REASON IS THE MOON TO THE LORD, THE SUN

In answer to occasional remonstration and concern, it is necessary to relieve the minds of some, through the grace of God, concerning the due place of reason, both in giving 'a reason for the faith' as required, and in contradistinction to any imagined insanity in the race!

This has been adapted with considerable addition for our present purpose; and it is merely a section of a new whole in this area and arena. Readers may wish to consult also Repent or Perish Ch. 7, for which this serves as an Appendix, pursuing a relevant point.

DEMONSTRATION!
Yes, it is valid and it is not in collision with FAITH!

The same again, applies in the unhappy concept that Christian Apologetic Method should AVOID any thought of DEMONSTRATING the existence of the Almighty; and that in giving a 'reason for the faith' (I Peter 3:15, Philippians 1:17), it should not speak with no uncertain sound, but should move like a drinks waiter amid the customers. Not so is the "casting down of imaginations" and "bringing every thought into captivity to Christ" of which the apostle Paul, who puts himself to us as an example (I Cor. 11:1, II Cor. 10:5ff. ).

The logical buffoonery of imagining that BECAUSE God may be DEMONSTRATED to be there, HE cannot be free, has been exposed in depth and in detail (That Magnificent Rock Ch.7, Part D), such a concept showing a failure to know the realm of predestination, like a year 7 science student speaking of quantum physics. You see, there is some need to know the field before you demonstrate things in it, at least in some measure of fidelity to its outline. The EVIDENCE and the CAUSAL requisites for it, are one thing. The WAY IN WHICH the all-sufficient basis comports Himself is not even relevant to that! What He is, He is; and the evidence for His existence does not pre-determine that as if the action of anyone powerful should prove Him without liberty! You see His powers by what He does; but His power is a function of Himself, not vice versa.

It has however been shown in the sense of Romans 1:17ff., what must be acknowledged rationally concerning His divine nature, in SMR Ch. 1, in terms of a necessity that He be free. Logic does not control what it attests; but it must attest what it finds. What it finds here is the source of all law and order, form and contrivance; but He is not determined by these things; it is they which HE creates to His own will!

Articulated logic, not sensationalistic bizarre grotesqueries of phrasing is the requisite, when reason is invoked, in giving a reason for something.

Indeed, more generally, reason as we have shown repeatedly from SMR on, has requirements for its validity (cf. SMR Ch. 3, That Magnificent Rock Ch. 5), which irrationality does not serve; so that those who wish to dispense with its kindly ministrations in their construction of a world view, are not able to argue, or even formulate thought, in terms of logical consistency. Their view falls by default.

The INVALIDATION of reason by mere desire prevents argument; but its DUE USE is comportable with argument, and this we do. In this way, we avoid in our contest, disqualifying ourselves in advance, as is the way of some!

WHEN we so use reason, THEN the VERIFICATION confirms the validity at the outset, when God is found in the onset; it is rather like Columbus, convinced of the existence of American, being confirmed when he comes near its shores and finds evidence.

Thus when reason is dismissed at the outset, then the invalidity suffers no rule of rationality, and gains nothing, as would be predictable, the attainments of modern philosophy in this regard, being foreseeable as to results, as they unhappily accrue.

Logic is invalidated when the world-view accepted does not accept its rule in the matrix of things.
It then becomes a subjective invention (A) or empirical sequence without reality, or capacity to affirm what is the case (B). Kant (A) and Hume (B) are both examples of such an approach in different ways, and they are utterly unable to avoid its self-invalidation (Predestination and Freewill, Appendix on Kant; SMR pp. 257ff., Ch. 5 on Hume). There is far more for subjectivity to contend with, however, than is found in the special features of their work. Let us pass from those special cases to a wider one arena.

In general, when the world view EXCLUDES absolute truth in this way, either its existence or its availability, that is, either by having no possessor who is beyond the influence of time and tide, psychic and other limitations, in view of the imagined absence of the same, or by the alternative imagination that there is no way of KNOWING such a possessor, because of imagined barriers: then the truth is for such extravaganzas excluded. This includes making this or that argument or supposition about ultimate reality.

Again, it is DOUBLY EXCLUDED from such a person in such a procedure, when availability and existence are both denied. It is then excluded both as to method and as to result as well, and talk is but air, and can logically be given the same credibility. It is a case of self-contradiction to affirm the truth, in such cases. When the self contradicts itself, none other need bother in this affair!

