The Bible And Algorithms: The Third Wave

In the Beginning, God set all things in order. First, he created the heavens and the earth, but they were "without form and void." Now just what does THAT mean? We learn its meaning from what follows, if we keep the important question in mind, and watch what the narrator -- blessings be upon Moses -- proceeds to do in the text.

First, he describes how God divided one element from another, and organized the created order. Just how does one go about interior decorating when the walls aren't even finished yet? It might help to think of God's creating the heavens and earth (verse 1) as creating the "clay" from which He would then proceed to form -- shape, divide, organize - the various parts of the creation. He divided land from sea, night from day, etc., where we get the idea of "rightly dividing" -- here dividing is a form of organizing or -- "setting in order" -- the word of Truth.

Once each of the sections or realms was properly organized -- heaven above, earth, and waters beneath -- God proceeded to fill each with in habitants. So, "without form" means "with no specific order and divisions," and "void" simply means, "not having any inabitants," or not having the lived-in look yet.

The conclusio -- summary of this section of the Scripture -- reiterates the same formula, showing that the phrase, "without form and void" forms the introduction (bookmark) for the section -- a literary parallel designed to be a signpost.

Genesis 2:1 Reads "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."

The decalogue reflects just this division as well. In affirming the requirement to do as God did, rest on the Sabbath Day -- a day of ordinary length --it says that we are to rest, "For in six days, the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, AND all that is [lives] in them ..."

Likewise, Ecclesiastes tells us that Solomon "set in order" many proverbs. And the Bible tells us that Luke "set in order" his own account of the things most surely believed among the saints regarding Jesus.

This is the same task given to theologians and students of the Bible, who wish to know the whole teaching of the Bible (Tota Scriptura) on the subjects we investigate therein. This we usually call "systematic theology." But that only describes the goal, not the method for obtaining it.

This is where algorithms, a very new invention on the historical scene, which is barely 60 years old. The concept arose from logicians working to solve certain problems, the most famous of which is Kurt Godel. Programmers can now thank the logicians. An author by the last name of Ralston has a very helpful book called "Teach Yourself Algorithms," one can check out at the local library.

It maintains that "Algorithms are the basis of all significant computer programs, thus this subject underlies the entire subject of computer science. The discipline of algorithmic thinking is valuable in carrying out any large enterprise or project." "Algorithmics," an actual field of logical inquiry, studies the design, analysis, and verification of algorithms.

I believe that combining advances in the studies of logic (taken from a biblical perspective), with the use of algorithmic studies could enable the fastest and most useful too for systematic theology known to date. The way to do this is not hard to see, though I do not pretend the project will be easy -- nothing good ever is. The purpose of this "device" I am proposing would be to set in order -- systematize according to the wisdom of the Bible itself - all major and many new - categories of the Bible, by crisscrossing search patterns -- performed very fast -- by an algorithmic search and find tool which uses the known valid patterns of logic -- modus ponens, etc -- to try various combinations of propositions to determine their implicates and presuppositions -- for yet further comparison in like manner. This way, you fill in a host of propositions about different topics in the Bible that we do not yet know.

In short, I am proposing high-speed systematic theology by cross referencing -- not only the Scriptures themselves (the analogy of faith), but also determining and the cross referencing their implicates, first with the original scriptures from which they were derived -- then with more remote contexts of like kind, and then with the implicates of those scriptures, and with the implicates of Scriptures earlier so analyzed. Thomas Kuhn called this "articulating the paradigm," by which he meant "filling in the blanks" by logical extension, of an operating intellectual matrix. This project then proposes the biblical (if you wish to sound oh-so-learned, say "transcendental") matrix extended. We could articulate the paradigm -- set the system in order -- faster with logic and algorithms.

