 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > * "Burial Box of James -- the Brother of Jesus," | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/28/2002 12:14 PM (GMT -6) |   | I was reading today a book by Bernard Ramm -- an eminant Protestant theologian who passed on a few years ago. (He taught at Bethel College around 1950.) In it (the book "The Evangelical Hertage: A study in Historic Theology") he pointed out that Schleiermacher reversed the order of things by making subjective, personal experiential faith become superior to the thing believed. I can't say that it had to be a bad thing; but it was done, perhaps, in a bad way.
Ramm makes this remark: "The cultured German must be told that religion is not dogma, creed, or confession but a living experience with God." That looks good to me. But the following is the unpacking that Ramm offers on Schleiermacher's reversal: The essence of faith to Schleiermacher was feeling.
I think I understand the discussion Modes and honorman are having. I think. honorman may not understand Modes. But Modes seems to be making a valuable distinction between cold-Dogma and Truth to be believed. GIANT in the Christian faith is that Christ IS the Truth: Truth is a Person. Schleiermacher's division between faith (feeling, based on romantic connectivity between God, nature and man) and the God our faith rests in is a false choice. You betcha.
I think that we have to avoid any temptation to either turn our faith into a stand-alone object, or to reduce it to feelings. Either way seems prone to become a substitue for the "real thing."
Al | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/28/2002 1:02 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman: "...glorifying the God who called her, rather the servant God made..."
Al: intersting juxtaposition. The idea that one could glorify the Christian AS a Christian WITHOUT glorifying God in the process. IS THAT BIBLICAL? (I think of the basic idea in 1 Cor 15:31 in which Paul says, "...just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord.") [/list] Language changes. WE have an egalitarian language, and have lost a lot of the sublelty of English. In England a judge is called "His Worship", and worship does not mean the kind you give only to God. Its honor -- as we call our judges "His Honor."
My Orthodox friends sing "we will magnify" when priasing the glory and grace of God in Christians. Ultimately, as honorman said so many times, it is ALL ABOUT CHRIST!!!!!!!!
honorman wrote: "...cloud the true perception (and true wonder) of who Mary truly was..." How true that is. Especially the RCC theory (heretical) of the Immaculate Conception.
But I do point to the fact that I did provide scritpural basis. And I think it is sheer prejudice, common to ALL OF US PROTESTANTS!!!!!!!!!. We ignore scripture when it suits us.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/28/2002 1:02 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman had some interesting comments:
- How does one tell?: When I ask them what truth they have, they ended up describing what most Mormon's call "The Burning in the Bosom," an experience that, to them, makes true what they believe.
- Jesus Christ needs to be a historical figure who lived and died for our sins and must be able to be validated as that historically, as a human person historically for our faith if one believed that for sins to be taken away a sacrifice must be made.
- The same Paul that Modes Of Thought quotes (interesting name), also stated that if Christ did not rise, your faith is in vain. So Paul himself planted faith in a historical evidence which happened.
I think that his post--the first clip--and what I quoted from Ramm on liberalism fit nicely together. Of his Morman relatives experience versus his own -- on THAT basis alone, he can truly ask, "How does one tell." Good point, honorman.
In the second clip, the part about the historical BEING of Christ's death and Resurrection are as vital as whether a bridge is completed before you drive over it. (a good analogy) But I remember Jesus words to Thomas, and therefore halt before agreeing totally with the rest, were he says, "must be able to be validated".
Building on that, I want to take issue with what he says in the third clip, to Modes. I think that honorman misunderstands Paul in that passage. It appears that honorman reads Paul to say that "faith is in vain" if the information is not in evidence, historically. That leaves out David, Moses, Job (who knew his 'redeemer liveth', etc.) I'm sure I'm only taking issue with honorman's words. I'm sure that he also believes that it is NOT our faith that saves us. It is Grace (though faith), as Paul says. It is by Christ's death that our sins are payed, and it is by His Resurrection that we are Justified.
** "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification" (Romans 4:25).
I think that honorman would argue for, as I did in the post above, for faith to not be cold-dogma, nor feeling (nor archiological data), but be relationship with the risen Lord.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/28/2002 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott, I'll try to answer you:
quote:
By the way, the inscription reads James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. (Translated into English, naturally). On this type of vessel there should be no doubt what son of Joseph means.
And it would be a shame if some who want Mary to have always been a virgin (with no basis in scripture, save an earlier obscure reference), prevent the objective confirmation of this ossuary.
And Al-what is this "Protestants not liking scripture, but Medieval rationality"? Huh? Where did that come from? I don't know a single church going Protestant who doesn't own a Bible...but do know Catholics who don't own one. Makes we especially wonder about that statement!
1. "son of Joseph" -- Yep!
2. "shame if .. Mary's being '[ever] virgin' ... prevent[ed] the objective confirmation of this ossuary.? -- How could that possibly screw it up? I don't see it.
3. "Al-'Protestants not liking scripture, but Medieval rationality'?" -- Notice, Scott, that I said "Medieval." You then contrasted RCC with us Evangelicals. Why?
Medieval Scholasticism,. for which the RCC are so proud, sometimes contorted truth to fit logic. Sometimes went boldy wher elogic led, but revelation didn't follow. But they are not the only ones to do so; and they don't always do it.
I'm not in favor of steriotypes.
Something similar, we ALL do sometimes, is to "know" what you want to believe and then going to find scripture to back it up. Happens all the time. I've known "Open Viewers" to publically say that that was their method. (though no one lately) Of course Luther just wrote "alone" right into his Bible when it suited him  .
Thanks, Scott.
Al
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/28/2002 6:32:04 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/28/2002 3:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Modes,
Honorman has said the same thing along the lines I have, but I'll see if I can't add a few things.
Modes:Do you think that the “evidence” you speak of is such that it warrants the conclusion of “faith”? I mean how is “faith” different from rational conclusion to a logically assessed problem?
Starkman: No, not at all. I don't mean that faith is a sort of pragmatism; a conclusion of the events as evidence. One can observe the evidence and say, "Well, that's nice," and be on their way. There is no faith concluded in deriving the meaning of evidence; however, to appropriate the conclusion of the evidence (say, the life, death and resurrection of Christ), there is faith required to surmount all the odds encountered against it (faith) as it onslaughts against fallen humanity. This is where it gets "personal", and all the evidence in the world cannot become faith; it can only assist to assure one that the personalness of one's faith in the conclusion of the evidence is in the right direction.
Modes: For instance, what is it about faith (assuming the presence of conclusive evidence for the moment, though I don’t really agree with this) that makes it necessary for salvation for a believer, but the very same “evidence” is clear to Satan and does him no good at all? Is it just that we are sharper than Satan? He’s sorta dull and doesn’t do the math right?
