Wednesday, November 23, 2011
The Value of a Person: A Non-Religious Pro-Life Presentation
Great pro-life apologetic using the SLED (Size, Level of Development, Environment, Dependency) Argument popularized by Scott Klusendorf. The argument highlights that because the pre-born baby is smaller, is less developed, is located inside his mother's womb and is dependent upon his mother for survival, does not therefore deduce that he is not a human being. Great visual video presentation of this argument!
Faith or Reason?
In our culture and in times past, there has been a complete misunderstanding of what faith and reason are. Skeptics and atheists accuse Christians of having a blind faith, in which there is no reason involved. On the other hand, many Christians have bought into this phenomena & accept that their faith does not involve reason either. What we have in our culture is a false dichotomy between faith and reason. The truth is that faith and reason are not meant to be separated, but actually compliment one another. For example, someone may choose to believe something that isn't reality. In this case, they have divorced their faith from their reason and are in danger of being labeled mentally ill. For example, if someone was to tell you that they believe that tomorrow morning, they are going to wake up as a frog, then you would think that they were absolutely absurd. Even though they truly believe that this will happen, their faith in this situation does not line up with reason. We must be aware that what we choose to believe may not always be true to reality. So with this is mind, can we really discuss religion and faith in the context of reason and knowledge? Many Christians would say "no", but I emphatically say "yes" and that is what this post is all about.
Christians need to be aware of not only what they believe, but how they think. I am convinced more and more that in this post-modern world that we live in today, that it is imperative that Christians are good thinkers. The Christian faith holds a heritage of stellar philosophers, scientists and theologians such as Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Karl Barth, G.K Chesterton, C.S Lewis, Isaac Newton, Francis Shaeffer and many others. So today there is no need to shy away from thinking. Many times, when people within Christendom or outside have honest doubts about the Christian faith, they are dismissed and just told that they have to "believe" more. My husband, Devin, experienced this quite a bit growing in a Christian home, in which no answers were provided to his questions about science and the Bible. As a result, as a teenager, he walked away from the faith. We shouldn't just disregard people's honests about the faith . This is a sign that they are actually thinking- something that many Christians have forgotten how to do. I think somewhere we have forgotten our rich heritage of Christian thinkers & think that somehow if people probe too much, that they will find that the claims of Christianity are unreliable & dismiss the faith altogether. But in actuality, if people objectively research their doubts against Christianity with the evidence, they will find that the evidence actually confirms the claims of Scripture. Truth is on our side!
What we are going to discuss falls under the category of epistemology. Epistemology is just a big word that philosophers use when discussing human knowledge. It deals with questions such as what can we really know? How do we know anything with certainty? What is the difference between faith and reason? These are important questions, especially in the melting pot culture that we currently live in. There are very consequential effects on a society if these questions are not legitimately answered. I think that our schools, universities and the secular humanists have done a poor job of answering these questions, but so has the Christian community. As a result, our society has deteriorated. These are also difficult subjects to discuss, but I will do my best.
Let's start with propositional statements. These are statements that are either true or false. Then you also have poetical truth. A parable, myth or a fantasy would fall under this category. For instance, if someone makes up a story, although it's fictional, it may have some some aspects of reality to it. Although there may be good moral truth being taught, the details of the story are not meant to be taken as logically true. In religion, you have both, propositional statements and you have poetical truth. Some people make the huge mistake of thinking that religion is all poetical truth. For instance, there are liberal scholars who don't believe that the historical and scientific claims of the Bible are necessarily true, but believe that we should only focus on the spiritual lessons being taught. For example, they may say whether or not King David was an actual historical figure is irrelevant, the most important thing is that we learn something from his life that we can apply to our own life. This view just reduces the Bible to an unreliable, fantasy book from which we can learn some good life lessons from rather than a real book, with real historical figures and events. Then there are some who just read the Bible as a historical document ignoring the spiritual aspects that God has outlined in His Word to change our lives from the inside out. The point here is that we can't reduce religion to just a set of propositional statements or to just a set of poetical truths, because both are involved.
Most people cannot reconcile what we can know with what we may believe & I admit this is a difficult arena to investigate; however, it is one that we must investigate nonetheless. Knowledge is obtained through observation and experience. It's what happens when we process information using our five senses. In an earlier post, I discussed empiricism. In empiricism, the viewpoint is that "seeing is believing" so direct knowledge as processed through our five senses is the only "real" knowledge. As I exposed in the earlier post,(How do we arrive at Truth), empiricism is necessary for daily living, but it does fall short. With empiricism, we would have to dismiss any knowledge of things that we have not directly seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled. So such things as gravity, electricity, radio waves, the wind, love, joy and goodness would be excluded. As I stated, empiricism is vital because we have to be able to process sensory information, but the minute that we make any kind of value judgment based on the knowledge that we have gained through our senses, then we have left the arena of knowledge and entered into the arena of belief.