This can be done. It is not super-complex, and it is quite biblical. Someone IS going to do it -- sooner or later. In fact, I am doing it -- only far too slowly. This follows the pattern of what God himself did, and what the prophets -- Solomon, Luke and others -- did, and what many of the saints before us have done -- think "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (does the name "Calvin" ring a well-ordered bell?). But the order followed is not random, and not just any order will do. God has but one order with which all things have been ordered, both in the creation and in the Word of God, so one must follow this order in particular (not order in general, as though any kind of orderliness will do), which the Bible teaches on every topic, both explicitly and implicitly. I suspect that what the Bible implies would fill far more books than simply a list of what it says (the 66 books are just the beginning, because each says far more when combined with the others, than the 66 books considered only individually. The whole is more than just the sum of its parts.

The key to having a fruitful Bible is not simply by looking at each proposition in isolation, or simply adding them one to another. It is by multiplying them, considering the many implicates and presuppositions of different combinations of propositions. The Bible links being fruitful with multiplication rather than mere addition. This is in fact -- by way of geometric progression -- how people and animals collectively increase very fast with later generations. Societies can expand much more rapidly in their later years than in their earlier ones. Thus, cross referencing many scriptures with many others - and with what they imply -- is the key to a more fruitful understanding of the Bible.

The first step in this process is simply to study and find out what you can on individual topics, and lump these propositions into sets. If you are ever at a loss for where to start, just open the Westminster Confession and find a host of true propositions -- quite well stated I might add -- on the topic of your choice. I have one set I have started called "The Melchizedek Proposition Set," for instance. But I tend to color outside the lines a bit. They don't have a chapter on this -- yet. First we divide into categories (as God divided this from that) and then we begin filling our categories with the sets of propositions -- our categorical "inhabitants" -- for setting them in order.

What we use to set them in order you could dub the laws of logic (given to us from the light of nature and from the Word of God itself). This will, of course, require us to study and group all the "logic propositions" of the Bible into its own group or set. To start this set, you simply watch how God, the prophets, apostles, and the Lord Jesus conduct their arguments. What rules those arguments presuppose and follow, those are the sound principles of logic, which will coincide with the ones you already know, and will probably provide some new ones the world of pagan scholarship has missed, since they don't read their Bibles much when doing logic. Hence all those crazy - mutually refuting -- ideas floating about on the college campuses around the world.

Next, follow steps to develop an algorithmic process for handling the proposition sets, with groups of analysts dividing up according to the particular specialities they wish to carry out in the algorithmic program. Algorithms need not be software, they can be made up of people (many groups), each which performs only a certain set of instructions, and then passes on their work to the next group (Assembly line fashion), and then the product reiterates through the chain continuously as the body of knowledge grows.

Then we enter our findings into a database, format them, and then publish (and keep publishing our findings). One group could do all the rewriting and make it look spiffy, following George Orwell's ten rules for good rewriting. I'll post these online soon too (if the Lord wills).

By way of simple example, one group could simply be the "modus ponens" group, examining all the propositions they recieve in light of this one directive, and then comparing their conclusions in the group with others doing the same work. Others could do the research and find out the background information we wish to know on any one subject and prepare a brief summary of relevant background descriptions for everyone to work with. Eventually, by adding little upon little, the analysts could become quite expert in their field(s). This divide and conquer approach can be found in the Bible too -- tower of Babel (Genesis 11).

The algorithmic process should begin with a set of definitions -- i.e. "According to the Bible, a priest is one who does X, Y, and Z" -- this will specify every term in exact language (clear and distinct is nice) both consistent with the Bible and easily understood in ordinary English. You will have to learn a few new words as you go -- like "piacular" and "intercessory" -- describing in this case two primary functions of the priestly office.

We will in each case also wish to know the presuppositions behind each term, asking first what must be the case in order for there to be priests?

A. qualifications -- how old must he be? How tall? (if relevant) etc etc. ethical considerations, gender, economics, etc.