It is excluded in such a case, once for the explicit irrationalism or deficiency of procedure, trying to tell what is the absolute truth while asserting that it is not there - the method of exclusion of truth as a procedure; and once for the putative failure of a destination, even if it were rational, since it would need to get through to you, with your limits and vagaries, not to say motives and sins. It is a two-edged and bizarre exercise in confusion, in such a case, nothing more.

This leads us to the two-stage failure more grandly. In other words, knowledge of absolute truth is not necessary for awareness of the requirements of logical validity, and willingness to follow these; but if one REFUSES these, then one is excluded at the outset from rational argument. If one REJECTS by world-view, the objective validity of logic (either directly or by implication, by imagined insanity or other vanity, because of rupture of one's assumptions), then truth vanishes with validity from one's horizon. If further a person rejects a priori, ANY possessor of absolute truth, then such a person excludes its being found, so that all one's verbiage is self-condemned in advance. Then the face and the place are both denied, and the result is invalidation of what follows for such a proponent.

It is slant, perspective, thought moving in a vanity of exclusion, self-imposed. In this sense, it is possible to die twice: if you reject the objective validity of logic (instead of proceeding reasonably and finding the result), then you die once to truth; and if you reject the One who IS absolute truth and hence can communicate it at His will, then you die a second time to truth, and are doubly excluded.

What then ? If one DOES NOT refuse such things, does not lay down the law before action, however, then one is NOT excluded at the outset.

In this case, one is being rational and logical in proceeding to find what reason shows. It is important at this point to stress that this is not an account of conversion, but of the place of logic in demonstrating the truth of God.

Thus in reason, without such negative conceptions at the outset, a priori, a person may proceed reasonably. Whether, on such a method, this leads to absolute truth is in such a case to be seen, so that the enquirer can ascertain where reason directs; while it avoids the opposite, the effectual self-destruction of the mind as an instrument of directed thought, the price if one declines so to act, unscientifically worshipping invalidating models for no reason.

If then one does not so decline, but instead pursues what reason leads to, then such thought can be valid logically, so that one is in perfect logical order. It is only when one so finds the Bible, which is shown logically to be the only rationally possible and likewise necessary word of God written to this race, that absolute truth is opened as such (as demonstrated for example in SMR Ch.1,3,10).

Thus it is FOUND, and logic is FOLLOWED to it. It does not create it: it finds it. It finds it because it is there; and truth for man, in the Bible, is there because it is put there. In so doing, we find validated the reason that sought, in the prize obtained, the requisite word of the standing testable and verifiable, which if it were absent, would have invalidated reason. Being present, it congratulates and validates it, and with it, the result. God leaves nothing out, and does not instruct matter with its configuring laws, while leaving man a lawless piece of spiritual flotsam, expert in iniquity, hopeless in broiling, roiling follies of thought, word, work and fouled up communications, relationships and grisliness. Man is sick, as well as spiritual in function, grandly made as well as greatly fallen; in need of correction at the heart, and repentance in mind, turning back to his source for a service monumental, to his God for restoration.

There is a reason for everything. It - and indeed the Saviour of whom it speaks - may be found directly by faith; but we are considering logical validity in Christian Apologetics, not conversion per se. The response to the Biblical message is not the same thing as its existence and status. A person may find the Bible (and one remembers one student who did just this), find what reason shows, and then REJECT it on the ground the personal cost is too high! Apart from such action of will, however, all here is harmony: reason is reasonably followed, revelation is necessarily attested by reason (we find by doing it - cf. SMR Ch. 1), and this validates reason's action absolutely and its integrity generically.

What however of the alternate mode, which we earlier discussed: the world-view a priori rejection dilemma ?

What is the status of such a view ? Here logic is NOT followed, on account of subjectivistic dismissal in a chosen system, or other systematic subjectivisation; or reality is necessarily excluded in any consequence (by a sort of intellectual fiat), or both. Thus, whatever is found (and nothing is ever found on that basis, as the history and profound disagreements of secular philosophy with stylish eloquence confirms), is an irrationality to commence with, irrelevant to argumentation, and a non-existent object to end with, by a priori legislation of the mind. The PROCEDURE likewise, in absence of objective truth, is rationally defective, aspiring BY what it by definition lacks, to find what it needs, which by definition in this case and scenario, CANNOT be found, in any case, since it is - merely by definition, not there!