Belief also relies on observation and experience, but it also adds common sense based in human reason. What happens with belief is that receive knowledge through our senses and then based on that knowledge, we evaluate and come to a judgement using common sense. In belief, the senses, the mind, the will and heart are all used to convince us that something is true. I will use the example that I'm alone walking in the woods & I hear a rustling and growling noise behind some bushes. Using knowledge, I can hear the growling & rustling and see the bushes moving. Though I haven't seen anything with my eyes, but based on what I do know, using belief, I can conclude that there is some sort of animal behind those bushes, that could potentially harm me, and that for my own safety, I need to run. Now I could be completely wrong, maybe that's just one of my friends behind the bushes making growling noises to scare me. So in all honesty, my beliefs could be wrong. But based on the knowledge that I gained, that was the best possible explanation. So you can see in this silly illustration how knowledge and belief both compliment each other. We use both when making decisions on a daily basis. Belief goes deeper than knowledge. You have to use your faculties: your mind, will and emotions to come to a judgment based on the knowledge that you've received. To get to the truth in a matter, you must employ both knowledge and belief or reason and faith. In the arena of religion, this is especially true because otherwise, you will end up with some very unbalanced views and theologies as we see around us everyday. When we really ponder this subject on a practical level, we realize that there is really so little that we know, but so much that we believe. For instance, when I arrive at work every morning, I park my car in the parking deck. When I lock the doors and go into the building, I have reason to believe that when I leave work at the end of the day that my car will be there in that spot. I don't go out to the parking deck every hour to see if it's still there. As another example, one morning when I got on I-77 headed to work, there was very dense fog- so much so that I couldn't see the road ahead of me. But even though I couldn't see the road ahead of me, I still came to the conclusion that the road had not ended, and it continued even though I couldn't see the road. The fact is that most of what we think we know, we really believe.
So is the Christian faith a rational faith? Yes, it is. I believe that if we objectively look at the evidence around us- God's creation, the reliability of the Bible, as well as the evidence in history, archaelogy and science, that the most rational explanation is that there is a God, that Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh and that He has revealed Himself to us in Holy Scripture. I also believe that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian. Some would say that we can't know that God exists because we haven't seen Him. I would answer that by agreeing that I can't "prove" to you that God exists as in a mathematical equation, such as 2 + 2= 4. However, the goal of scientific research is to arrive at the most reasonable explanation for something. When I reiew the First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the fact that life can't come from non-life, that matter can't come from non- matter, that the universe had a beginning, the amazing design & fine-tuning of the universe & the presence of objective moral values in all mankind, the most reasonable explanation points to the fact that there is a Creator, who is outside of time and space.
But while the Christian faith is a rational faith, it can't be reduced to just rationalism. If that were the case, it wouldn't be a faith at all and we would all be own our gods because we could know everything within the grasp of our own human reason. The Christian perspective contains things that can be verified & mysteries. It contains things that we can know for sure & things that just leave us in awe & wonder. The truth is that God is infinite & we are finite. So the finite can not fully grasp the infinite. But God has revealed Himself to us through His creation & through the Bible. The great news about Christianity is that we don't have to close our eyes to reality. Because we serve a real God, who has revealed Himself to us in a real way, then we don't have to check our brains at the door when we begin to look into the truth about God & the Bible.
If Christianity is to grow, believers must learn to also engage others' mind as well as their heart. In light of science, history and archaeology, Christianity stands the test. We must be able to present Christianity in a real way, not in a mystical, mysterious way, but in way that engages both the mind & heart. Otherwise, Christianity will be viewed as unrealistic, which it is quite the opposite. If Christianity only involved reason with no faith, then we would not be open the grandeur & absolute power & awe that our Lord inspires. On the other hand, if we had a faith with no reason, then there would be nothing attainable in our faith. We couldn't know anything for sure. That's why both are vitally important. I would like to leave you with a quote by Blaise Pascal:
"If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mysterious and supernatural element. If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous."