Starkman: It seems, Modes, that you're assuming a conclusion to evidence insists, therefore, that all are bondaged to its conclusion. The clarity of the evidence, as I mentioned above, may in fact leave one with "Well, that's nice," and that's that. The evidence doesn't conclude faith. And in the case of Satan, there is already the decree of his eternal destiny prohibiting his becoming a believer.
Modes: I think that it is far from clear that most believers are believers on the basis of historical evidence. Rather, most are believers (I hope!) on the basis of the power of God in their lives.
Paul seems to suggest this in:
1Cor. 2:1
“When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.”
Starkman: Let me clarify that I am not suggesting that one has to hear the evidence in some lofty manner, conclude accordingly, and then say, "Ok, I'm going to put my faith in this." What Paul first understood in the quote you gave is that Jesus was the Messiah. He would not have been able to preach in the context he mentions in that quote if he first didn't understand the evidence of the resurrection of the Christ and OT Messianic requirements which Jesus fulfilled. That's what he preached. That is the wisdom and power of God. Christ, the wisdom and Power of God. What Christ? Who is Christ? Questions solidified on evidence and appropriated in faith.
Paul encountered Christ FIRST and then considered the evidence, and this is fine. One may also encounter the evidence first and then encounter the Christ. Either way, one must understand what it is they believe IN; ultimately the evidence that it all happened, is believable, and can be appropriated.
I'm not strapping investigation as the pathway (though that has been the pathway for many) to an encounter with the Power of God, I'm strapping the historical encounter of God with this world through Christ as the foundation FOR the reality of faith in the power of God. One may not even get all the facts of the evidence before one believes, but one has to have something of a knowledge of the evidence--the life, death and resurrection of Christ, the atoning blood (a real, space-time event now as evidence.) One may never call their encounter with God, however it came, as "based on the evidence", but ultimately it cannot be any other way: faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. It is the reliable Word given to us in a reliable history. (And yes, it is the Word of God backed by the power of the God who gave it which saves, which brings faith.)
Modes: You may call the resurrection a “historically evidenced event” but it is only that for the eyes of faith. There is always another explanation. Most people seem to opt for the other explanations.
Starkman: Another explanation can be given about anything of any nature, and I could believe in any one of those explanations and put my faith in it. People do this all the time. But what distinguishes faith in the truth from faith in the false? Historically reliable evidence. I mean, this kind of evidence can be 5 minutes old or 2000 years old. It's just how we operate. That DOESN'T mean that everyone will have to research the evidence to believe (some have, however), but nevertheless, before faith comes, there must be that which exists in which to have faith . . . true faith. And that is evidence. (I think the formal sounding word "evidence" is robbing us here of similar beliefs!)
Modes: My point is, I believe that faith is presupposed when considering evidence of this nature.
Starkman: This wasn't Paul's experience. Quite the opposite.
Modes: It does seem strange that some actually want to argue that God becoming a human being is a plausible idea. Unless something like that is actually revealed to us by God, my guess is that reason would consider this Jesus thesis as actually more of a blasphemous idea.
Starkman: This was Paul's experience. But it's not the experience of others. Some need not study the evidence but merely hear the story of Jesus, and it's immediately theres by faith. Others, however, must study the evidence to conclude first its veracity before putting trust (faith) into it. Either way, they must here something of the reality of who and what Jesus is.
Modes: Don’t get me wrong, I do care about the historical facts insofar as we can know them, but they are not sufficient for faith.
Starkman They are more than sufficient for faith, if by faith we keep in mind that the evidence provides the security in knowing that what one is putting one's faith in is trustworthy. As far a the literal act of faithing--that commitment one makes in and by faith to become a child of God--that is, as you noted, strictly in conjunction with the power of God. Perhaps that's where my lack of clarifying this issue gave way to your thoughts. And perhaps I've drilled this well into the ground and am about to hit China! Sorry about that!
For the "Ah, rats, it's getting late again",
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 10/28/2002 8:24:31 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/28/2002 6:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Okay, one step at a time:
Honorman quoted Lewis as saying:
"Christianity claims to give an account of facts-to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however help it might be; if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all."
Modes:
As I see it, the Bible claims to bear witness to God’s faithfulness. Both in the Old Testament, as God pursued the Jews, and in the New Testament, as God offered us the fullest revelation in Jesus Christ. The texts speak specifically as testimonies, they bear witness, even those who died for this cause where named "martyrs" which translates literally to "witnesses." This is not an objective report from a disinterested observer! These people were intent on persuasion. In this quote at least, Lewis makes it sound like the Bible is a proposal of a hypothesis. Something we can accept or reject based on our assessment of the facts. This is simply not an accurate description of the genres present in the Bible. It is not our "natural inquisitiveness" that drives us to the cross, it is our awareness of sin. This sin must be revealed to us personally by Christ himself. As far as the last line goes, that would be true of any proposition.
honorman went on to say:
The same Paul that Modes Of Thought quotes (interesting name), also stated that if Christ did not rise, your faith is in vain. So Paul himself planted faith in a historical evidence which happened. Therefore it should be able to be shown to be true in history. That does not, mean, of course, that every relic has to be true, nor that faith is dependant on them. But certain events must be true for our faith to be valid. And those events must be able to be valid historically to justify the faith we place in them.
Modes:
Surely your point isn’t that Paul was confused is it? I think you have some things mixed up here. It is God who plants faith, not Paul. God planted faith in Paul quite abruptly. Paul did not resist this. Now, as I have already mentioned, Paul encountered Christ personally. This is the "evidence" that he leans on. Check out just a bit earlier than the line you quoted from I Cor. 15. Check out for instance the whole of verses 1-11. Paul was a apostle "untimely born" because he saw Christ quite out of order from the others. The other apostles knew Christ in life prior to the resurrection, Paul only knew the risen Lord, which of course, is enough. Paul apparently didn’t believe the testimony of the Christians he was persecuting prior to his radical encounter with Christ himself. So if the "facts" were not enough for this brilliant person close to the events, why think that the facts themselves might produce faith now, 2000 years later? No, it is Christ himself who gives us the gift of faith. Which is why the NT teaches us to pray that God might increase our faith. It is a gift, not a work.
There are two very different claims going on here. The idea that particular historical events must be true for our faith to be ultimately validated, is I think fair and accurate. But the idea that the evidence we have given to us from the Bible and or history is sufficient to ground faith in philosophical "certainty" is surely not warranted. History does not permit such "certainties." Though faith surely does, for the one who has it. There is an excellent book out there entitled "The Myth of Certainty" by Daniel Taylor, a Bethel Prof. It is a very worthwhile read on the false assumption that we can achieve philosophical certainty with regard to issues of faith.