Absolute truth, then, and logical validity should not be confused; but in the absence, express or implied, of the latter, reason and argument simply fold. In the presumed absence of the former, they are excluded from viable results at the outset. It is like travelling along two precipices, one on one's right, and one on one's left, and insisting on walking ONLY where the edge crumbles, and ONLY where it CANNOT stand. It would be better not to walk at all, than to do this. In the end, it becomes a case of walking where the cliffs are ... not.

What we in fact find, is just what the Bible indicates in Romans 1:17ff. is to be found: absolute truth. In fact, this is and CAN BE found only because it is a self-revelation: it is because God says, and asks us to test it, and the tests attest His infinite and incomparable power and knowledge, that the whole harmoniously works together, just as our own minds harmoniously work together with the nature, the natural world which He created, so that the investigating mind and the investigated nature work together.

By no means does man find God by some kind of analysis of the same. Certainly, His power is shown by His works, but His heart, this is for Him to show. In other words, psychic distance work on the Almighty and infinite God, some sort of tele-psychiatry by mortal man on immortal God is excluded as pompous presumption! It does not work; but the Bible does. This is what one would expect for that very reason.

It is not however any part of presumption to seek the truth with the reason given, and finding it, to acclaim it; and finding it on all sides verified, in perfect and consistent validity, to attest this. It IS humbling; but it is also VALID, and EXCLUSIVELY SO! (cf. SMR pp. 100-101, 316Aff., Barbs, Arrows and Balms 6, 7, 29, TMR Ch. 5, SMR Chs. 1, 5, Repent or Perish Ch. 7)^*1.

For absolute truth to speak is scarcely surprising, and certainly nothing invalid: for its speech, independently to verify what logic entailed, is surpassingly magnificent for any pursuit. This accessibility and directive dynamic is necessary for man to receive it, not some distortion through his own limits, sin and incapacities to discern.

If as is the case demonstrated in SMR, in addition it is demonstrable that divinely donated speech, revelation, was called for in such a world as this from such a One as was MINIMALLY attested (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 2, Barbs, Arrows and Balms 6 -7, The Meaning of Liberty and the Message of Remedy), then that is a still further attestation of truth, validation and verification, in a cumulative fashion. That this very thing is found with all the indicia of divine majesty, as minimally and independently shown, is a third dimension of its attestation.

When we realise that the ONLY way to avoid this SOLE viable reality, for thought, and this SOLE attested reality for evidence, is to un-create or dismantle or dismiss our intellects, so that they are assumed invalid, and so uncreate speech, and uncreate argument, since it too would be the same, and so remove all validity in even the presentation of argumentation or protestation appealing to reason: then it is clear. As existent functional beings, we go to God, the God of the Bible, or - if you like, go to hell.

There is nothing left for speech, since it implies characterisability and hence causally induced action, which in turn requires God. To avoid this, avoid reason: and then ? then you avoid even the speech with which to protest; and if you do not require articulation, then silence being your only presentation, it requires no answer.

However, really, that is the work of the TRUTH to declare. In reality, all we would have shown was this, that such persons would be self-consigned to inoperative, dysfunctionality, whilst still functioning, and so would be liars in essence. Their destiny, as one would expect, is not to be found where truth lies (Mark 9). That is what the divine revelation attests.

What then has reason shown ? That GOD IS, that HE HAS SPOKEN, and that HE IS ALMIGHTY; and WHERE AND WHAT HE SPOKE DEFINITIVELY TO THE HUMAN RACE. The task is one of reason; and as a task of reason, it is a demonstration. Retrospective attestation of objective logical validity is obtained; and prospective willingness for this is attained, by a procedure which is in total harmony with the overall enterprise.

Thus, there is simply no impasse, no problem, no conflict; whereas all other approaches are lost
either

As noted, in the latter respect, there are only 3 contestants (SMR Chs. 1,10), and the other two are not evidentially relevant. Indeed, the Bible is so grand in its superabundant fulfilments of all that might be expected, that its certainty is like all reality, when enough is known in the end. In what way ? It is in this: that it is without parallel or contest. It is like comparing an ardent lover with an emotional Philistine; or a research scientist with a dead person (e.g. SMR Chs. 2,5,6,8,9,10).

