I've been thinking about inerrancy for over a year and I still don't know what to think. I don't want to go into detail about the ins and outs of it but to share my reflections on what the position of infallibility, rather than inerrancy, does to a Christian.
For one, I don't think denying inerrancy is heresy as long as you affirm infallibility. As an infallibilist, you can still hold to the sin of humanity, the need for a savior, that the only true God sent his son to live a life of obedience we could never live and died for our sins to make us right with God, in the Trinity, in the character of God as described in Scripture, and basically all the foundational things needed for salvation (that's another can of worms in itself but let's leave it at that). I've been wondering: holding to infallibility and denying inerrancy would do very little to nothing at all to me as a Christian saved by grace. Sure, it changes hermeneutics a bit, but it doesn't make much of a difference in my relationship with God and my rudimentary understanding of his character.
Infallibility makes tons of things easier in the Bible, but one would never want to revert to it merely because of that reason - that would be called cowardice and laziness. No, I think at the very least the historicity of our faith and the basis of a cumulative case for our faith is sufficient for me to at least err on the side of infallibility.
Still, nothing is yet even near for sure until I at least read a couple books I have here that I've been wanting to read for a long time. I'll be done with them in a couple months, so until then, I've not much to say definitively. I have been encouraged by this thought however, seeing as the decision is no longer inerrancy versus "chuck out the whole system."
The Value of Small Things
1 hour ago
20 comments:
What is the difference between infallibility and inerrancy? It seems, to me, that they are like two sides of the same coin. How would you define them in order to affirm one and deny the other?
Oh, sorry about that, I really should have defined them huh?
Well, by infallibility I mean "true in faith, practice, morals, etc. and can be wrong in certain historical details and such" and by inerrancy I mean "true in all that it affirms." So basically the difference here is the understanding of Scripture from the evangelical and conservative circles of Christianity and liberal Christianity.
Correction: by inerrancy i mean "true in all that it affirms, dependent on literary genre, as recorded in the original manuscripts."
What books were considering reading that you think will help you solidify or clarify your position? Have you read "The Divine Inspiration of the Bible" by Louis Gaussen?
I've re-begun Warfield's "The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible", "Inerrancy" edited by Geisler and is a collection of essays on various aspects, and "Scripture and Truth" edited by Carson and Woodbridge.
I've heard of Gaussen's book in Warfield's book because apparently he is commonly stereotyped as believing in dictation-theory even though there are about 5 explicit statements in his book that reject that position outright. I do want to read it and may add it. Would you suggest it as a higher priority than the ones listed Clark?
I'm halfway through an article in "Inerrancy" titled "Higher Criticism and the Bible" by Philip Barton Payne that I am SUPER not liking. He basically says we have to take the Bible at its word that is inerrant and criticism has to conform to that. No kidding, as far as I've read into that article, that's all he's really said. *sigh
I would recommend Gaussen over Warfield as I believe it is an easier read with clearer arguments. I read Geisler's book but to be honest it was so long ago I'd have to re-read it before I could comment. I've not read "Scripture and Truth."
"God, Revelation and Authority", 6 Vols and "Revelation and the Bible" by Carl Henry are also worth reading as is Gordon Clark's "God's Hammer, The Bible and its Critics."
I've not read the article you've mentioned.
We all have to start from somewhere, and if the Bible is what it claims to be (and I am convinced it is) then I would take it at it's word. Otherwise, IMHO, you'll run into all kinds of epistemic problems that may lead one into rank heresy. If I may be so bold, I suggest that you tread carefully before abandoning what our forefathers (especially those since the Reformation) have, for the most part, held to be orthodox.
I would also be interested in hearing what, if any, historical passages of the Bible you think are in error.
As would I. I'd have to do some thinking and research to 1) establish the validity of these definitions and 2) integrate them into my overall theology. But if we grant for the moment, are there any historical passages which you are questioning? If that is the case what are the reasons?
I'd also recommend Warfield on the topic, what I've read from him has been more than thorough. Also EJ Young is an easier read, but he covers a lot of ground in Thy Word Is Truth. Both are very good books in my humble (but always correct) opinion ;)
Thanks Clark and Glenn for your comments. I hope you guys understand this is something I'm still hashing out and am not going to hold to a position any time soon. I think over a year of waiting on my part shows that I'm not willing to abandon orthodoxy outright but I am willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
I'll be looking at the book suggestions you guys listed which sound like good books from amazing theologians. Thanks for trying to caution me Clark and I'll definitely take it to heart. I do not think the epistemic problems enough are sufficient enough to outweigh what I know about higher criticism on the flip side of the coin.