Christians need to be aware of not only what they believe, but how they think. I am convinced more and more that in this post-modern world that we live in today, that it is imperative that Christians are good thinkers. The Christian faith holds a heritage of stellar philosophers, scientists and theologians such as Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Karl Barth, G.K Chesterton, C.S Lewis, Isaac Newton, Francis Shaeffer and many others. So today there is no need to shy away from thinking. Many times, when people within Christendom or outside have honest doubts about the Christian faith, they are dismissed and just told that they have to "believe" more. My husband, Devin, experienced this quite a bit growing in a Christian home, in which no answers were provided to his questions about science and the Bible. As a result, as a teenager, he walked away from the faith. We shouldn't just disregard people's honests about the faith . This is a sign that they are actually thinking- something that many Christians have forgotten how to do. I think somewhere we have forgotten our rich heritage of Christian thinkers & think that somehow if people probe too much, that they will find that the claims of Christianity are unreliable & dismiss the faith altogether. But in actuality, if people objectively research their doubts against Christianity with the evidence, they will find that the evidence actually confirms the claims of Scripture. Truth is on our side!
What we are going to discuss falls under the category of epistemology. Epistemology is just a big word that philosophers use when discussing human knowledge. It deals with questions such as what can we really know? How do we know anything with certainty? What is the difference between faith and reason? These are important questions, especially in the melting pot culture that we currently live in. There are very consequential effects on a society if these questions are not legitimately answered. I think that our schools, universities and the secular humanists have done a poor job of answering these questions, but so has the Christian community. As a result, our society has deteriorated. These are also difficult subjects to discuss, but I will do my best.
Let's start with propositional statements. These are statements that are either true or false. Then you also have poetical truth. A parable, myth or a fantasy would fall under this category. For instance, if someone makes up a story, although it's fictional, it may have some some aspects of reality to it. Although there may be good moral truth being taught, the details of the story are not meant to be taken as logically true. In religion, you have both, propositional statements and you have poetical truth. Some people make the huge mistake of thinking that religion is all poetical truth. For instance, there are liberal scholars who don't believe that the historical and scientific claims of the Bible are necessarily true, but believe that we should only focus on the spiritual lessons being taught. For example, they may say whether or not King David was an actual historical figure is irrelevant, the most important thing is that we learn something from his life that we can apply to our own life. This view just reduces the Bible to an unreliable, fantasy book from which we can learn some good life lessons from rather than a real book, with real historical figures and events. Then there are some who just read the Bible as a historical document ignoring the spiritual aspects that God has outlined in His Word to change our lives from the inside out. The point here is that we can't reduce religion to just a set of propositional statements or to just a set of poetical truths, because both are involved.
Most people cannot reconcile what we can know with what we may believe & I admit this is a difficult arena to investigate; however, it is one that we must investigate nonetheless. Knowledge is obtained through observation and experience. It's what happens when we process information using our five senses. In an earlier post, I discussed empiricism. In empiricism, the viewpoint is that "seeing is believing" so direct knowledge as processed through our five senses is the only "real" knowledge. As I exposed in the earlier post,(How do we arrive at Truth), empiricism is necessary for daily living, but it does fall short. With empiricism, we would have to dismiss any knowledge of things that we have not directly seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled. So such things as gravity, electricity, radio waves, the wind, love, joy and goodness would be excluded. As I stated, empiricism is vital because we have to be able to process sensory information, but the minute that we make any kind of value judgment based on the knowledge that we have gained through our senses, then we have left the arena of knowledge and entered into the arena of belief.
Belief also relies on observation and experience, but it also adds common sense based in human reason. What happens with belief is that receive knowledge through our senses and then based on that knowledge, we evaluate and come to a judgement using common sense. In belief, the senses, the mind, the will and heart are all used to convince us that something is true. I will use the example that I'm alone walking in the woods & I hear a rustling and growling noise behind some bushes. Using knowledge, I can hear the growling & rustling and see the bushes moving. Though I haven't seen anything with my eyes, but based on what I do know, using belief, I can conclude that there is some sort of animal behind those bushes, that could potentially harm me, and that for my own safety, I need to run. Now I could be completely wrong, maybe that's just one of my friends behind the bushes making growling noises to scare me. So in all honesty, my beliefs could be wrong. But based on the knowledge that I gained, that was the best possible explanation. So you can see in this silly illustration how knowledge and belief both compliment each other. We use both when making decisions on a daily basis. Belief goes deeper than knowledge. You have to use your faculties: your mind, will and emotions to come to a judgment based on the knowledge that you've received. To get to the truth in a matter, you must employ both knowledge and belief or reason and faith. In the arena of religion, this is especially true because otherwise, you will end up with some very unbalanced views and theologies as we see around us everyday. When we really ponder this subject on a practical level, we realize that there is really so little that we know, but so much that we believe. For instance, when I arrive at work every morning, I park my car in the parking deck. When I lock the doors and go into the building, I have reason to believe that when I leave work at the end of the day that my car will be there in that spot. I don't go out to the parking deck every hour to see if it's still there. As another example, one morning when I got on I-77 headed to work, there was very dense fog- so much so that I couldn't see the road ahead of me. But even though I couldn't see the road ahead of me, I still came to the conclusion that the road had not ended, and it continued even though I couldn't see the road. The fact is that most of what we think we know, we really believe.