Again, some may feel that one SHOULD not demonstrate that the Bible is true, since that pre-empts faith! Does it ? This is an objection that people who say they believe the Bible may make. Let us consider it.

Does deadness in trespasses and in sins in some self-contradictory way enable the mind to become alive to reality (Ephesians 2) ? And does it in a fashion in flat contradiction of the Bible, allow the natural and unconverted mind to CEASE to be alienated from the life of God, while still in the flesh ? (Ephesians 4:17ff.; Romans 8:1-12) ? And while it is at it, does it MAKE the NATURAL man in some way that collides with the Bible, NOT find these spiritual things to be foolishness (I Cor. 2:14) ?

This the Bible does not teach us. This transformation is not wrought by logic working on a free and untainted will, sovereign of its affairs and in control of its rational and spiritual destiny, unlimited either by itself and its confines, or its will and its condition. It is ONLY because God speaks and has spoken once and for all, that the absolute truth may be known with absolute certainty, as Paul shows in II Timothy 1.

Thus the biblical teaching is this: that faith through which salvation comes, acceptance with God, on the basis of the Gospel offered, is not made by man's will (John 1:12, 15). It is wrought by the Spirit of God; and as for us who act in this field of giving a REASON for the FAITH, for the Lord (I Peter 3:21): we are ploughers of soil; it is the seed which is needed, and the divine planter, for the change.

We do not cease to furrow our rows, because the seed of the word of God itself, must be sown; and if in THIS method, which has in this site been employed, that divine seed MUST (by logical sequence) be SOWN, incidentally to the demonstration, that is an advantage. In other words, we need to examine the Bible as we move to the conclusion of its origin, and in so doing, the reader is exposed to the word of God, which it is. His word, as He states (Isaiah 55), does not return to Him void. It acts. But HE acts with it.

It is, in fact, the Lord Himself who proceeds in His own irresistible way to find His Pauls and His Peters, His Johns and all; and as He said, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" - Matthew 16:17. Again, Matthew 11:27 prevents any such concept being imported into the Bible:

"All things have been delivered to Me by My Father,
and no one knows the Son except the Father.
Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son,
and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

The Authorised Version translation does not make that last point clear: it is statedly in this text, an act of WILL on the part of the Son so to reveal (as shown in the New King James Version, and indisputable in the Greek). An act of WILL on the part of the SON is not an act of reason on the part of some disciple or other!

Why then do we present reason for the faith, casting down imaginations and bringing thoughts into captivity to Christ, as per Paul's noted example ? (II Corinthians 10:5).

It is just a matter of obedience. In this vast battle for the souls of men, there are requirements and standing orders. One does not philosophise away the word of God; one simply does what one is told. It is also delightful so to do, for the casting down of imaginations being required, has a certain therapeutic effect available on the one hand, a rescuing from confusion, while on the other, there is as the Lord enables this, a staining of the pride of all glory (Isaiah 23:9 cf. I Corinthians 1:25-31), a salutary preliminary to the realisation of the glory of the Lord.

This glory, it is not in two places, sited autonomous man on the one hand, and in the Saviour on the other; and these form no disparate partnership as joint Saviour. Quite to the contrary: HE ALONE is that, and He is able to keep what is committed to Him against that day, working in us who are His, both to will and to do (II Timothy 1:12, Philippians 2:12-13, 3:20-21). In fact: THERE IS NO OTHER NAME GIVEN TO MAN - and that UNDER HEAVEN - BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED (Acts 4:11-12).

Neither pope nor philosophy, pedant nor pundit, guru nor grit, good works nor kindly disposition are that name, or any part of it. It is HIS! HE, He is God and He is sinless (John 8:58, Hebrews 7:25-26, 10:10,14, 6:19-20, 9:12-15).

Many things are good, results of salvation (Ephesians 2:10, Titus 3:1-7, with v.8 in its place). They do not, however, save, institute adoption by the Lord, nor gather to Him, nor gain His pardon, place and inheritance (Ephesians 1:11). It is donation or exclusion (Romans 6:23, 5:15, 3:23ff.). There are simply no other options. The thing given is as far beyond ANY part of flesh, as the heavens above the earth (John 1:12, Romans 9:16); and as to that, that is a mere beginning. The gift is as far beyond any space to comport or receive as may be conceived: it is as far apart as God and man (cf. Isaiah 51:6).