It seems difficult for me to take the Bible "at its word" because that is presupposing that it says it's inerrant in the sense of our modern definition. I'll try to post something soon about something more specific, but my main problem has to do with pretty much all higher criticism. So it's not as easy as just saying "look at these two verses."
You mentioned "the Character of God as described in Scripture." We have talked about this before, but I think it would be good to mention again. Ones view of the character of God has a high influence on where one ends up in this issue. God is said to be true, sovereign, faithful, etc. If the bible is the word of God, it should be trusted as true (in all that it affirms, dependent on literary genre, as recorded in the original manuscripts) since the one speaking though it (by use the human authors) is God. It may be more helpful to ask more specific questions to have a more fruitful discussion...although I do know that you are presently have a bunch of ideas that are sometimes hard to formulate.
You wrote, "I do not think the epistemic problems enough are sufficient enough to outweigh what I know about higher criticism on the flip side of the coin."
This is a curious statement to me. The issue of whether or not one can know anything at all should be more than a sufficient reason for one to consider when weighing such issues.
What do you "know" about higher criticism and how did you come to this knowledge? As a professing Christian, what part of your worldview allows you to consider some of the Bible as not being the word of God? What axiom or starting point provides you with a justification for what you claim to "know" about higher criticism. Did you get this knowledge apart from God, or is He somehow revealing to you through higher criticism that what His people for thousands of years have regarded as His word is, at least in part, in fact not His word?
You wrote, "It seems difficult for me to take the Bible "at its word" because that is presupposing that it says it's inerrant in the sense of our modern definition."
You seem to be presupposing that our "modern" definition of inerrancy is not rooted in the exegesis of Scripture and thus not Paul's or Jesus' definition. Is it easier for you to suppose that the "higher critics" of the Bible are not interpreting the Bible according to their "modern definition" of what can and cannot be the word of God? Are they importing their "modern" view of what is and what can be the word of God back into the Bible or do they really have a better grasp on what the authors of Scripture meant by the term "the word of God"?
You wrote, "So it's not as easy as just saying look at these two verses."
I certainly did not say that it was. There are actually dozens and dozens of verses that explain explicitly or implicitly the doctrine of divine inspiration. I trust in your reading that you'll come across them.
Though I am still interested in hearing what historical passages of the Bible you think could possibly not be the word of God, I did not ask all of these questions expecting answers from you. I only asked them as they are questions I would absolutely have to have answered before I could decide anything. Because really, if you can't know anything who really gives a flying fig what Paul, Jesus, or any higher critics of the Bible have to say?
I'll pray that your studies are fruitful and helpful to others.
Thanks Isa, yeah I should be more specific, I'm about to post something specific but not in this area exactly...you'll see. You rock at listening what I have to say and thanks for always reminding me about orthodoxy while putting up with my incessant questioning at the same time. :D
Clark,
What I know about higher criticism comes from my own independent study and various classes I have taken at Biola, mainly from "Jesus' Life and Ministry" where we studied higher criticism of the Synoptics and "Old Testament Theology" where reading Sailhamer's amazing book on the topic spelled out the significance of higher criticism of the modern Old Testament studies.
The way you ask questions comes across as a little accusatory and I would really ask you to try to understand where I'm coming from before generalizing my position as "not believing God's words." Obviously it's not that simple (there are so many assumptions behind each word there) and if it was, I would wholeheartedly affirm inerrancy.
We can both play what I call "the presupposition game" and try to find out what positions we hold to without really asking each other. My standpoint is plain and simple: strongly rooted in evangelicalism and the traditional view of Scripture. I have talked to professors about this who are light years smarter than I who affirm inerrancy. This, I will always keep in mind.
But simply because this is my presuppositional grid does not mean I'm going to seek an easy reconciliation of seemingly contradictory evidence or wave it away in the name of no longer having any knowledge (which is isn't a theologically accurate argument against the infallibility view). Hopefully my next post about how I'm thinking about defending and redefining inerrancy will show that I am not giving up on this easily.
