements about God.
Resolution: Accepts the contradictory statements as true within a specific framework.
Example: God is both infinite and personal. These might seem logically incompatible (how can something infinite be personal?), but dialetheism allows for holding both truths.

Here's a table summarizing the key points:

Feature	Paradox	Both-and Logic	Dialetheism
Formality	Informal	Informal	Formal
Focus	Highlighting contradiction	Holding complexity	Logical framework for contradictions
Resolution	Mystery or open question	Embraces the mystery	Contradictions are true (within a framework)
Example (Theology)	God is all-powerful yet allows suffering	God is merciful and just	God is infinite and personal

I then asked "Beyond the 3 approaches I mentioned, what other methods do theologians use to handle contradictory truths."

[quote]

Theologians have a rich toolbox for handling contradictory truths besides both-and logic, paradox, and dialetheism. Here are some other methods:

Distinction: This approach clarifies the meaning of seemingly contradictory terms. For example, God's wrath and love might seem opposed, but theologians might distinguish between righteous anger and destructive rage.
Priority: Some truths might be seen as more fundamental than others. For instance, God's love might be seen as the core principle, with God's wrath as a consequence of human actions.
Mystery: Theologians might acknowledge the limitations of human understanding. Some contradictions might simply be beyond our full comprehension and accepted as mysteries of faith.
Historical Context: Understanding the historical context of religious texts can help clarify seemingly contradictory passages. Interpretations may have evolved over time.
Analogy: Using comparisons to everyday experiences can help shed light on complex theological concepts.
Negative Theology: This approach emphasizes what God is not, rather than what God is. By negating limitations, it avoids contradictions about God's nature.
Mystical Experience: Some traditions emphasize personal experiences of the divine that transcend logic and may encompass seeming contradictions.

The choice of method depends on the specific theological tradition, the nature of the contradiction, and the theologian's own perspective. It's important to note that not all theologians agree on how to handle these issues, and there can be lively debate within and between traditions.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297331#Comment_1297331

I think that I am ok with contradictions in the natural world even. A hippo for instance is the most dangerous animal in africa, and yet is still a prey animal. I’m glad that there are systems of logic to handle such things. But from my sola scriptura framework I struggle to see any contradictions about God within scripture itself. Maybe that’s the difference; if I were to expand that to allow in other voices perhaps there would be contradictions. But taking scripture alone as my reference point; I’m unaware of any at this point.

that may be the missing link. My frame of reference would make all other writings outside the canon subordinate to the canon. At that point for me there would be no tension; if in doubt the Bible wins.

i heard something about new forum software. I’m looking forward to that because posting from my iphone is a painful exercise.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297334#Comment_1297334

I struggle to see any contradictions about God within scripture itself.

Which tells me you have internalized methods to resolve them. An example of such comes from an unassailable source - a Logos blog: Are There Contradictions in the Bible? An Apologist's Answer (logos.com)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297337#Comment_1297337

I struggle to see any contradictions about God within scripture itself.

Which tells me you have internalized methods to resolve them. An example of such comes from an unassailable source - a Logos blog: Are There Contradictions in the Bible? An Apologist's Answer (logos.com)

Right near the start of the article there is a William Arndt quote that I like:

The difficulties which are pointed to in the Bible by its friends and its foes are of many kinds. The great majority of them are entirely of the person’s own making and will vanish when prayerfully studied.

I'd agree with that. Any time I have encountered something I perceive to be a contradiction, it can be resolved through greater study and a deeper understanding.

Which is an opinion shared by the author of the article:

"Conclusion
The Bible contains passages that readers may find difficult to understand. Those passages may even seem contradictory. However, we must keep in mind that the Bible is inerrant (void of error).
If we see contradictions, it is due to our lack of understanding, and we must struggle with the text until arriving at the correct interpretation. Using the rules of observation and interpretation will help us to resolve any perceived contradictions we may encounter when reading the Scriptures."

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297334#Comment_1297334

I think that I am ok with contradictions in the natural world even. A hippo for instance is the most dangerous animal in africa, and yet is still a prey animal.

To make this a contradiction, you would need to demonstrate that being dangerous is logically equivalent to not being prey. Things like this are surprising but not really contradictions.

Pastor Dave Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297046#Comment_1297046

none of those come close

If Christian's reference to 2 Tim 2:13 - "He cannot deny Himself" and James 1:17 - "with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" are inadequate. I don't believe I can supply anything more convincing.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297374#Comment_1297374

If God has revealed Himself using contradictory or paradoxical language, then neither of the passages you suggest even address the issue of contradiction. Contradiction does not imply change in any setting; Not denying Himself means revealing Himself as He is, with or without contradictions. Here is a source that gets around the issue of contradiction by calling them paradoxes Contradiction vs. Paradox | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org. This is a reasonable approach but as many paradoxes are based on contradiction, it tames the issue rather than solves it. Catholics tend to tame it by referring to "both-and" logic. The Orthodox tend to tame it either by referring to "mystery" or "apophatic theology". Yes, not all paradoxes are contradictions, I'm speaking only of those that are. It appears that I and one other forumite are unusual in our ruthlessness in separating text from interpretation. Maybe that is why I flunked out as an evangelization subject twice - once because the teacher of my evangelizer wouldn't believe the answers she reported and once because it was taking too long.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297399#Comment_1297399

Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, tend to be uncomfortable with paradox/contradiction, and they will go to great lengths to smooth over any apparent contradictions in Scripture. See, for example., R.A. Torrey's Difficulties in the Bible: Alleged Errors and Contradictions, and sites like these:

The thing is, the concept of biblical "inerrancy" is very important to them, and the notion of a "contradiction" feels like an "error" to them, so they can't allow it. If something is true in one place in Scripture, it can't be false somewhere else. Or the opposite can't be true elsewhere.

