Using an incomplete Bible to formulate a consistent Gospel of Love

Great Debates
1

JerseyDiamond wrote in another thread:

Kindly forgive the interception, but I was moved to respond to you. :slight_smile:

If you’re awaiting orders, there is one and only one Authority: Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matthew 28:18)

There is no other. Not any man. Not any preacher. Not any book.

Jesus is not given most of the authority, but all of it. He does not share any of it with any other source.

Do you believe that Jesus is alive? I know that, as a Christian, you do. If he is alive, then where do we look for Him and His kingdom? Fortunately, He tells us: “Nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)

Can Jesus be contained within the Bible? No, not according to His beloved disciple: Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

But isn’t this kind of absurd? After all, am I not quoting the Bible to show that the Bible has no authority? (Remember, Jesus has all authority. ALL of it.)

Not it is not absurd. In fact, what would be absurd is to claim that the Bible is an authority and that therefore what it says is true. That would be a logical fallacy called petitio principii or begging the question. I would be presuming my conclusion when I state my premise. I would be saying that the Bible is right because the Bible says that the Bible is right. I have to assume that it’s right before I can say that when it says it’s right, it’s right that it’s right.

:confused:

Now, that’s absurd.

But if we want to be reasonable and form a Biblical deductive system, then we have to assume one of two things about the Bible: either it is complete or it is incomplete.

Sometimes, when we divide things in half, we commit a logical fallacy called bifurcation or false dichotomy. But that’s only the case when there are in fact more options than the two we list. In this case, the Bible indeed is either complete or incomplete. There are no other options with respect to completeness.

Now, as it happens Godel will be helpful to us in this regard. He developed a proof regarding deductive systems that basically concludes that if a system is complete, then it is inconsistent and if a system is consistent, then it is incomplete.

Those are biconditional implications. In other words, they work both ways: a complete system is inconsistent and an inconsistent system is complete; likewise, a consistent system is incomplete and an incomplete system is consistent.

Well, we’ve already determined that the Bible is incomplete. (Remember John 21:25?) Therefore we know that we can derive from it a deductive system that is consistent. And since it does not authorize itself (remember, Jesus has all authority), we can do so without begging the question.

On the other hand, if we were to consider the Bible to be complete, then any deductive system that we form from it would be inconsistent. God does not perfom logical fallacies. He doesn’t make square circles, for example.

Those who hold the Bible to be inerrant and complete HAVE to be inconsistent in their interpretations. That has been proved.

His4ever and others have complained about weird and preposterous interpretations of scripture wherein people are straining to make it fit their own conclusions. But frankly, there are no more rubbery interpretations than those by people who vainly attempt to reconcile obvious contradictions in the Bible.

Be thankful that the Book is incomplete. Be glad that the Bible is not God. Give praise that the scribbles on those sheets of paper are not His Word.

His Word is alive! His Word was with Him in the beginning. His Word became flesh and lived among us. His Word took upon His shoulders the sins of the world and was resurrected to prepare a place for us in His Father’s house.

In fact, the Word IS God. And is not God boundless? How then can He be snuffed out by closing a book? How can He be restrained from reaching into the open heart of a loving man who has never read the book?

Did the priests who were summoned by Emperor Constantine have power over God? Did they share authority with Jesus? Did God eminate from a Roman edict? Was His Word formed in the fourth century? No, no, no, and no.

Our teacher is the Holy Spirit. He guides us into truth. He is God. And His advice and counsel are right and true. He is not something less when he works in us than He was when he worked in the Nicene Council priests. Their prayers were no more holy than our own. They had no more authority than we. They had zero, and we have zero.

But the Holy Spirit is Jesus dwelling in our hearts. Therefore, the Holy Spirit has all authority. The Nicene priests are nothing but bones now. But the Holy Spirit lives on. Every Bible on earth will rot away. The pages will become brittle and fade. But God’s Word — His Holy Spirit — will be as alive in a million years as He is today, and as He was when heaven and earth were created.

He was alive before any words were written and before any man was born. That which is real is that which is eternal. He is the authority because all life comes from Him. He is the source of all goodness.

You listed some Bible verses, just as I have done, to support your claims and opinions. How is it that you can list yours and I can list mine and we end up in a stalemate with one verse butting up against another?

It is because the Bible is incomplete. Or, if you prefer, because it is complete! :wink: And therefore inconsistent.

That’s what makes it possible for Fred Phelps to form a consistent Gospel of Hatred from scripture verses. Others may form a quieter gentler consistent Gospel of Stern Law. Still others may form a consistent Gospel of Love.

But if you insist that the Bible is inerrant, then all you can form is a Gospel of Contradiction.

You ask, “How is it sinful to do what is commanded of us?”

And I ask you, what have you been commanded to do? “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” (John 13:34)

What is as great as love? Is faith? Is hope? You know the answer. There is nothing as great as love. Love is the greatest of all. But since God is also the greatest of all, then God must be Love. And in fact, He is! God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. (1 John 4:16)

If nothing is greater than love; if God is Himself love; if we are commanded to love — then we are sinful when we do not love.