SINNER is the biblical name of the recipient; GRACE is the name of the giving; eternal life is the name of the gift. It is personal, and its arrival is miraculous. It is the wonder of wonders that God WOULD HAVE all to come to a knowledge of the truth, and to repent (I Timothy 2), and hence it is not from on high that exclusion comes (John 3:16-19). Responsibility is entirely that of man; the operation is entirely that of God, who however, does not force ...( John 3:17-19).

The realities of the love of God and the authority, and shown in some detail from the Bible in areas such as Predestination and Freewill, SMR Appendix B, and The Kingdom of Heaven ... Ch.4. It is the love which would yield His only begotten Son to shield sinners who come to Him, as Saviour and Lord, for SO did He love the world (John 3:16, I John 2:1-2, 4:7-11, Colossians 1:19ff.).

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUN,

BUT WHAT OF THE MOON ?

REASON, AND THE INSALUBRITY

OF VOLUNTARY IRRATIONALITY AND INSANITY

With reason, then, there is the free entry, at all times, to its working or even its realm; and it is investigable, without notice, internally for its conspicuous harmony with its innate and acquired elements, its function and its correlations. Again, it is at all times - whether the mind is directly deployed to this end or not - investigable and verifiable as to its results, practical competence in the world of events that are not mind, and in correlation with other minds and their products^*2.

In implication, application, internalised survey and the whole scope of the mind, in its necessity for meaningful language, and the depiction of criteria as characteristics for the referents of vocabulary, symbol-item combinations, as for presentation of theory, such as that of racial insanity: it is a necessity. Deny it and you commit intellectual suicide, debating hari-kari and evaporate from relevance in all enquiry and investigation. You could not even speak - you become a lost cause, an arbitrary mute and a prone and prostrate residue for all discourse, oral or internal.

Reason's renegacy from all dismissal does not however make it the absolute. It is merely a mode that it is caused to possess, and it is part of our image of God mode.

Thus, follow the necessity that reason imposes for the path to the God of the Bible and the Bible of God, as often demonstrated on this site, and then you have a validation of rationality; for it has led to its own base and support, effectually, like a rocket sent on correct thought premisses, that in fact touches the moon at the required spot.

The alternative is first, to deny reason, directly or indirectly - it makes no differences: so removing the proponent from all argument or even relevant expression of theory, and then to the lack validity as well, since neither madness nor naturalism has absolute truth - the former as available, the latter as there.

So far from being competitive with faith, reason shows its propriety; for it is so far from constituting ground for conversion, itself alone, that the Bile to which it truly pointed as the word of God, declares that misused reason is only part of the cause of man's misdirection. It is also alienated life. (Cf. Romans 1:17ff., as to reason's misuse, and Ephesians 4:17ff. as to life's alienation from God.)

Indeed, liberty itself for man in the last analysis, can be validated only when man is seen not only with the absolute truth, the absolute God his designer, who past man's limits both because of of evil and construction, can institute freely and in love, a change of nature that is not, therefore, aborted as an option

Love is in fact a necessity for this aspect of rationality; for only this seeks but does not force, can implement the removal of sin which, and not insanity for the race, is everywhere attested (Great Execrations ... Ch. 9, The Kingdom of Heaven Ch. 4); and so implement freedom that is responsible and accountable for man. Indeed, just as reason's children show its buoyancy and health in practical terms, so does sin, voluntary departure from the law and will and way of Almighty God, show its blighting burden in personal terms. It is useless to attest what it is not there; as it is to deny what it is.

Without revelation, you do not know God; with it, you may find Him; in denial of reason you merely ensure that what He has provided, is further alienated; with it, you see that He has done all things well in providing this revelation. Denying the word of God, this leaves only uncomprehending darkness; ignoring the attestation of reason, evidence and truth, you ignore what God has done. With ALL the heart and mind and strength then serve Him, if you know Him; and if you do not, then by the grace of God yield to His truth, His Gospel and His call. He is very willing to reason together (Isaiah 1:18); but the reason that it can be so reasonable is this, that HE HAS PAID for the privilege, in sending His Son, as He foretold, to cover sin. It is not covered if it is wilfully kept (John 3:19, Romans 8:32).