I think you've read too much into what I've said. I was not baiting or playing games with you. Niether did I ever suggest that you take the "easy" way out. Now do I read any accusations against you.
So at the risk of you not taking what I've said so far at anything other than face value I'll refrain from commenting further. All I ask is that you give me the benefit of the doubt and consider what I've said. Like you, I consider this a matter of the utmost importance.
Hi Sam. I appreciate you considering this issue. It's obviously very important.
However, I think it'd be most unwise to dismiss the epistemic issues so quickly, especially since, if this is just a "presupposition game", it's the only game in town.
The wreck of more than 2000 years of philosophical inquiry has shown that the question of "how do I know?" is an insurmountable problem for everyone except those that start with the Bible.
In Christian love, I caution you especially in thinking like this: "but I am willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads".
You first must decide what constitutes evidence. If the Bible is your starting point, it's beyond contrary "evidence". By definition, it'd exclude any such "evidence" as being anything more than hay and stubble.
Also, consider if it's possible to move from something less-than-certain to something absolutely certain. I suggest that it's not. If I'm correct, higher criticism can never lead you to certain knowledge.
Again, I appreciate your difficulties, and admit that dogged Biblical presuppositionalism (like what I'm suggesting) is not smiled upon in most Christian academic circles.
Thanks for cautioning me Dustin and I definitely hear what you're saying. There are certain aspects of your comment I do not agree with but we do have a common bridge of understanding.
I have not waved away the epistemic problems at all though, my point was just that it seems to me a faulty methodology that which defines itself out of falsity. There's a lot to the inductive approach and a cumulative case that should not be thrown out as I've seen many a presuppositionalist do.
Hello Samuel. Dustin here again.
Samuel wrote: "There are certain aspects of your comment I do not agree with"
If you have a moment, I would be interested in hearing what these are and your thoughts on them.
Samuel wrote: "faulty methodology that which defines itself out of falsity"
I don't think making the Bible your epistemic starting point defines your way out of falsity, and I think you'll agree that your choice of starting points necessarily excludes the possibility of certain forms of falsification.
Samuel wrote: "There's a lot to the inductive approach and a cumulative case that should not be thrown out as I've seen many a presuppositionalist do."
Can you elaborate on what you specifically are thinking of when you say "a lot to the inductive approach"?
I do throw out the any method involving induction because any proof using induction is fallacious. (Unless you can complete the induction, which, in the vast majority of cases, you cannot.) Induction never leads to certainty, only probability, and I'd even argue that it's impossible to know the probability.
The probability is the number of favorable outcomes over the total number of outcomes. I expect you can't know either of the values, thus you can't perform the calculation, so referencing a probability is nonsense in most cases.
The issues associated with induction are pretty well known, and David Hume wrote on the implications of said issues in some detail.
If you have an answer for Hume on these issues, I'm totally open to hearing them, because at this point, I think we've either got to have some kind of Scripturalism, or Skepticism for everyone...
This isn't the place to have a prolonged discussion but I'll very quickly elaborate on some points.
The problem with making the Bible your epistemic starting point (as I suspect define it) is that you thus make a object not known "immediately" as your conscious starting point. Not that this is bad wholesale but it serves to prove my point that in this way the Presuppositionalist camp is able to define itself out of falsity. However much evidence (and I'll assume a common understanding of that word) is brought against a worldview that does this, be it Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, etc., there just is not disproving that position. It's impossible, which makes me incredulous as the sincerity of one's observation of the evidence. Frame's view however, seems to break those barriers.
When I refer to the inductive approach I may mean what you are thinking. Fact is we're not really sure about anything and we really know all things through probability. So in all the steps toward building a worldview we should be humble enough to grant that we could be mistaken. By the time you get to the end formula you will never have certainty...unless you're a Cartesian, and if so, that's been refuted so many times it's not even funny.
Dustin: "any proof using induction is fallacious. (Unless you can complete the induction, which, in the vast majority of cases, you cannot.) Induction never leads to certainty, only probability, and I'd even argue that it's impossible to know the probability."
Are you serious? Everything you've ever known from your youth has been the conclusion of a process of induction. I've never understood this perspective, maybe because I tend to agree with Reid's common sense theories and Plantinga's foundationalism.
