We are saved from WHAT?

[dseusy]

Paidion wrote,
We human beings have been created in God's image, and thus, unlike wood ticks or turtles, we are able to reason, and have the ability to choose freely.

I believe our logic or reason is built upon the quality of the knowledge we have chosen to retain. I also believe we are able to freely choose within the constraints of what we know. We are subjective beings and so our choice is limited. An infant chooses between lying on its back or rolling onto its stomach. A toddler chooses between playing inside or outside. An adult chooses from what knowledge they have gathered and retained. So we reason/dialogue with ourselves/come to understand/discern based on our knowledge. A math expert may have little ability to discern right from wrong. Therefore, our reason as a math expert would differ from the reason of Christ... but Christ and the math expert would get the same and correct answer to the math question because they both have knowledge in that area.

My logic would serve me very little in microbiology because I currently know little about it. I believe the nature of logic and reason is closely related to knowledge.

God is perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16). We are not. We have to grow in it.

“but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.” 2 Peter 3:18

"Talk no more so very proudly; Let no arrogance come from your mouth, For the Lord is the God of knowledge; And by Him actions are weighed.” 1 Samuel 2:3

“Wise people store up knowledge” Proverbs 10:14a

Check out this diagram:
http://mynextbrain.com/blog/wp-content/ ... ningRx.jpg

This demonstrates how the brain may receive and retain knowledge… notice, before it is stored in the “knowledge bank” it passes through logic and reasoning and is processed. Based on this, knowledge isn’t untouched before it is stored- it passes through our current ability to discern.

Paidion wrote,
There is not one logic which God uses, and a different one which man employs. Logic is logic. Do you suppose that God might arrive at a different result of adding two plus two than the result at which man arrives?

If we speak of logic in terms of absolutes, then the only one with logic is God because He is the only one perfect in knowledge. However, since knowledge is accumulated and consists of different subjects we all have different logic which we employ with each new piece of information or opportunity to discern and discuss.

"Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts? For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little." Isaiah 28:9-10

What kind of precepts do we build with?

“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 2 Timothy 3:1-7

These men continue learning (maybe math), but knowledge that counts (pun intended) eludes them. What type of reason or logic do you think they will develop?

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” Romans 1:28

If they had proper logic, or logic trained by the knowledge of God, they would have retained it when they crossed it. However, their current logic and reason filtered out the good stuff and retained the bad. I think we can agree this is illogical… but it made sense to them. So either they had no logic and reason, or their logic and reason was not founded on truth… God’s knowledge.

"For you have trusted in your wickedness; You have said, 'No one sees me'; Your wisdom and your knowledge have warped you; And you have said in your heart, 'I am, and there is no one else besides me.'” Isaiah 47:10

"For My people are foolish, They have not known Me. They are silly children, And they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, But to do good they have no knowledge." Jeremiah 4:22

I think these scriptures reveal that people can have logic/reason/understanding that is very different from God’s. This jives with:

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding” Proverbs 3:5

“The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, But the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness.” Proverbs 15:2

“Teach me good judgment and knowledge, For I believe Your commandments.” Psalm 119:66

“I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, And find out knowledge and discretion. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverse mouth I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom; I am understanding, I have strength.” Proverbs 8:12-14

“For I want you to know what a great conflict I have for you and those in Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Colossians 2:1-3

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” Proverbs 9:10

True understanding/reason/logic is founded in knowledge of the Holy One.

[Paidion]

When I wrote of logic, I was referring to formal logic. That was the reason for my mathematical example.

Knowledge is not tantamount to formal logic. Clearly knowledge is gained in a gradual manner, and for some people it is gained more rapidly than for others.
Formal logic, on the other hand, consists of algorithms which facilitate arriving at a conclusion from a set of premises. Such an algorithm is called an "argument." An argument if either valid or invalid. It doesn't matter who makes the argument, whether a person of low intelligence or a genius, whether a human being or God.

Here is a simple argument known as Modus Ponens (Note: "P" and "Q" symbolize statements which are either true or false):

Premises:
1. If P then Q
2. P

Conclusion:
Therefore Q

Example of a substitution instance:

Premises:
1. If I heat this piece of iron then this piece of iron expands.
2. I heat this piece of iron.

Conclusion:
Therefore this piece of iron expands.

If this argument is valid (and it is), it doesn't matter who makes it. If anyone states the premises but arrives at the contrary conclusion, "Therefore this piece of iron does not expand," his argument is invalid.

The premises do not have to be true in order to have a valid argument. Here is an example of Modus Ponens in which the first premise if false and the conclusion is false. Nevertheless,the argument is valid because it is a substitution instance of modus ponens. I could also affirm that the argument is valid because the conclusion "I will never die" follows from the premises.

1. If I have eaten horse radish, I will never die.
2. I have eaten horse radish.

Conclusion:
Therefore I will never die.

Some arguments APPEAR to be valid at first glance, but actually they are not. Here is an example:

Premise:
For everything, there was a time at which it did not exist.

Conclusion:
Therefore, there was a time at which everything did not exist.

This argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premise, that is, the premise could be true and the conclusion false without contradiction.

[dseusy]

Paidion,

If formal logic is the core focus of discerning both good and evil, why would Adam need to eat the fruit of a tree to obtain this discernment? I acknowledge a formal argument occured which caused Adam to realize his guilt, but knowledge was imparted which enabled him to arrive at a conclusion. Even in formal logic, you have to employ processed knowledge to accept the premises to affirm the conclusion.

Doesn't knowledge have to be tantamount to formal logic since it is the foundation on which formal logic operates?

[jeremiah]

Good morning Dseusy,

I wondered if you would like to continue any back and forth on what you and I consider to be a proper account of "the flesh" in the Sciptures. So to seperate that topic from the 'spirit' of this thread, I started another one responding to your May 31st post. And of course anyone else who might like to add or challenge, please do.

Here's the link.

Grace and peace be with us all.