I don’t know about you, but I place faith in the living Christ, not any particular historical facts or arguments for the resurrection of Christ. This is not to say that I don’t believe in the historical resurrection, or that I don’t think that there is support for that belief. It is simply that I know that it is not certain in a scientific sense that Christ rose from the dead. That is not a viable hypothesis for scientific inquiry. We don’t have access to the sorts of data needed to settle that sort of question. There really is a role for faith in Christianity. And faith is always something that goes beyond the evidence.
honorman continued:
For instance, Jesus Christ needs to be a historical figure who lived and died for our sins and must be able to be validated as that historically, as a human person historically for our faith if one believed that for sins to be taken away a sacrifice must be made. Surely a myth cannot die for one's sins.
Modes:
Now, I agree with what is said here. But the difference between you and I is that you seem to think that because this must be, in principle, "able to be validated" it therefore has been validated. I don’t jump that far that fast. I do agree that it must be, in principle, "able to be validated." But it is an altogether different thing to claim that this validation has happened and that we all have access to the unambiguous proof of it. Where is it? What makes it unabmiguous? Why don’t the scholars agree? Is there a conspiracy to supress the evidence? I am in no way suggesting that Jesus is a myth. I am suggesting that I have faith that goes beyond the evidence that Jesus was truly God and truly did reconcile me to God though his life, death and resurrection. I am saying that I believe this dispite the fact that this cannot be proven, even to my own satisfaction. Why? Because I have indeed encountered the living Lord and that has opened up the Scriptures to my eyes to see that which others do not see. Check out Luke 24:13-31. Notice some things here. Jesus is only revealed when he wants to be. This is important. We don’t find God, God finds us. In fact, that is practically a quote. Jesus says, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." We may resist this but we are not free to generate it. Before I came to faith, a faithful person used apologetics to put to rest some issues in my mind about misconceptions of the Christian faith, but it was not until God confronted me that I had faith. It was not my doing, but God’s. I could have resisted the offer, but I didn’t set the table.
honorman continued:
And certainly the apostles believed that Jesus literally rose from the dead or they would not have had hope for their own resurrection.
Modes:
I most certainly agree with you here. They testify to this sort of faith.
honorman continues:
Other things could be said as well. My point is that these things can be shown to be historically true without any faith in who Jesus was or how they happened. And I think these things reasonably warrent faith. What happened at Jesus' tomb? What accounts for Jesus' sightings after his death? William Lane Craig and others have shown that the best explanation is that Jesus did die and did rise from the dead. I believe such things warrent faith. That doesn't mean that people will reject because they don't want to believe, but that is another story. Will plays a great part in what we do and do not believe.
Modes:
Please introduce me to one person who believes that Jesus rose yet, is not a person of faith. One human person, that is. As we know, the devil believes this historically speaking, but it does him no good. Now, my saying this is a reflection of my faith. I say that the devil believes this because I am convinced, by faith, that the resurrection is true, but, of course, it would be just as silly for me to expect someone who doesn’t believe in the devil to believe that the devil’s beliefs about the resurrection matter for much.
There is a confusion about certainty again here. Facts can warrant belief, but not faith. And facts should only warrant belief if they are clear and certain. Now, this is really quite a rare thing. Most rare in history where there are far more questions than answers. Of course, there are many good questions to ask of those who deny the resurrection. But if one of a person’s current beliefs is that people don’t rise from the dead, then that hypothesis is not going to make the top ten list for ways to explain the various historical questions. It could only occur to a person of faith that the idea that Jesus rose from the dead is the natural explanation for an empty tomb. And this occurs to us, not out of the blue, but because of the testimony of many witnesses, all of whom claim this man was God. Now, that is a strange claim. I don’t think Christians pay much attention to what a strange idea that really is. Why in the word is William Lane Craig or another believer more qualified to offer the "best" explanation for the various questions surrounding Jesus’ death? Why not poll secular historians? Why indeed, because we know that it is not likely that they have faith. Why not? Perhaps they have not yet encountered the living God.
honorman went on to say:
In the end, there must be balance, of course. All religions have an "experience" what they preceive as an event that justifies their beliefs. For instance, my aunt and uncle are Mormon. When I ask them what truth they have, they ended up describing what most Mormon's call "The Burning in the Bosom," an experience that, to them, makes true what they believe. But Mormons differ from from evangelical Christians in how they view God, so it cannot be true that both Christians and Mormons (and Hindus and Muslims, etc.) are all experiencing the same God (unless God likes to deceive), so one experience is valid and the other is invalid. How does one tell? One tells by the evidence ones faith is grounded in. The evidences keep the experience on the path of truth and the experience keeps the faith from turning into a lifeless set of principles.
So Christianity is a historical faith in a God who wants a relationship with us. The evidence compells but doesn't make a person what faith. But it does compell faith.
Modes:
This sounds nice in theory, but it may complicate things to know that Calvin too spoke of an "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" as the evidence of faith. I agree that the story around the development of Mormonism seems implausible to me. But I am just trying to point out that our story is somewhat implausible as well. So implausible that it is called "foolishness to the Gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews." But yet, we do encounter the living Lord and what previously seemed impossible (rising from the dead, etc.) becomes more plausible at every turn. I would not argue the truth of Christianity on the basis of historical evidence, rather, I would argue it on the uniqueness of Christian faith. Though, I don’t image that those arguments would do a bit of good without the power of God showing up in the person’s life. The good news is, any one can testify to a life changed, and God can use that testimony to move another person into a receptive place for faith to be planted in them. How sad it would be to need a degree in apologetics to be an effective witness to Christ.
honorman again said:
I would ask, though, if facts are not sufficent for faith, then why believe at all? If there is not factual evidence for Christianity to compell a person to believe (and if you look at lives of converts like CS Lewis, who concluded that he was the "most reluctant convert", a person in whose lives the evidence does play a great role, a person who did not want to believe, but had to by the truth fo what he found), then I truly wonder why a person would believe this as opposed to something else? Would not a person simply believe what is easiest, what is most benefical to the needs of a sinful person? If faith is presupposed to a belief system, then why preach the gospel at all, because certain people will simply believe and others with never be compelled by the evidence? Sounds very deterministic to me...