And you also say you don't believe in improbability but this is something so common-sensical that I find it hard to truly believe that you practically deny this. Again, your comments suggest some sort of Cartesian persuasion but I'm almost sure that can't be where you're coming from.
Not that I'm totally denying Hume's arguments but I think it's safe to say that besides the specific camp of apologetics we come from, we both approach his critiques as Christians. A quick biblical response would be the process of induction found all over Scripture in prophets and the Hebrews accepting God's revelation because they experienced/saw/felt it. Such was Adam's experience, etc.
Sorry for how short some of this is but I really don't like when people start commenting in essay format - not that we've done that yet, but it could certainly lead there.
Sorry, by "we're not sure about anything" I mean "certain (in the Cartesian sense)"
Hello Samuel. Sorry for the delay. Also, I appreciate the time you've put in to posting, and congratulations on your graduation.
Samuel wrote: "a object not known "immediately" as your conscious starting point."
I think you're saying that you believe you can know objects immediately through your senses. If so, I'd like to know how you know this and are certain of it. Likewise, I'd like you to consider that you just making sensation your starting point, and in the system it provides for, there's no certainty. How do you verify that your sensations aren't "modifying" the object being perceived? Is there any way for you to verify this? I doubt it...
Also consider, how do you "know" things that are not sensory objects, such as the idea of quality, number, space, time, etc.?
Samuel wrote: "... Presuppositionalist camp is able to define itself out of falsity"
I'm not sure specifically what you're referring to here. Would you elaborate?
If you mean that the starting point necessarily limits what's possible inside the system that's derived from it, then I completely agree. I don't see this as a problem, though. Some may, though, as not every starting point and resulting system may provide for everything that's desired from an individual.
Samuel wrote: "However much evidence (and I'll assume a common understanding of that word) is brought against a worldview that does this, be it Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, etc., there just is not disproving that position. It's impossible, which makes me incredulous as the sincerity of one's observation of the evidence."
Not everything is disprovable in the conventional sense. Logic, for example.
I would suggest, though, that every other system, except the Christian position (which I'm saying is starting with the Bible, which, along with anything validly deduced from it, contains all knowledge available to Man) is internally inconsistent, and thus demonstrates itself to be false.
Samuel wrote: "Frame's view however, seems to break those barriers."
I think you'll find what I'm suggestion here distinctly different in important ways from Frame & Van Til. It would be a mistake to take my presuppositional system and believe that it's identical to Frame's. It most certainly is not.
Samuel wrote: "Fact is we're not really sure about anything and we really know all things through probability. "
I first must ask: are you certain that you're really not certain about anything?
Likewise, I've already demonstrated that you can't know the probability of most anything. Gently, I suggest that you give some thought to the implications of this. To continue to appeal to something that you clearly can't know is silly. :)
Also, the idea that you can't know for certain is at odds with the Bible.
Consider just the verses I've included below. Do they not speak of certainty? Of knowing absolutely? Indeed, they do. How can you reconcile just these verses with your epistemic view?
Proverbs 22:20-21 Have I not written to you excellent things Of counsels and knowledge, To make you know the certainty of the words of truth That you may correctly answer him who sent you?
John 7:17 "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself.
John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
John 17:6-8 I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. "Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.
Matthew 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Colossians 2:1-3 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face, that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Ephesians 3:8-9 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;
As an excercise, try reading the above verses with the word "probably" or "probable" or "some" in front of the words like "knowledge" or "know". It completely turns the verse on its head. It makes nonsense out of it.
Here's an example: "Have I not written to you excellent things Of counsels and PROBABLE knowledge, To make you PROBABLY know the that these COULD be the words of truth That you may POSSIBLY correctly answer him who sent you?"
Samuel wrote: "By the time you get to the end formula you will never have certainty...unless you're a Cartesian, and if so, that's been refuted so many times it's not even funny."
Are you certain of that?
I'm not Cartesian, but from what I've read of his theories, I appreciate his efforts and admit he got some things right. Deduction is the only valid method of reasoning.
Dustin: "any proof using induction is fallacious. (Unless you can complete the induction, which, in the vast majority of cases, you cannot.) Induction never leads to certainty, only probability, and I'd even argue that it's impossible to know the probability."
Samuel wrote: "Are you serious?"