B. Does the existence of a priest necessarily presuppose the existence of a Temple? (place of public worship)

C. What is the source of this priesthood? The nature (special attributes) of it? etc etc

The answers to all these questions will then be placed in the "priestly proposition" set. Other sets will center around the most prominent concepts in the Bible -- covenants, God, the Bible, prophets, kings, and then classes of things -- holy v. common, divine v. human, etc will feature another set of comparisons for propositional grouping and analysis. These are the fundamental conceptual categories of the Word of God.

We could also develop what I call "compound functions" for analyzing quickly the implicates of any proposition set. A compound function combines one or more rudimentary rules of valid reasoning, to determine its logical outcomes, given various parameters or hypothetical conditions. Think of a function as a "fixed pattern" like the way a knight moves on a chess board -- he can only move in the shape of an "L" -- whether he starts with one up and two over or the converse. But we might call that fixed pattern "the L" function, or "knight function." Logic works the same way, and you can create your own functions to experiement, looking for which ones yield only implicates consistent with other propositions in the system of theology, which we already know to be true. Scripture corrects scripture, and this way can tell us which of our functions are good and necessary rules, and which ones are bogus (but maybe interesting).

"Operators" are the symbols or symbol sets (maybe words or a single letter), you use to show which function you want to employ at this or that place. In basic math, the "x" means you want someone to use a different function than the "+" operator indicates. The first means multiply 2 times 2, and the second bids you add them. These different functions have different operators to tell you what function to use. In most cases, just like the previous example, a function just amounts to a rule or set of rules you have to follow in handling the "numbers," or in our case, the propositions, or the elements that make them up. An element might be the "P" in a short "If P then Q" statement. This is a variable in math, so also in most logics. A variable is one kind of element.

I recommend starting with the Westminster Standards as originally given (1648) as that system of theology found in the Holy Scripture, unless and until any one of its propositions is shown to conflict with other known -- or later determined -- propositions in the biblical system of theology. The intersection -- by way of extrapolating the biblical paradigm -- between a true proposition and one that is false, I simply call a "dialectical tension" or internal contradiction, following the late Dr. Van Til. The biblical worldview will correct any false extrapolation from one (or more) of its true propositions, or any other kind of false move, so long as one maintains the biblical rules of validity in so inferring. We can plunder Copi and Engel for some good ideas too - these guys write the standard logic textbook editions for universities and colleges. And the local library has some good books on symbolic logic too. But so far as I know they dont have one yet that uses only keyboard symbols (for posting to the internet). This can easily be fixed.

In other words, the key to vindicating the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the biblical doctrine of Tota Scriptura. The most basic assumptions inherent in this project are:

1. The Bible is the Word of God

2. We have many reliable translations of the Word of God available, and they can help correct each other (though I prefer the KJV).

3. The Bible contains a system of theology, not a catalogue of disjointed beliefs like the Qu'ran and other dime-store "holy books," which system displays the mutual consent of all the its parts.

4. Thus, the Bible in the right hands can serve to produce and correct (in the production of it) that system of theology found in the Bible itself, which has already received some articulation in the hands of devout and wise men, in the creeds, catechisms and confessions of the Church.

5. Contrary to popular ecclesiastical opinion, most of the work remains to be done, which others have begun well, offering us (the whole Christian world has the task) an excellent start on the project of articulating the Christian paradigm.

6. This project forms an obedient response to both the dominion mandate and the Great Commission, since it seeks to apply the Bible to all areas of life, according to the domestic, national and ecclesiastical covenants, which make up any society.

This project is plausible (cost minimal) - thoroughly "doable" -- and quite biblical. I expect that it will -- whether I do it or someone else beats me to it -- probably provide the basis for the next reformation -- whenever that arrives -- the way that Calvin's works in many ways informed the last one. Seminary students could band together and pull this off.

I have posted this here in the hope that it may stimulate others to good works, great ideas, or maybe just start a godly fire in someone's mind who is presently doing homework at some seminary or other. It also gives anyone who might be wondering how I do my homework, a little insight into the way I come up with all these wildly orthodox notions (on a good day). I come up with alot of bad ones too, but I try to avoid posting those.