Modes:
Well, I believe because I have been forgiven all my sins. I believe because God showed up in my life. I believe because I have been made a new person and have been washed by the blood. God’s faithfulness is greater than my ability to screw up and I accept that. I believe because I have been forgiven much and loved much. I am not saying that I shut my brain off, in order to believe, but that my brain works much better redeemed than it did lost. Though it still doesn’t get me all that I would need to have hard and fast proof to show another, I can tell them what God has done for me. I think that your questions presuppose that all beliefs are basically equal if we cannot logically confirm one and logically disconfirm others. This is not really true. But it is beside the point, the truth is not a proposition but a person. Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and life." He did not say that he teaches these things, but that he IS these things. I don’t believe it because he taught it, I believe it because he showed up, showed me my sin, and saved my sorry butt.
If you are suggesting that Christianity is just one of many possible beliefs on the smorgasboard of religious options, then I would agree with you that there is not really that much to say that you should believe it rather than the others. Except that most Americans "believe it" in that regard, so it fits culturally. But that is not what you are after, I imagine. You are probably assuming that some transformation must take place. Right? I don’t have any idea why you suggest that the alternative to your view is determinism. That would only follow if grace were irresistable. But, of course, it is not.
kerygma said:
The best I've heard it put is that Christianity is based on faith, but not blind faith. In fact Christianity is different from other faiths in many dimensions and historical evidence is one of them.
Modes:
I certainly don’t intend to be supporting blind faith. But neither is the evidence what prevents it from being blind. What has been seen by faith is Christ. Christ is the truth and the only worthy foundation of faith. Christ must be encountered personally, not merely historically. In fact, that should be obvious, since it is quite impossible to encounter a person who is not present. It is a perfectly reasonable idea that a person’s ability to affirm Christian faith is in fact dependant upon Christ’s presence. Not 2000 years ago alone, but with us here today. If Christ was only present 2000 years ago and our faith was based on that, well that would be strange since so many claim to have a personal relationship with Christ.
Al2Si2H4O9 nailed it precisely when he said:
I was reading today a book by Bernard Ramm -- an eminant Protestant theologian who passed on a few years ago. (He taught at Bethel College around 1950.) In it (the book "The Evangelical Hertage: A study in Historic Theology") he pointed out that Schleiermacher reversed the order of things by making subjective, personal experiential faith become superior to the thing believed. I can't say that it had to be a bad thing; but it was done, perhaps, in a bad way.
Ramm makes this remark: "The cultured German must be told that religion is not dogma, creed, or confession but a living experience with God." That looks good to me. But the following is the unpacking that Ramm offers on Schleiermacher's reversal: The essence of faith to Schleiermacher was feeling.
I think I understand the discussion Modes and honorman are having. I think. honorman may not understand Modes. But Modes seems to be making a valuable distinction between cold-Dogma and Truth to be believed. GIANT in the Christian faith is that Christ IS the Truth: Truth is a Person. Schleiermacher's division between faith (feeling, based on romantic connectivity between God, nature and man) and the God our faith rests in is a false choice. You betcha.
I think that we have to avoid any temptation to either turn our faith into a stand-alone object, or to reduce it to feelings. Either way seems prone to become a substitue for the "real thing."
Modes:
Thanks, Al, and yes, I believe you read me as I intended.
Starkman rejoined the fun with:
quote:
Hey Modes,
Honorman has said the same thing along the lines I have, but I'll see if I can't add a few things.
Modes:Do you think that the "evidence" you speak of is such that it warrants the conclusion of "faith"? I mean how is "faith" different from rational conclusion to a logically assessed problem?
Starkman: No, not at all. I don't mean that faith is a sort of pragmatism; a conclusion of the events as evidence. One can observe the evidence and say, "Well, that's nice," and be on their way. There is no faith concluded in deriving the meaning of evidence; however, to appropriate the conclusion of the evidence (say, the life, death and resurrection of Christ), there is faith required to surmount all the odds encountered against it (faith) as it onslaughts against fallen humanity. This is where it gets "personal", and all the evidence in the world cannot become faith; it can only assist to assure one that the personalness of one's faith in the conclusion of the evidence is in the right direction.
The only confirmation of faith I know is the awareness that I have of my sins being forgiven. That it truly is finished. This is not the appropriation of the conclusions of evidence, but rather the result of being encountered by the Living God. I don’t think that your suggestion that someone might conclude (in the modern times) "Well, that’s nice" is even plausible. The idea that someone raising from the dead is not something that warrants such a conclusion. However, it DOES warrant these two responses: "That’s ABSURD!!!" on the one hand or "PRAISE GOD!!!" on the other. Now, the difference between these is one of faith. The "Well, that’s nice" response isn’t really paying attention to what is being discussed here.
quote:
Modes: For instance, what is it about faith (assuming the presence of conclusive evidence for the moment, though I don’t really agree with this) that makes it necessary for salvation for a believer, but the very same "evidence" is clear to Satan and does him no good at all? Is it just that we are sharper than Satan? He’s sorta dull and doesn’t do the math right?
Starkman: It seems, Modes, that you're assuming a conclusion to evidence insists, therefore, that all are bondaged to its conclusion. The clarity of the evidence, as I mentioned above, may in fact leave one with "Well, that's nice," and that's that. The evidence doesn't conclude faith. And in the case of Satan, there is already the decree of his eternal destiny prohibiting his becoming a believer.
See above regarding the first part, and see the early church fathers regarding the second. It is not universally agreed that Satan could not yet be saved. As implausible as this may seem, it is not less plausible than the idea that God would make saints of sinners for free.
quote:
Starkman: Let me clarify that I am not suggesting that one has to hear the evidence in some lofty manner, conclude accordingly, and then say, "Ok, I'm going to put my faith in this." What Paul first understood in the quote you gave is that Jesus was the Messiah. He would not have been able to preach in the context he mentions in that quote if he first didn't understand the evidence of the resurrection of the Christ and OT Messianic requirements which Jesus fulfilled. That's what he preached. That is the wisdom and power of God. Christ, the wisdom and Power of God. What Christ? Who is Christ? Questions solidified on evidence and appropriated in faith.
Again, Paul did NOT believe these things for some time since we know he persecuted Christians despite all the "evidence." What turned him around was the direct address, "Why do you persecute me Saul?" Jesus knocked him on his butt and told him what’s up. THAT is why he believed. Of course, once he had that experience, he realized that the testimonies of the Christians was true and that Jesus had indeed been raised.
quote:
Paul encountered Christ FIRST and then considered the evidence, and this is fine. One may also encounter the evidence first and then encounter the Christ. Either way, one must understand what it is they believe IN; ultimately the evidence that it all happened, is believable, and can be appropriated.
