Faith Without Reasons?
A Review of Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga

Apparently Plantinga's thoughts about the noetic effects of sin aren't that far off from what I described: 

"Having set out this basic model for theistic belief, Plantinga proceeds to discuss the question of the noetic effects of sin: although possessing the sensus divinitatis, human beings have become corrupted by sin, affecting both the will and the intellect, and resulting in the distortion and dysfunction of that cognitive faculty (such as absent or false beliefs about God)."

---

 

Post Edited (Corey) : 1/18/2005 8:36:38 PM (GMT-6)

 

 

 

 

---

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.


JohnE

http://revivaltheology.net

Mephi: With the unconditional promises. For this to work, we'd have to say that there are two "realms" in which God's promises take place. When God makes promises that are within the "acceptable risk" camp...and there are other promises that God makes that are not.

Tom: Right.

Mephi: If the promises are NOT in the "acceptable risk" camp, then one could be ABSOLUTELY SURE that it would come to pass. Why? Because God's unilateral activity IN THAT SPHERE would make it so. However, if God makes someone a promise that IS in the "acceptable risk" camp, then this means that God deems it an ACCEPTABLE RISK for something or someone to thwart the fulfillment of that promise...and it's possible that it won't come to pass, even though God promised it. "Natural evil", moral evil, or plain chance have ALLOWED POSSIBILITY to interfere.

Tom: Obviously, right.

Mephi: What all this would mean is that, if God tells you something WILL happen or if God says that he WILL provide, you'd better do you darnedest to get God to say it's UNCONDITIONAL. Otherwise, you really can't know IN THE END if things will pan out.

Tom: Or I can just move on in life, planning for what God said will happen, but cognizant of the fact that if it doesn’t happen then it must have been conditional. What’s the big deal? In other words, why should I need to know up front whether or not some promise is unconditional? I mean, if God thinks I need to know, he’ll tell me. If not, hey, that’s cool. I trust him.

Mephi: Now all this DOES fall within the open view metaphysic. I don't know how many people would like this implication because it raises the problem of evil all over again in the form of God's willing and the existence of particular evils! We'd have to say that, in the large scheme of things, some things are just more important to God to have actualized than others...and that those things that God REEEEEALY wants to happen, He'll make it happen. Things that are NOT SO ESSENTIAL? Well, there's a good chance...but it still may not happen.

Tom: I’m sure lots of people would not like this. But hey, they’ll have to live with it.

Mephi: So, this is why I CANNOT see a consistent open view theist having any type of unwavering faith in is God keeping TEMPORAL promises of deliverance, healing, provision, etc. Neither can I see unwavering faith that prayers WILL be answered...UNLESS God makes some declaration that said promise is COMPLETELY UNCONDITIONAL (which I say very rarely, if ever, happens)

Tom: Sure, if God tells us it’s unconditional, then we can enjoy absolute 100% certainty. If he doesn’t, and the promise appears to be the sort of thing that involves variables that are not unconditionally determined by God, then it would be wise to pray and plan in cooperation with God in helping to bring the promise to pass. If it happens, cool. If it doesn’t, then gee, it must have been conditional after all. And that’s cool too.

The point I’d make to people for whom this arrangement seems upsetting is this: While we can’t always have 100% ironclad assurance that some temporal plan of God will in fact materialize (because so much is conditioned upon wills other than God’s), we CAN have 100% ironclad assurance that when God purposes something that God does all he is able to do, given all the variables, to achieve it. That’s what I understand “faithfulness” to amount to. The variables we’re debating all apply to the achievement of conditional purposes and plans, and not to the commitment and integrity of God to his purposes and promises. So I’m not shaken by having to face the realities of a conditional future since I now know for certain that after all is said and done I’ll be able to enjoy the assurance of knowing God pursued his purposes and plans for me with complete commitment, integrity, and love. His commitment, integrity, goodness, and love and not “conditioned” upon factors outside himself. And THAT, I think, is a greatest of assurances.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 1/19/2005 3:54:29 PM (GMT-6)

Mephi: What I'm confused about it how this unshakable faith in God's nature, integrity, and intentions...and living in the tension...doesn't work itself out dealing with the scripture issue? Why can't we say that God truly wanted a SYNERGISTIC revelation of Godself...and was willing to deal with the ramifications of such?