Yes, I am, though I acknowledge that your surprise is very likely genuine. What I'm proposing, like Christianity, isn't popular, though, like Christianity, the only coherent possibility.
Samuel wrote: "Everything you've ever known from your youth has been the conclusion of a process of induction."
Anything I've "concluded" from sense experience (or induction) is fallacious. It can't properly be called knowledge, but rather opinion, since I can never be certain.
Samuel wrote: "I've never understood this perspective, maybe because I tend to agree with Reid's common sense theories and Plantinga's foundationalism. And you also say you don't believe in improbability but this is something so common-sensical that I find it hard to truly believe that you practically deny this. Again, your comments suggest some sort of Cartesian persuasion but I'm almost sure that can't be where you're coming from."
How do you know there is anything such as "common sense"? It's impossible to demonstrate or experience on your part, and it's simple enough to show it's not universal. For example: I reject it, and I don't reason like you, and for another example, I'd suggest a Buddhist Koan.
I'd suggest that common sense theories have been "refuted so many times it's not even funny.", but I've yet to see what I'm proposing (though I didn't dream it up) succesfully argued against. I'd expect this is because it's the one true system, as revealed from the mind of the Creator, and thus is cannot be refuted.
Samuel wrote: "A quick biblical response would be the process of induction found all over Scripture in prophets and the Hebrews accepting God's revelation because they experienced/saw/felt it. Such was Adam's experience, etc."
I reject the idea that the prophets in Scripture accepted God's revelation because of sense experience. Consider: Matthew 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Peter's knowledge of who Christ was is SPECIFICALLY DID NOT come through sense experience.
Also consider:
1 Corinthians 1:21-25 or since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 2:6-16 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
Samuel wrote: "Sorry for how short some of this"
No need to apologize. I think we're both understanding each other (at least, I believe you've understood me fairly well). You can correct me if you think I've misunderstood you.
Thanks again, Samuel. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on the above.
Well, I think I’m going to go another route on this and come back to what you’ve stated.
Essentially, I believe that belief in the reliability of a priori and posteriori truths are remnants of the image of God in men and women, be they the knowledge of other minds, the reliability of our memory, the trustworthiness of our senses, the basic usefulness of our rationality, etc. If you have a doctrine of the fall that obliterates the image of God in humanity, there is no way we are ever going to see eye to eye. My beliefs are inherently tied to that fundamental axiom; thus, there is such a thing as universals, common sense, etc., because men and women the world over can never really get away from that image that is so innate. I sincerely hope you do not part with this doctrine that is unanimously agreed across the board in Protestantism.
Now what I’ve been saying may make more sense. If I didn’t know you were a Christian, some of your statements would definitely make you sound like an Agnostic/Skeptic. But seeing as you’re a Christian, I do not (and indeed cannot) understand the skepticism with which you view rationality and the basic reliability of our senses. I don’t feel the need to argue for the basic reliability of our senses in “normal” conditions (both subjective and objective) when the fundamental beliefs of the image of God and the noetic effects of sin entail such a belief. I may like to ask, why do you trust your memory? Is that not inductive reasoning? How is that you know about other minds? If something is known deductively, does it necessarily cancel out the inductive method ending at the same point? In other words, because knowledge of other minds is a priori, does that completely exclude one’s arguing for it inductively? I do not think so and neither does John Frame (which is one of the reasons why I like him).
Btw, I wasn’t equating your view w/ Frame’s but just pointing out that he departs pretty drastically from Van Til and Clark and I really find his view much more acceptable.
I never said I was certain of my senses but only that they are basically reliable. By this I mean that they are reliable a great deal of times and they are so reliable so as to bestow on them my faith in their reliability in “normal” conditions most of the time. Everybody does this whether or not they want to agree. I cannot know for certain that my senses are not modifying any object as an illusion but I do know that 92% of the time it is not probable.
Dustin said: Also consider, how do you "know" things that are not sensory objects, such as the idea of quality, number, space, time, etc.?
A priori. I’m not an Empericist. I never experienced 2 + 2 = 4.
By the "... Presuppositionalist camp is able to define itself out of falsity" I mean that any other worldview can do the same and justify itself. There’s no way to prove it wrong. For example, consider the countless theological tensions we believe through Scripture: the hypostatic union, the trinity, the atonement, Calvinism, etc. These are pretty big and I never want people to forget that. One may be able to argue that these are as difficult as other problems in other worldviews.