I'm not strapping investigation as the pathway (though that has been the pathway for many) to an encounter with the Power of God, I'm strapping the historical encounter of God with this world through Christ as the foundation FOR the reality of faith in the power of God. One may not even get all the facts of the evidence before one believes, but one has to have something of a knowledge of the evidence--the life, death and resurrection of Christ, the atoning blood (a real, space-time event now as evidence.) One may never call their encounter with God, however it came, as "based on the evidence", but ultimately it cannot be any other way: faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. It is the reliable Word given to us in a reliable history. (And yes, it is the Word of God backed by the power of the God who gave it which saves, which brings faith.)
I agree that there are many ways that God seems to use to bring us to the recognition that we have a decision to make regarding Jesus. But it is not about appropriating evidence, it is about abiding in Christ and he abiding in us. Christ IS the truth. The teacher is not seperable from the teaching. Many seem to want that. The word of God is the person of Jesus Christ, the one whom we must find ourselves in through baptism. These are not merely ideas based on history, they are realities that manifest today and are first and foremost present. Yes, if they are present, they were also past. But that is not the basis of faith, Christ is (present tense, please note).
quote:
Modes: You may call the resurrection a "historically evidenced event" but it is only that for the eyes of faith. There is always another explanation. Most people seem to opt for the other explanations.
Starkman: Another explanation can be given about anything of any nature, and I could believe in any one of those explanations and put my faith in it. People do this all the time. But what distinguishes faith in the truth from faith in the false? Historically reliable evidence. I mean, this kind of evidence can be 5 minutes old or 2000 years old. It's just how we operate. That DOESN'T mean that everyone will have to research the evidence to believe (some have, however), but nevertheless, before faith comes, there must be that which exists in which to have faith . . . true faith. And that is evidence. (I think the formal sounding word "evidence" is robbing us here of similar beliefs!)
Perhaps your last parenthetic note is correct. When you say evidence, I hear "facts or data that lead one to a true proposition or conclusion" and that is not what we need. We need the full person of Jesus, not info about him. We need to be IN Christ, not merely informed about him. We need to die and be raised in Christ, not merely aware of true statements about Jesus of Nazareth.
quote:
Modes: My point is, I believe that faith is presupposed when considering evidence of this nature.
Starkman: This wasn't Paul's experience. Quite the opposite.
As stated above, I disagree. Please support this. If you mean to point out I Cor. 15, be sure to read the whole section most pertinent (1-11) and see where it really begins.
quote:
Modes: It does seem strange that some actually want to argue that God becoming a human being is a plausible idea. Unless something like that is actually revealed to us by God, my guess is that reason would consider this Jesus thesis as actually more of a blasphemous idea.
Starkman: This was Paul's experience. But it's not the experience of others. Some need not study the evidence but merely hear the story of Jesus, and it's immediately theres by faith. Others, however, must study the evidence to conclude first its veracity before putting trust (faith) into it. Either way, they must here something of the reality of who and what Jesus is.
I would say this stronger: whether they know it or not, God is working in them to bring about faith in Christ who is present for them. They may resist, but their reason cannot get them there on the basis of evidence alone. The presence of Christ IS essential to the message.
quote:
Modes: Don’t get me wrong, I do care about the historical facts insofar as we can know them, but they are not sufficient for faith.
Starkman They are more than sufficient for faith, if by faith we keep in mind that the evidence provides the security in knowing that what one is putting one's faith in is trustworthy. As far a the literal act of faithing--that commitment one makes in and by faith to become a child of God--that is, as you noted, strictly in conjunction with the power of God. Perhaps that's where my lack of clarifying this issue gave way to your thoughts. And perhaps I've drilled this well into the ground and am about to hit China! Sorry about that!
For the "Ah, rats, it's getting late again",
Starkman
I understand "sufficient" to mean: in and of itself enough to bring about the result in question. Evidence is not sufficient for faith as I understand it. Surely you would agree.
I do think these are important distinctions. Here’s why: If we pretend to have sufficient evidence, and a historian or logic professor were to want to check our our so called evidence and find us wanting (as they surely would according to the tools provided by history and logic), well then, we really haven’t helped things much have we? I have yet to see sufficient evidence for the conclusion faith on the basis of evidence alone. In fact, by knowing that Jesus is the truth himself, I can see that this is indeed impossible. Jesus is the sufficient fact, Jesus in direct encounter with the human in question, that is sufficient for faith. But yet even in those cases, we do often resist.
It would be easy to disprove what I am saying. Simply lay out the concise and logical argument that ends with the conclusion: "Therefore, Jesus was God and saved me from my sins." If such an argument existed, surely you would have heard of it by now, right? Craig would have it in his books right? As is being developed on the thread with the topic of "certianity" in its title, we can not have certain knowledge of much of anything useful. We are always working with probabilities, if for no other reason than that we ourselves are finite beings unable to take in the whole of what must be known to draw truely certain conclusions.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 10/28/2002 11:58:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 10/28/2002 7:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes
Please introduce me to one person who believes that Jesus rose from the yet, is not a person of faith. One human person, that is. As I said, the devil believes this historically speaking, but it does him no good.
Iconoclast
Isn't the definition of faith simply, "acting on a belief." Thus, the devil has a very strong evidentiary-based belief in Jesus rising from the dead yet does not "act" on that belief - thus the devil does not have faith. Couldn't someone truly believe that Jesus rose from the dead and yet NOT believe that Jesus loves THEM and thus NOT ACT on this belief? Of course what is the real belief that is at issue here? Isn't the real belief NOT that Jesus rose from the dead but that this MEANS that He truly loves ME and therefore the appropriate ACTION is to love Him back? Does the devil NOT believe that God loves him? Does the devil believe that God loves him yet chooses to NOT act on that belief? Does God NOT love the devil?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/28/2002 7:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Modes
Please introduce me to one person who believes that Jesus rose from the yet, is not a person of faith. One human person, that is. As I said, the devil believes this historically speaking, but it does him no good.
Iconoclast
Isn't the definition of faith simply, "acting on a belief." Thus, the devil has a very strong evidentiary-based belief in Jesus rising from the dead yet does not "act" on that belief - thus the devil does not have faith. Couldn't someone truly believe that Jesus rose from the dead and yet NOT believe that Jesus loves THEM and thus NOT ACT on this belief? Of course what is the real belief that is at issue here? Isn't the real belief NOT that Jesus rose from the dead but that this MEANS that He truly loves ME and therefore the appropriate ACTION is to love Him back? Does the devil NOT believe that God loves him? Does the devil believe that God loves him yet chooses to NOT act on that belief? Does God NOT love the devil?
GREAT questions!