As to this payment: You do not need to do it, for HE did it (Romans 3:23-27). As to sin, you do however need to repent of it, and casting it upon Him who died vicariously, be quit of its flimsy lordship, and find the power of God in its place. There is NO payment for what is withheld, for as He said, do this negative thing, and YOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SINS (John 8:24). God would have all reconciled to Himself (Colossians 1:19ff.); it is not His will which is wilful, capricious, but that of man in his sin. God knows how to find blind man without forcing, and freely to be received without disturbance of truth, for from before creation (Romans 8:30ff.), He foreknew whom among all sought could in love be found, and can penetrate even what is humanly impossible to reach (John 1:12, Hebrews 6)). But in the end, it is the sovereign God in His sovereign but beautiful will who reclaims with desire, breaching none, reaching any (cf.Luke15, Matthew 22:1-14). He knows the end from the beginning and often shows it, whether of national events or individual destiny, speaking of things done or to be done as the case requires, ignorant of nothing, entry or outcome (cf. Romans 9:17 with 9:22, I Timothy 2:5-6).

These are the things attested; the things that work, in the light, and the things that do not in the uncomprehending darkness. Moreover, in the light of His truth, here are things that are consistent, valid and sure; and in their denial, is the collapse of validity, and of knowledge, of life and of truth. It is not that these things collapse in themselves, but only in the life of the one who so denies them, oblivious and anaesthetised, dwelling in the dark.

In fact, the truth of God leaves reason without alternative. The salvation of man however can be wrought only by God, and it is by faith.

*1 See more broadly, not least in secondary illustrations of irrational incompetence outside the validated truth:

If the idea is hatched that while the human race is not insane, some member of it might be, and this might be the one proceeding to demonstrate the logical necessity of God: then let us look at this concept. How could he defend himself, or she herself, from such an attack ?

The main response is simple: If you want to show something, among other colours, is green, you need a knowledge of what green is, what other colours are, and preferably for any subtle matters, to know what colour is, how it works.

If then, so equipped in terms of the non-insane race, with such knowledge, a particular person wishes to use this and determine whether something is or is not green (or if you will, some more sophisticated sub-category in the regimen of colour), it is not at all difficult to determine whether this party, to the point at issue, is insane. If for example (again, on the basis of a non-insane race, the case already dismissed through reason), the person shows a capacity to regulate words to colours, and colours to words by direction, and is capable of conversing in terms of the non-insane knowledge on the topic, discriminating and discerning in verbal expression and in detailed co-operation in colour manoeuvres: then the concept of his relevant insanity would be outré, ludicrous, a misuse of language and of no value in any degree or regard whatsoever, just as it would be ludicrous to call a man of vast waist-line, thin. It does not match.

If you wish to speak, and to have sense made of your own thoughts, this correlation between word and observation is necessary. If the critic is deemed insane, then he or she has no further relevance; if sane, then this condition is required of the critic no less than of the participant in view.

This is not really an issue; the real issue is rather that of a person's being DECEIVED, as by the devil, so that thinking he or she is speaking rationally, this person is in fact uttering gibberish, rather like those driving in full confidence they are doing well, when a euphoric distortion of their consciousness is soon shown at some light-pole with which they gain too intimate an acquaintance, at high speed!

On this issue, there are numerous safeguards. Thus an unsuspected absence of sanity is readily checked by the whole apparatus of logic. If one can and does pass test on the normal syllogistic, validatory and analytical components of logic, in practical and theoretical correlation, it would be mere misuse of terminology to assume a merely deceptive sense of sanity in the one concerned. In general, the concept of insanity, through deception or otherwise, to the point that rationality is imagined present, while in fact absent, is not a difficult one to dismiss. There are so many criteria which can be invoked and applied, including of course that of having any visible evidence for such an assumption in the first place, that it is a non-issue.

Further, you COULD not be made to imagine you are there when you are not, for you have to be there in order to be a site for deception.

The issue really is not some imaginary and contrary-to-logic imagination about a person's powers, but a capacity to test the products of the use of those powers. Imagination is not the issue here, but reality.

If these products are to be shown wrong, it will take certain logical skills on the part of the critic to do so, and in the contest, the question of insanity, whether in the critic or the target, will arise only when the canons of logic and of orientation are systematically breached. If the critic cannot overcome the logic of the target, then the logical standing of the target is merely all the more evidenced. When in many such contests, the target has the same result, the issue is becoming transparently one of inability to use logic to overcome the position of the target.