I am not in the "inerrancy" camp myself, but perhaps if you included the word "inerrancy" in your searches, you would find other verses that such people use to support the statement "God does not contradict himself". But you're not a good candidate for ever being convinced of the statement, so any verses they bring forth will not be adequate for you. I still contend you are on a wild goose chase and will not find what you are looking for, because every verse that has been propose so far, you've easily dismissed, and you will do so for any others. Either you knew this already and are just trying to have a go at the people who believe this, or you are honest in wanting to have people convince you of something but you're not convinceable. I think you know what you believe on this already.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297400#Comment_1297400

I still contend you are on a wild goose chase and will not find what you are looking for, because every verse that has been propose so far, you've easily dismissed, and you will do so for any others. Either you knew this already and are just trying to have a go at the people who believe this, or you are honest in wanting to have people convince you of something but you're not convinceable. I think you know what you believe on this already.

There is another possibility - the one that is actually true. I am working on a project to correct misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine in a particular book. This project does not include any arguments for or against any of the three positions - the author's, the misrepresented Catholic's, or the actual Catholic's. Having been raised in a Protestant tradition heavily influenced by Hume, and firmly embracing Grice's rules, when the author made the assertion, I assumed he had a logically sound, Biblical reason for making that statement. I fully expected someone to shoot back a reference that addressed the issue; I did not know it was a wild goose chase. What I personally believe is not relevant to my project - as a Catholic, I am free to believe any of a number of expressions of the Gospel. My project is to judge the text against Catholic doctrine not against my West Coast American, Dominican influenced, Eastern looking Catholicism. Yes, I have dismissed the verses offered but strictly on logical grounds, not theological grounds. And I have attempted to keep my responses logical rather than theological to the point of offering links to web articles on both sides of the question to avoid the appearance of taking sides.

You may have provided me with the real reason for the author's statement, however:

notion of a "contradiction" feels like an "error" to them

. When considering doctrine, "feels like" doesn't cut it. The head of the philosophy department in my undergraduate years informed me when I first met him, that he rarely accepted girls because we said, "I feel" rather than "I think."

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1297403#Comment_1297403

In terms of simple syllogism, I thought this:

God’s nature is consistent and unchanging.
A consistent being does not contradict itself.
Therefore, God does not contradict Himself.

If we consider the matter based on this syllogism, then what we need is a Scripture for "God’s nature is consistent and unchanging." I think we could find some.

Hegel would find harmony in opposites. To him contradictions were not obstacles, but essential to progress. His triadic thesis, antithesis, and synthesis might lead to some new thing. However, I suspect that in terms of Bible references we will find progressive revelation, we will not find a logical construct whereby "God does not contradict Himself." I suspect that if we were to ask God if He can contradict Himself, He might reach down his finger, almost as if creating Adam, and point to Titus 1:2 "God, that cannot lie."

Hanging out with Hegel for a moment longer, we might ponder Num 23:19: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

A thing may seem to be a contradiction at a point in time, but God has not yet settled all things, but he will. If it seems to be a contradiction, then God or Hegel will fix it up for us in the end. Maybe God will use Hegel.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis! Hegel would perform a cosmic tango of affirmation and negation and voila, non-contradiction from contradiction. No problem.

Aristotle, if he smoked cigars, would be fuming up a cloud.

I recognize that "God does not contradict Himself" isn't reducible to "If B is true, then “not B” is false." That is what we would like, but that is not the question. But if we say "God’s nature is consistent and unchanging" is true, then we have our feet back on the ladder. Can we give that a try?

If B is true, then “not B” is false.
If “not B” is false, then “not not B” must be true.

Aristotle's cigar smoke might clear, momentarily.

Enter Paraconsistent Eastern Logic blooming like a lotus. Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka, performing a lotus dance, would not necessarily find contradictions problematic. He would nod, hold up a finger and intone: "'B is not not B' embodies the Middle Way—a path beyond extremes. B exists, yet its negation (not coexists without conflict."

For Nāgārjuna, reality transcends binary logic, embracing the ineffable. I think he may have discovered what others have stated above. God is ineffable.

Now we have a new logic statement: If ineffable, then not not ineffable. Mr. Madhyamaka from the far East may have solved our problem.

If we turn to Niels Bohr and quantum logic, his eye would twinkle, he would lean forward fascinated, respectful, and suggest that In the quantum realm, particles can exist in superposition—simultaneously B and not B. “B is not not B” mirrors this quantum dance, where truth wavers probabilistically. Niels Bohr would raise his glass, celebrating the indeterminacy of our statement.

Perhaps we would listen to him, or perhaps we would wonder if Carlsberg's brewery beer pipeline was running a little too flush after the 1922 Nobel Prize awards. Logical in some sense, yes. But ineffable twaddle to others.

Now our philosophical symphony of diversity reaches crescendo. Hegel hiccups, dialects, and says “B is not not B” but might be." Aristotle is crystal clear but dead. Nāgārjuna’s meditates on paradox, and Bohr remains uncertain. Perhaps, truth lies not in rigid absolutes but in...well....God?

Cogito, ergo sum. I think by now we might also conclude "Non non cogito, ergo B."