No, I don't really reduce faith to "acting on a belief." If that were the biblical definition, then it would not be the opposite of sin. Sin is not simply acting on a false belief, but is disobedience to the will of God. Sin is more malicious then simply mistaken. The root of sin is the rejection of God's purpose for our lives. This is true of the devil. It is as if the devil is saying to God, "thank you anyway, I think I have a better idea. After all, you are a fool for making me free. I can demonstrate this claim! This is a second rate creation. You could and should have done it better, differently." This is disobedience, plain and simple.
So:
Isn't the definition of faith simply, "acting on a belief."
re:
No. It is much more than that. It is acting in unity with the purpose of God, defined by God, revealed to us. Understood fully, only by God. And, yes, we should trust that it is indeed love.
So:
Thus, the devil has a very strong evidentiary-based belief in Jesus rising from the dead yet does not "act" on that belief - thus the devil does not have faith.
re:
It is true that the devil fails your definition of faith, and he does fail mine as well.
So:
Couldn't someone truly believe that Jesus rose from the dead and yet NOT believe that Jesus loves THEM and thus NOT ACT on this belief?
re:
Yes, but this is not really very likely given the default basic beliefs of most people today. I did make an exception for those in the know, like the angelic realm. It certainly is logically possible, but not a very practical idea.
So:
Of course what is the real belief that is at issue here? Isn't the real belief NOT that Jesus rose from the dead but that this MEANS that He truly loves ME and therefore the appropriate ACTION is to love Him back?
re:
Action for action is not the issue here. Christ’s work effects a new reality in Creation. We participate in that reality and must abide in it. It is not about a belief even, but a restored relationship, a restored covenant. There is a difference between thought and being. This is about being, though it also is real for thought as well.
So:
Does the devil NOT believe that God loves him? Does the devil believe that God loves him yet chooses to NOT act on that belief? Does God NOT love the devil?
re:
I believe that God does love the devil at some basic level, and that the devil knows this and uses it to increase the suffering of God. Again, it is not about "beliefs" so much as actual relationships. These are real beings with real histories and real relations. I am not speculating that Satan will be saved but merely suggesting that the same risk God takes in creating us with the capacity to reject God, God took with the angels, and in the case of Satan this risk was a loss. A huge one. Is it ultimately irredemable? I have no idea. But greater minds than mine have certainly wondered about this.
Fun questions! Good to hear from you again!
re:
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
kerygma
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 10/29/2002 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Al,
quote:
2. "shame if .. Mary's being '[ever] virgin' ... prevent[ed] the objective confirmation of this ossuary.? -- How could that possibly screw it up? I don't see it.
Because the dominant Catholic tradition is that the brothers of Jesus are actually cousins, since Mary didn't have any more children, or they were step brothers in that they were Joseph's sons by a previous marriage. Catholic doctrine holds that Mary had perpetual virginity, because, well, she just did!
So, if the very plain and unmistakeable wording of this ossuary conflicts with Roman Catholic doctrine, do I need to explain which one will end up being discredited by same? With me now?
quote:
3. "Al-'Protestants not liking scripture, but Medieval rationality'?" -- Notice, Scott, that I said "Medieval." You then contrasted RCC with us Evangelicals. Why?
Medieval Scholasticism,. for which the RCC are so proud, sometimes contorted truth to fit logic. Sometimes went boldy wher elogic led, but revelation didn't follow. But they are not the only ones to do so; and they don't always do it.
OK, I just personally don't understand or have not experienced Protestants as a group, "not liking scripture", was all. And I was trying to point out, as a group, there might be reason to believe they're more familiar with scripture than others. Sorry, the two thoughts are distantly related, I admit!
quote:
I think that we have to avoid any temptation to either turn our faith into a stand-alone object, or to reduce it to feelings. Either way seems prone to become a substitute for the "real thing."
Incredibly well said. This goes in my quotes to keep!
In His peace,
Scott
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:5
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/30/2002 1:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott, Thanks for the afirmation:
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------
I think that we have to avoid any temptation to either turn our faith into a stand-alone object, or to reduce it to feelings. Either way seems prone to become a substitute for the "real thing."
----------------------------------------
Incredibly well said. This goes in my quotes to keep!
And thanks for your response below. to. I'll comment at the end.
quote:
kerygma :
------------------------------------
Al:
2. "shame if .. Mary's being '[ever] virgin' ... prevent[ed] the objective confirmation of this ossuary.? -- How could that possibly screw it up? I don't see it.
------------------------------------
Because the dominant Catholic tradition is that the brothers of Jesus are actually cousins, since Mary didn't have any more children, or they were step brothers in that they were Joseph's sons by a previous marriage. Catholic doctrine holds that Mary had perpetual virginity, because, well, she just did!
So, if the very plain and unmistakeable wording of this ossuary conflicts with Roman Catholic doctrine, do I need to explain which one will end up being discredited by same? With me now?
Pretend, for yourself, for a minute, that James is Jesus step brother. I bet that is true. For 33 years he is called his brother. Moreover, I'm betting the culture is more like the ones I studied in college Cultural Anthropology classes where kinship terms serve, perhaps, more to include than to exclude. We have the term "step" and it carries with it a division. Lots of cultures have kinship terms that you call someone by that mean, literally the following: "person who I will marry if my wife dies"; uncle who will be my father if my parents die." Kinship terms are very interesting to study. I took a course in them.
So, another tack. Who does the ossuary imply is more famous, Jesus or James? (*thinking......*)
I don't see ANY discrediting possible here. None.
Thanks for the exchange.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/30/2002 5:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes of Thought: I am sorry, but you have written too many words for me, so I'll just respond quickly to a couple of points.
Paul confused? Not really. Paul was simply stating that our faith is based on a historical fact...perhaps you are confused about that. I am not sure of your point.
I fully believe the Pharisees believed he rose from the dead just like they knew he did his miracles. Just as I believe there are many in the world who know he rose from the dead but would not admit it. Rebellion does not mean people don't understand what happened. They simply choose to disregard the evidence.
People are not all honest. Just because someone says they don't believe it doesn't mean they are telling the truth...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/30/2002 6:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Modes of Thought: I am sorry, but you have written too many words for me, so I'll just respond quickly to a couple of points.
Paul confused? Not really. Paul was simply stating that our faith is based on a historical fact...perhaps you are confused about that. I am not sure of your point.
I fully believe the Pharisees believed he rose from the dead just like they knew he did his miracles. Just as I believe there are many in the world who know he rose from the dead but would not admit it. Rebellion does not mean people don't understand what happened. They simply choose to disregard the evidence.
People are not all honest. Just because someone says they don't believe it doesn't mean they are telling the truth...
honorman,
Then would you agree that just because someone says they DO believe it doesn't mean they are telling the truth?
Consider the two statements you made in this fashion. You said:
"I fully believe the Pharisees believed he rose from the dead just like they knew he did his miracles."