Tom: Yeah, I hear ya. I guess I'd say first that there can by synergy without rampant error (error in the fundamental MESSAGE). The author's personality, writing abilities, etc., all come through. The Bible IS a work of synergy. It's just that synergy doesn't HAVE to include our screwing up with the MESSAGE God wants to come through. If the fundamental message of the Bible is open to THAT, then why think any of the Bible is true? I'm not saying this means any of it HAS to be false, I'm saying our view of scripture wouldn't provide a basis for believing any part of its message IS in fact true. So yeah, there's synergy in the revelation: human authors, their personalities, quirks, writing sytles, their circumstances and passions, etc., PLUS God speaking through that. All I'm saying is the MESSAGE was preserved from error so that what the Bible says is trustworthy and authoritative.

 

I don't see how you are able to DO "divine revelation IN an erroneous message" (which is the sort of synergy you're proposing). You end up actually saying God just speaks through all the true parts (which denies your view of synergy). If not, how does God speak through the false parts? Show me how. If God is revealed IN the synergy of divine action speaking through human ERROR, then tell me what is revealed from God to us in Paul's message about physical death, for example. See how this works? We SAY God is revealed in the synergy even when the synergy is a union of God's working and our ERROR, but as soon as we find a passage that's in ERROR (like Paul's view of death), we dismiss its authority over us and have no way of pointing to divine revelation IN THE PASSAGE. If I'm wrong, then just tell me what you think God is revealing to you (about himself or the world) in Paul's claim that physical death is an "enemy" to be destroyed? If the message is wrong, where's the revelation? It's not there.

 

Here's what you COULD say: "There IS no revelation of truth about 'death' in Paul's words about death. There is only a revelation of the truth that we can be in error and love God and be loved by him (as was Paul), still commit to him and work for him (as did Paul)." I'd agree we can be in error about a lot of things and still love God and know his love, but if this is what's going on in scripture, then a) the Bible need be no longer than a chapter or two, and b) the Bible is no different than any other book written by people who love God but make false claims about him and the world. I thought the Bible was at least partly about THE CLAIMS it makes.

Mephi: We seem to have a lot of evidence that lends us to think this was the case, right? I think we both know that the whole infallibility/inerrancy thing that causes so much of an uproar is merely a psychological certainty motivational tool. Nothing more. Just something to give us a sense of security in the testimonies of the Bible...and a "sure" foundation. If we have good reasons to believe in the overall plausibility and historicity of the ChristWork, why isn't this enough to solidly ground our understandings of the nature, integrity and intentions of God for humanity?

Tom: What reasons do you have to believe in the truth of the gospel claims about Christ's resurrection? All you have is THEIR word on it. I mean, Paul was sure about what "death" meant and 2,000 years later you've judged him to be wrong. Why can they have been wrong about the resurrection? Maybe it's just wishful thinking that caught on.

Here's my question: Does God's presence/activity in the composing of scripture have ANYTHING to do, in your view, with the trustworthiness and authority of its message? Does your view of inspiration have anything to do with explaining the confidence you have in the Bible?

Mephi: You say...

The question is what kind of errors are consistent with a belief in the Bible as “God-breathed,” authoritative, and trustworthy?

I say:

What kind of errors are consistent with a belief that the Bible is a synergistic work inspired by God (God-breathed) and written by human beings where God ultimately conveys what he wants about the God/world relationship to bring about the relational responses that God wants from us?

To my question, I'd say "The ones we've got in the book right now"

Tom: But you admit flat out theological error. Error in belief of doctrine and message. This is error in the basement. Error of the worst kind for a religous text, I'd say. So if someone said the writer's belief in the resurrection was in error, you'd logically have to say, "Well, I suppose that's possible, I already admit there is error of this TYPE elsewhere." No?

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 1/20/2005 7:28:35 AM (GMT-6)

 

---

Look at the guy in the front row. Now look right behind him in the second row. Isn't that Jimmy Stewart?

Tom

 

What I want to know is how you get all these trips to warm climes (Beirut, Florida) while I slave away in frigid cubicle-land 51 1/2 weeks of the year.

 

Laika, uromancer to the stars

 

 

---

 

---