Now let’s pretend you were an Islamic presuppositionalist Dustin. Would you see the tensions in your religion as contradictions or tensions? How far would you go to reconcile those tensions? Would you easily deem it as “internally inconsistent”? Would you tell me that I’m interpreting the evidence without the lens of Islam and thus it’s humanistic and not of Allah? This is what I mean – Presuppositionalism defines itself out of falsity, it is not possible for it to be false.
Dustin said: “I first must ask: are you certain that you're really not certain about anything?”
No, I’m like 99.9% sure.
You use probability everyday and live by it, I still don’t understand how you shun it.
Dustin said: Also, the idea that you can't know for certain is at odds with the Bible. Consider just the verses I've included below. Do they not speak of certainty? Of knowing absolutely? Indeed, they do. How can you reconcile just these verses with your epistemic view?
Yes and no. I know you’re not trying to twist my words but I think you are missing my point and applying my arguments to where they were not meant to apply. In the case of every Scripture reference you cited, the biblical authors were not formally dealing in philosophical categories of epistemology. I do know that my salvation is “certain” because it is justified by what I know of God’s character and his actions, it is evidently true in my worldview and I believe it. Justified True Belief. You seem to forget however that a major theme of both Testaments is that of the knowledge of faith. We are to know by faith; I know for “certain” that Jesus will return through faith and hope imparted by the Spirit. My point is that this is irrelevant for our discussion.
Dustin said: Anything I've "concluded" from sense experience (or induction) is fallacious. It can't properly be called knowledge, but rather opinion, since I can never be certain.
So, for example, I see my laptop. It is justified because my eyes are in good working condition and the lighting is excellent in my room. It seems to be true, and indeed, the only to confirm that it truly is there is through my senses (I see it, or I can feel it, or even lick it, though I’m not that intimate with my computer). I also believe it to be true. Hmmm…and this is not knowledge. I fail to understand how you can so easily reject something you use everyday and is rooted in the image of God.
Dustin said: How do you know there is anything such as "common sense"? It's impossible to demonstrate or experience on your part, and it's simple enough to show it's not universal. For example: I reject it, and I don't reason like you, and for another example, I'd suggest a Buddhist Koan.
This sounds like Dr. Bob, were you the Dustin that taught at Faith Defenders? Well, I gotta wrap this up cuz it’s so long, but I would argue very strongly that universals are a necessary product of the image of God in humanity. Because the image of God cannot be fully suppressed, there are certain attitudes, beliefs, motivations, actions, customs, etc., that will resemble each other in significant way. Whether we speak of an American, and Yanomami, and Mbuti elder, the Azandi tribe, or the “Felaheen” at Kafr el Elow, there are things that are definitely universal regardless of culture. We all rely on our memory pretty heavily and are also skeptical of it. We all naturally rely on our senses. We all trust to some extent on our rationality. We all are naturally self-centered. We all assume logical truths. We are all capable of hate. We all assume there are other minds or some Mind. The list can get quite long.
Dustin said: I'd suggest that common sense theories have been "refuted so many times it's not even funny."
Again, this would make sense coming from an agnostic or an atheist. I cannot perceive how this can fit in a Christian worldview.
I reject the idea that the prophets in Scripture accepted God's revelation because of sense experience. Consider: Matthew 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Peter's knowledge of who Christ was is SPECIFICALLY DID NOT come through sense experience.
I didn’t say the primary reason they accepted God’s Revelation was through their senses but that without the senses most of the acceptance of revelation in the Bible would be incoherent. You think Moses was like “wow, this sea is opening up, but dang it, my senses are actually not that reliable and inductive reasoning is fallacious….hmmm, well I believe in God and I can deduce from that belief that this sea is opening up. Wait, the relationship God has cultivated with me revolves around my sense experience, crap!” I’d respond similarly to the other verses you posted all of which merely state that God is ultimately in charge of making men and women capable of receiving him in their hearts.
As always, thanks for commenting.
I forgot to attribute this paragraph to Dustin:
"I reject the idea that the prophets in Scripture accepted God's revelation because of sense experience. Consider: Matthew 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Peter's knowledge of who Christ was is SPECIFICALLY DID NOT come through sense experience."
Post a Comment