What if I, recognizing that, as you say, "people are not all honest" don't believe that you really believe the sentence above? Or, you said:
"Just as I believe there are many in the world who know he rose from the dead but would not admit it."
What if I doubt that you really believe this? Wouldn't that be pretty frustrating?
No, if they say they don't believe it, I will grant them that. After all, I have no way of verifying what they do or do not believe outside of what they testify to. Plus, it seems plausible to me that a person might not believe in the resurrection of the dead. I haven't seen it happen first hand, have you? It is beginning to sound like you need to hold certain beliefs about the basic dishonesty of other people's investigations so that you can support the claim that what you see as self-evident in fact is. I really hope that I have misunderstood you, because that doesn't seem like a very persuasive way to present the gospel.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 10/30/2002 11:16:34 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/30/2002 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Modes,
As I stated before, I believe we're on the same wave length as far as Who it is that saves and how He saves. We agree it is Christ Who saves, and that by the power of God. I certainly never meant to imply that there's some magical power about evidence which creates saving faith. Not at all
When we save "faith", we can mean a few different things: 1) doctrine; 2) simple, basic trust, as in "I have faith in you that you'll do the right thing"; 3) that faith with which God excepts as a requirement for Him to apply the atoning blood of the lamb in my life and wash away my sins. Spiritual faith.
I believe all three come into play at one point or another for salvation to happen: we must first believe something about someone--that the life, death and sacrifice of Christ is the only way unto salvation; faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. This covers the basic doctrine and spiritual faith. There is also the faith of simple trust: action based upon a belief supported by confidence. Let's go on. . . .
I Corinthians 15--the entire context of verses 1-11 and on through the rest of the verses--is not an appeal to the subjective experience Paul had. It is an appeal, rather, to why his Christianity is valid; objective evidence: the resurrection. In this manner he vehemently argued for Christianity against those who wouldn't believe; having to refer to the historical evidence of the resurrection based upon fulfillment of prophecy in God's objective Word (which anyone could examine) to give credence to his testimony.
His testimony to Festus started with his experience, but ended with an apology as to it's source as trustworthy based on the resurrection (Acts 26). He appealed constantly in Acts chapters 17, 18, and 19 by apology, not personal experience (at least with what's been recorded.) Other times, he would recite the story of his personal encounter with Jesus. My point is that faith does not come with just an encounter with Christ. There are mental, emotional and spiritual blockages that can resist the encounter. Until those are cleared away, there is no faith established.
Next, many people have visions, as did Paul, even visions that convince one to become a Christian, as Paul's did, but that's not enough. There must be substantial reason (evidence) to support the validity of the vision; for anyone can have a vision or an experience, and that means nothing if it isn't first found to be trustworthy in regard to its source (Gal 1:8). Once again, the certainty of the life, death and resurrection first establish the validity of Christianity, not a subjective encounter with Christ. God Himself has expressed the need for proving all things to be of Him (Deut 13 & 18) before believing them, visions included. Interesting to note Deut 13 is the fact that the prophecy or dream declared to the people of God may come to pass, but its effect is to be in line with God's Word or it isn't valid. It was this truth--the truth of God's Word-- to which Jesus Himself testified as truth. The same criteria back then is, therefore, valid today.
Many have had an encounter with Jesus, and still don't believe (Judas Iscariot, those whom Jesus will say, "Depart from me; I never knew you.") I've met people who believe with their mental faculties that that Jesus rose from the dead, but that has had no effect on them, or they are nominal in their faith, church being an institution at most. People simply can believe something in the natural and there it stays, even the resurrecton. And there are those who've even had an encounter with God and rebelled or didn't accept it.
Scientific study isn't the only way to prove evidence; only that evidence which falls under the category of being scientific--able to be tested in some sort of a environment or arena where controlled testing can take place. A subjective vision isn't scientifically proven because it doesn't fit into the scientific classification. It's content, however, can still be analyized, much as a lawyer analyizes and defends evidence. And it is not to be trusted until its source is verfied as trustworthy--from God.
Also, we don't have to have total truth or unquestionable, conclusive evidence, but we do need true truth. God has given us some truth in His Word, but it isn't exhaustive. It is, however, true truth. And all evidence for Christianity isn't unquestionably conclusive, but it's reliable enough to conclude in its favor. This has to be or there would be several people (like Josh McDowell, for instance) who would never have given Christianity the time of day.
And next to last, when I talk about appropriating the evidence, I mean, that God can use the evidence to clear the path for faith to come. At that point, he can minister to the heart and utilize the trustworthiness of the evidence as a fulcrum for faith. Does the evidence itself give faith? Of course not. It is God who gives us the measure of faith. But for that matter, He gives us all that we have. It is all a gift and it is all used by Him to bring one into relationship with Him. But you have no quams from me that it is His power which saves, and it is His gift of faith which enables salvation.
On Satan:
Church fathers or no church fathers, there isn't anything in God's Word of which I'm aware that implies or suggests Satan could be saved. Only the open view (which I hold to) presents a context for this. But in view of the perspective of Scripture about Satan, particularly in regard to God's attitude toward Satan in the book of Revelation, I see very little, if any, reason to think Satan will suddenly see the light or that God will save him. As we've noted, Satan has had an encounter with God--the devils also believe and tremble--but that doesn't have anything to do with a spiritual faith needed for salvation. I believe you'll agree with me there, won't you?
As to your requirement of a deductive logic to prove you're wrong, I don't believe there's any need to prove you wrong about your view as to how God saves; I agree with it. But here's something I think might work with regard to the logic of evidence having a part to enable faith to even come into play.
1. Only he who can raise himself from the dead is both God and can save me from my sins.
2. Jesus raised himself from the dead (Jn 2:19, 6:40)
3. Therefore, Jesus is God and can save me from my sins.
Your request was, I believe, to suggest a deduction which would substantiate evidence as bringing salvation: if the evidence is true, one will become saved. I didn't mean to insinuate that, if that's how my former posts seemd to have read. But how's the above logic work just for substantiating the evidence having a play in clearing the path?
For a good conversation, Modes,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 10/30/2002 3:38:58 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/30/2002 11:07 AM (GMT -6) | | honorman,I may see your point (meaning that I may agree...depending...). But I'm not certain. If I ask a question and you give me an answer, then I can tell better. Thanks.
You said: "Paul was simply stating that our faith is based on a historical fact..."