In fact, those who do not love do not even know God: Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)

So, yes, we must do as God commanded — we must love: And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. (2 John 1:6)

You ask, “Is it God that we have to please or man?”

And I ask you, who is pleased by faith in a book that the book cannot have any error? God? Or the men who compiled the book?

Only One has ever lived a life that is pleasing to God: “The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” (John 8:29) No one else can make that claim.

God is not pleased by our trying. Nor is He pleased by our doctrine. What pleases Him is to give His kingdom to others: “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.” (Luke 12:32)

Whoever blocks God’s kingdom from others does not enter God’s kingdom himself: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” (Matthew 23:13-14)

Whoever wastes time chasing down sinners in order to bind them to the law is creating sons of hell: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” (Matthew 23:15)

You speak of false prophets, and I tell you that you will know false prophets because they will belittle God’s commandment, explain it away, or say that something else is equally as great.

They are liars who fret over piddly shit. They sing cacophonous condemnations while souls yearn to hear the melodious love of God.

They pick gnats out the Bible and make them into law. They swallow camels, disregarding justice, mercy, and faithfulness. They weigh men down with heavy burdens of guilt and shame when the burden that Jesus gives us is light: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:29-30)

They thank God that they are not like the adulterers and evil-doers. They believe that because they try hard to obey the law, they are excused from the consequences of the law. And yet, I tell you that whoever obsesses over the law is a slave to the law and will not escape its consequences. Laws are made for hearts that are cold and hard: “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. (Mark 10:5)

Do not disregard what the Bible says, but let the Holy Spirit, Who is Love, guide you in your reading of it.

Do what God commands you to do, which is to love your neighbor as yourself.

Please God by giving His kingdom freely to others without strings and conditions that are not yours to apply.

When in doubt, always err on the side of love, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, gentleness, meekness, and tolerance. Never err on the side of rejection, judgment, strictness, heavy-handedness, pride, and envy.

Never close the door to God’s kingdom. Offer it freely, and leave God Himself to sort out who will enter and who will not. Stop clawing at the specks of dust in people’s eyes. Don’t throw any stones even if others throw them first.

Don’t take upon your own shoulders the sins of the world. That has already been done. Your service is not needed in that regard.

Love. Just do it.

2

Libertarian, I’m not familiar with Godel. Could you elaborate slightly on the idea that incomplete systems are consistent and complete systems are not? Or point me to an explanation of this? It sounds interesting.

3

Sure. Here is his paper, On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems. Here’s a simpler sketch proof with commentary. Here’s a short biography on Kurt Godel with links to further information.

4

Lib -Very good post. It gives me something to think about. I had never considered the paradox of God vs. the “complete” bible (inconsistencies and such). Your post is definately food for thought IMO, good stuff.

However, I do see potential storm clouds, from some of our more “literal” dopers.

5

ALL incomplete systems are consistent?! Even a system that isn’t sound?

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the Bible itself is consistent, does it?

6

sigh

Unless the Bible is powerful enough to prove the properties of multiplication of natural numbers and has a recursive axiom set, Gödel’s theorem doesn’t apply.

It’s not the general statement of “any consistent system is incomplete” that people seem to think it is. It’s a very, very specific statement, which just happens to cover a wide range of mathematical systems.

More importantly, it only talks about consistency and completeness as they relate to the ability of theorems to be proved in a logical system dealing with arithmetic.

As you may have noticed, the Bible has as much to do with arithmetic as it does with clown traditions. Gödel’s theorem just doesn’t apply here.

See my posts towards the bottom of the second page of this thread for a complete discussion of Gödel’s theorem.

7

Thank you, Libertarian.

8

You’re welcome, Cuauhtemoc.

Tracer

Deductive systems. Not systems of every kind.

No. Only the Bible as a deductive system.

Ultress

Thanks for the sigh of condescension, but I was careful to point out that his theorem applied to deductive systems and not systems in general even though I used the shortcut term “system” thereafter, much like I used “he” after mentioning Godel.

“Now, as it happens Godel will be helpful to us in this regard. He developed a proof regarding deductive systems that basically concludes that if a system is complete, then it is inconsistent and if a system is consistent, then it is incomplete.” (Bolding for emphasis)

I haven’t read your “complete discussion” of Godel, but I have read many others, and of course, Godel himself.

His proof holds for any S with recursive axioms. That’s why his paper’s title included “Related Systems” in addition to Peano arithmetic.

And as he wrote in his paper, he fully understood that his Proposition XI (and by implication, its precedent propositions) applied not just to P, but to other systems as well. (See page 198.)

9

Thanks, Meatros.

10

Psst…ultress didn’t write that. I did.

You’re missing the point, though. Gödel’s theorem doesn’t even apply to all deductive systems. For instance, Euclidean geometry is excluded because it doesn’t meet the conditions.

If you want to use Gödel’s theorem, you have to show that the deductive system you’re using meets the conditions laid out in the theorem itself. Note that they all have to do with what can be said about arithmetic in the theory.