Such a failure can come to be because both parties are sane, according to the attested evidence, and logic favours only one; and that can be because only one party is right. It is ever so much easier to defend the truth, for in that case all things on all sides favour it, and openings to falsetto falsity, or indeed any other kind, abound, reducing the alleged rationality of the position presented by the critic to rubble. Logical capacity to do this is not the result of insanity; for if it were, the logical apparatus would discover it under such severe stress. It is rather like suggesting that if you hold a speed record in some venue over the years, that perhaps, just possibly, you have only a snail's repertoire for speed.

The comment does not fit the facts; the facts do not fit the comment: it is not even relevant. The issue is what over time, can stand against logical criticism, and what alone. The proponents may be numerous, the cases of contest the same; but insanity is a long way from the sophisticated deployment of logical method. Even were there some psychopathic fault in one or both parties, it is scarcely relevant at all, when the things at issue are externally and at any time inspectable! Indeed, in this regard over-arching all is the simple fact that the revelation of God answers all method questions, solves all rational antinomies and is alone is so doing: insanity is the PRECISE OPPOSITE (cf. SMR Chs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, Predestination and Freewill Section IV, Great Execrations ... Ch. 9). Pursuit of such an objective, with such a result, is as far from insanity as the East from the West, for it is crown to reason with reality; and when that reality if revelation, it is of course in the ultimate court. Finding carefully the source of human reason is scarcely evidence of lacking it...

Finally, it must be clearly recognised that even when some critic seeks to overthrow the integrity of reason used to show the reality of the Almighty, and fails repeatedly, even this does not at all prove insanity on the part of this critic. Those who constantly sought to overthrow Christ's integrity and rationality, saying he was insane or had a devil and so forth, were not, because even of such systematic and continual failure, shown themselves to be insane. Inveterate capacity to take punishment in the pursuit of some foolish human dream is not the same as insanity. The capacity to pursue such dreams with acumen and inventiveness, with address and comportment, with grounds constantly pressed and relevance continually sought does not comport with insanity.

It does however comport with obstinacy in error, distortion in dynamic, commitment to foolishness and a measure of obsessive pre-occupation which differs from mere insanity in its purposefulness, its astuteness, its verbal prowess and its capacity to follow conceived designs to the end, seeking with various devices to ensure the victory of their intentions - say, in murder, which with Christ, was the case.

Is not obsessive pre-occupation with error insanity ? Not at all, for many are somewhat obsessed with desire to be top, first, rich, luxurious, respected, and so on, without there being any thought of insanity. It is low aim which is the 'crime', not logical method. It is motivation which is in error, not rational capacity. Confusion of the two serves no useful purpose, and cannot be used for any form of reasoned argumentation; for truth demands first of all that what is being presented is so, not imaginary. Rationality and visionary correctness are simply two different areas of thought and conception.

This of course brings us back to the result: that rationality leads to God, and God in His truth leads to assessment of all human motivation, activation and conception; and where this acts without Him, it is not insane, but sinful. Sinful ? It means simply this: that you and God are on collision lines, and He being the truth, you are neither it nor in synchronisation with it; you are synchronous merely in such a case, with sin.

	a) reason is followed to God, to the Bible His word.
	b) absolute truth in this procedure never died, is thus found.
	c) this validates just that use of reason, its aptitude and relevance, presence and function.
	d) the result, the Bible in propositional terms requests testing and supplies result for which only the Almighty is adequate, so double checking its validity.
	e) in applied, traditional terms, the Bible is not careful, as if afraid of showing its hand, but on the contrary, makes liberal provisions and promises for man, when he receives the Messiah, the Christ, and does the same in specifically personal terms.
	f) the same Bible also explains WHY its words are so often rejected, despite the fact that there alone lies validity for thought, both in the presence of absolute truth, and in the availability for reception of the same with its own personal oversight, together with the provision of a nature which is enabled so to receive (II Corinthians 5:17ff.).
	g) there is provided for this new entrant to the covenanted presence of God, the peace which man needs to function, not only in reason, but in life.

	1) in the preliminary assumptions or
	2) in the failure competitively to conform to minimal evidential necessities relative to divine speech.