If by "historical fact" you mean that fact means something that really IS -- like the grand canyon "is a fact" than I think that I finally understand you (I'll call that a "factual reality"). If by "historical fact" you refer to (and this gets abstract for me) a piece of data that needs to be inserted into a formula (A good one that does not confuse me is "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God: where going backwards we can follow from the word of God, to hearing, and to faith.) where something to be heard or known eventually leads to faith... Then I would be less sure. In the verse we are all looking at I think Paul was refering to the "grand canyon-ness"--the FACTUAL REALITY--of the Cross and Resurrection, and not to the message ABOUT it.
How am I doing?
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/30/2002 11:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul was stating to Christians that their faith was based on a historical fact, and that made their faith real (otherwise their faith was in vain). This applies to anyone who believes. If this did not happen, their faith is a false faith.
I believe the truth of the death and resurrection can be verified without faith, that something historically happen and the explanation that Christians give for it is the only one that honestly be accepted.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/30/2002 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, honorman. I'm going to take it that when you said "historical fact" there, which you defined just fine by saying "did...happen", that you are voicing the same thing as when I wrote "factual reality."
I don't mean to be picky. Its just that I: (1) can get confused, and like to get unconfused; and (2) taught college art history survey for a while, where the meaning of "history" specified "written" and did not denote truth. (Something can be "historical fact" and be completely false. Other things can be completely true and not at all be a part of history--because they happened before the invention of writing -- so, they are "pre-historic.") So, take me with a "grain of salt" please, and a wink. I mean well. (Also, "civilized" refers to "living in cities" and not to the presence of manners -- in case you take my class. )
Thanks for your answer.
Al
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/30/2002 4:36:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/30/2002 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Very quickly:
Starkman said:
When we save "faith", we can mean a few different things: 1) doctrine; 2) simple, basic trust, as in "I have faith in you that you'll do the right thing"; 3) that faith with which God excepts as a requirement for Him to apply the atoning blood of the lamb in my life and wash away my sins. Spiritual faith.
Modes suggests:
Heb. 11:1 "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
The end of this chapter illustrates beautifully what it means to have faith like this. These heroes beleived even though the very promises they trusted were NOT fulfilled during their lifetimes. THAT is what made them heroes of faith.
They stayed in the relationship with God, they abided in God and God abided in them. The terminological difference (and I think it is principly about terms and theological construction here, not an essential difference) between what I am saying and what I here several of you saying is that:
1. Truth is the person of Jesus Christ. Not facts about his life, not theories about the contradictions, not doctrines, etc. The person.
2. Faith is believing #1 and abiding in Christ. Baptism is the formal initiation into this new covenant.
3. Faith is a GIFT, not a work. We can resist/reject this gift, but we cannot find our way to #1 above by historical study. The historical study minus the Spirit of Christ will never equal a person of faith. If God doesn't show up, noone is going to come to faith. Period.
Paul is quite clear that it is testimonies that he points to and a testimony that he offers. His conviction is strong. His faith is strong. He has made his choice. He knows that without Christ's resurrection, his faith is in vain. He TRUSTS the testimonies. He has such a conviction. Now ask ANY logic prof. and they will quickly point out that this does not equal rational certainty. It is FAITH. Paul's assurance of things HOPED for, his CONVICTION of things NOT seen (the resurrection).
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 10/30/2002 7:44:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/30/2002 1:22 PM (GMT -6) | | 1. Only he who can raise himself from the dead is both God and can save me from my sins.
2. Jesus raised himself from the dead (Jn 2:19, 6:40)
3. Therefore, Jesus is God and can save me from my sins.
Questions throughout:
1. Please tell me what difference it makes that a person could raise themselves from the dead. How does that save you from your sins?
2. You have it on the testimony of others that Jesus was resurrected. You are not an eyewitness, I don't think, and so you take this on faith.
3. What if someone else raised themselves from the dead? Would they be God too? Could they save you also, since they too raised from the dead?
So far I don't see an argument that proves Christianity true here. I guess we still need faith.
:)
By this I mean, much more than faith in the "trust" sense. I mean "faith" in the "revealed grace" sense. Without the latter, we goin' nowhere.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 11/3/2002 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Amen!
Modes wrote:
quote:
. . . 'I guess we still need faith.
:)
By this I mean, much more than faith in the "trust" sense. I mean "faith" in the "revealed grace" sense. Without the latter, we goin' nowhere.'
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/3/2002 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | I do not believe we need spiritual faith to believe that the historicity of Christ's life, death and resurrection are true; the evidence is well in favor that it's reliable. Merely because a vast amount of time, as we measure it, has passed since the event no more faith is needed to believe that it is reliable than faith is needed to believe that just 20 minutes ago the President gave a speech. All we have to go by now is evidence that he did make a speech.
Where faith is needed is, as I've noted, in believing that God will appropriate the work of Christ into my life when I can neither see, feel, or hear it. That requires faith. To believe that Jesus was real does not require this kind of faith. It requires acceptance of evidence as being reliable. That is mental faith, not spiritual faith.
I had written:
1. Only he who can raise himself from the dead is both God and can save me from my sins.
2. Jesus raised himself from the dead (Jn 2:19, 6:40)
3. Therefore, Jesus is God and can save me from my sins.
Modes asks"
"1. Please tell me what difference it makes that a person could raise themselves from the dead. How does that save you from your sins?"
I had already stated that I was presenting this logic not to prove Christianity but to think through a historical event being the foundation of spiritual faith. The event, of course, does not save me from my sins; without the event, however, there is no saving of sins. The objective comes before the subjective. And we can never forget that.
Modes said:
"2. You have it on the testimony of others that Jesus was resurrected. You are not an eyewitness, I don't think, and so you take this on faith."
No, I don't take it on faith--spiritual faith, if that's what you mean, anymore than I take trusting that my chair will hold me up as being spritual faith. It's simple mental acknoledgement of historical facts. I don't need 100% certainty (as if in a scientific experiment) to know that some facts are true. This kind of evidence isn't subject to scientific experiment, but that doesn't mean it's any less reliable. We live day to day as proof that this isn't so; we include our past in our present all the time, something that can't always be scientifically proven.
Modes said:
"3. What if someone else raised themselves from the dead? Would they be God too? Could they save you also, since they too raised from the dead?
Pray tell (gasp!) . . . how else but God has the ability to raise themselves from the dead? (I suppose I should have worded the statement as this: 1. Only he who can raise himself from the dead by his own inate power is both God and can save me from my sins.
To sum, I believe we need faith to allow God to appropriate the work of the Christ into our lives, but I do not believe we need (spiritual) faith to accept the historical records, and other evidence, expressing the work of the Christ as being reliable.
As for my logic, it's in the context of trying to work through to prove that the objective (evidence) must come before the subjective experience, not to prove Christianity true.
For working through it,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
| 45 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:13 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|