If you can show that the Bible lays out a deductive system that meets the requirements, then you’ve got an airtight case. Of course, people can still attack the notion that the Bible lays out that deductive system, but that’s all they can do.

11

btw, it was not my intent to be condescending. If I came across that way, I apologize; I didn’t mean it.

12

That’s okay. And my apologies to both you and Ultress! :slight_smile:

I think that the Bible can be metaarithmetized using already developed schemas by Strongs and others. And then it can be shown that such metaarithmetically expressable statements as “God’s love is a conduit for His goodness” are recursively derivable from axioms like, “God is love” and “God is good”.

But notice that Proposition VI is more general than is necessary for proving the existence of undecidable propositions in P. “To every w-consistent recursive class c of formulae there correspond recursive class-signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg (v Gen r) belongs to Flg(c) (where v is the free variable of r).”

Thus, to my mind, we may include any deductive system that is w-consistent with recursive axioms.

13

Not by any formulation of the theorem that I’ve seen. And even then, you are left with the burden of showing that a set of axioms is [symbol]w[/symbol]-consistent, which may not be a pleasant task.

And note that if Euclidean geometry is [symbol]w[/symbol]-consistent (which I believe it is), you’re going to need to revise your mind.

FYI, Greg Chaitin has come up with the strongest known formulation of undecidablity. You may be interested in reading up on that.

Also, I think your scriptural argument is very strong (although it’s of little consequence to me, an atheist), and I’d like to see someone address that.

14

Me, too! And thanks! :slight_smile:

But with respect to formulations of the theorem, what I quoted above was the actual Proposition VI from Godel’s original paper. I do agree with you that E-geometry is w-consistent, but I don’t think its axioms are recursive. They can all be done without multiplication, I think.

At any rate, even if we do not invoke undecidability, we may still formulate a Gospel of Love with selections of scripture. And like you, I’d like to see that addressed.

15

Not to belabor the point, but recursion has nothing to do with multiplication, although multiplication is a recursive function. See the thread I linked to earlier for a discussion on recursive functions.

16

:smiley: My expository skills need serious improvement. I did not mean to imply that recursion and multiplication are synonyms.

17

Libertarian, I know that I’m not focusing on the portions of your post that you think are most important, but when I see formal logic being appealed to as a foundation for theological claims. . .well, I think that you’ll agree that great care is warrented.

You wrote

But aren’t you begging the question when you assume that the bible is correct when it asserts its own incompleteness? It may simply be wrong about its own completeness, and therefore (if arithmetic is constructible from the bible) inconsistent.

Also, you write

(bolding added)
But this isn’t right, even as a summary. Deductive systems exist that have been proven to be both complete and consistent, e.g. (nonquantified) predicate logic (cite). You later elaborate on your understanding of the proof when you write

It’s unclear to me what you mean by “recursive axioms”, but predicate logic contains axioms I’d call recursive, like “If A and B are deducible wffs, then A & B is a deducible wff.”

18

I hate trying to do formal logic. But this passage:

… is capable of easy resolution.

Either the Bible is totally and literally true in every detail, or not. (“Not,” of course, simply makes the assertion that there is at least one detail of the Bible which is not totally and literally true, not the total negation of truth value that one might read into that by setting up the converse rather than the contrapositive.)

If we assume that it is totally and literally true in every detail, then it is incomplete. And if it is not totally and literally true in every detail, then it is still incomplete, because there must be grounds for so asserting in order to disprove its being T&LTiED. Either way, whether the Bible is totally and literally true in every detail or not, it is incomplete.

Q.E.D.

19

I’m not quite sure what you mean here. How is what you’ve written here not an argument that every deductive system must be incomplete?

The term “complete” in Godel’s proof is being used in a technical sense meaning “every well-formed claim may be either definitively proven or disproven (or both)”. Inconsistent systems are ones in which the “or both” happens; that is, ones in which a contradiction may be derived. Certainly, such systems are not “totally and literally true in every detail”, because they are self-contradictory. But that does not prevent them from being complete.

20

Lib, I think that you would have to show that Bible, as a whole, is a deductive system in order to show mathematical incompleteness. However, on a simple syllogistic level, I think you have shown that the Bible is incomplete (basically what Polycarp said). I would also accept your hypothesis that it is possible to construct a deductive system of logic from Biblical statements about love, and i think that you’ve raised some interesting questions for those who would accept the Bible as an infallible authority.

I do have a question though:
Isn’t it contradictory to say that Jesus is the source of all authority because the Bible, in its authority, says so? In fact, isn’t this almost a paraphrase of Godel’s fork in and of itself? If the Bible states that it cannot be relied upon as authoritative, then that statement itself cannot be relied on as authoritative. I submit that the quotation from Matthew can be paraphrased as follows:

“Nothing in this book may be relied upon as authoritative”

If this statement can be relied upon, then it can’t be relied upon. Am I crazy or is this a real paradox? (logic makes my head hurt)

Provocative OP, though, Lib.