So is the Christian faith a rational faith? Yes, it is. I believe that if we objectively look at the evidence around us- God's creation, the reliability of the Bible, as well as the evidence in history, archaelogy and science, that the most rational explanation is that there is a God, that Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh and that He has revealed Himself to us in Holy Scripture. I also believe that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian. Some would say that we can't know that God exists because we haven't seen Him. I would answer that by agreeing that I can't "prove" to you that God exists as in a mathematical equation, such as 2 + 2= 4. However, the goal of scientific research is to arrive at the most reasonable explanation for something. When I reiew the First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the fact that life can't come from non-life, that matter can't come from non- matter, that the universe had a beginning, the amazing design & fine-tuning of the universe & the presence of objective moral values in all mankind, the most reasonable explanation points to the fact that there is a Creator, who is outside of time and space.
But while the Christian faith is a rational faith, it can't be reduced to just rationalism. If that were the case, it wouldn't be a faith at all and we would all be own our gods because we could know everything within the grasp of our own human reason. The Christian perspective contains things that can be verified & mysteries. It contains things that we can know for sure & things that just leave us in awe & wonder. The truth is that God is infinite & we are finite. So the finite can not fully grasp the infinite. But God has revealed Himself to us through His creation & through the Bible. The great news about Christianity is that we don't have to close our eyes to reality. Because we serve a real God, who has revealed Himself to us in a real way, then we don't have to check our brains at the door when we begin to look into the truth about God & the Bible.
If Christianity is to grow, believers must learn to also engage others' mind as well as their heart. In light of science, history and archaeology, Christianity stands the test. We must be able to present Christianity in a real way, not in a mystical, mysterious way, but in way that engages both the mind & heart. Otherwise, Christianity will be viewed as unrealistic, which it is quite the opposite. If Christianity only involved reason with no faith, then we would not be open the grandeur & absolute power & awe that our Lord inspires. On the other hand, if we had a faith with no reason, then there would be nothing attainable in our faith. We couldn't know anything for sure. That's why both are vitally important. I would like to leave you with a quote by Blaise Pascal:
"If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mysterious and supernatural element. If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous."
God- Centered Faith versus Me- Centered Faith
Possibly the most notable shift in Christianity over the centuries is the introduction of “my” and “me” to our vocabulary. While it may seem harmless, the addition of “my” alters not only our focus but also the cultural response. Let me show you how destructive the “my” doctrine is and how it so insidiously ensnares us.
Me-centered faith is entirely unbiblical. It shifts the attention from Christ to me.
Jesus says that we must deny ourselves take up our cross and follow Him. He also tells us that if we save our lives we will lose them. Paul says, it is no longer I who live, but Christ in me. (Matt 16:24-25, Gal 2:20 paraphrased) Clearly, after His Spirit is birthed within us, and we become new creatures, our life is it is not about us but about Him. Let’s become He-centered rather than me-centered.
Faith in faith is idolatry. This promotes faith in us rather than faith in God.
When I say “my faith“ or “my belief“, I’m unintentionally suggesting an end rather than a means. Yes, I have faith. But faith and belief are only as good as their object. I may have faith in a broken chair, but that does not alter reality when I sit down and come crashing to the floor. When someone says “my faith” I’m always inclined to ask, “your faith in what?” If we suggest that it is about “our faith” rather than about the God in who we place that faith, we are making ourselves the author and finisher of faith, rather than the Lord of glory.
The addition of my opens the door to subjectivity. I have my faith, you have yours.
In our pluralistic culture, “my faith” and “my belief” and “my God” are perfectly acceptable and noble phrases to use. It suggests that truth is relative and subjective, and while I have my faith, you have yours. It removes the uncomfortable and disturbing notion of reality, and pushes Christianity into the confines of the personal realm. Try saying that you "know God exists” rather than you “believe in God.” It will be shocking how uncomfortable everyone will be. But isn’t this what you mean when you say you “believe in God?” We must use definitive, uncompromising statements when we discuss the truth. Don’t expect to be well-received.
The one true God verses "my" God.
While there is nothing wrong with saying “my God”, we must again be sensitive to the cultural assumptions built in. When I’m among Christians, its easy and comfortable to say“our God” and this is right and good. God Himself says, “I will be your God, and you will be My people…” Ezekiel 36:28. But in public, among those who don’t know Him, we must clarify. What God? Who is God? The one true God. The God of the Bible. The God who is there.
Me-centered faith is entirely unbiblical. It shifts the attention from Christ to me.
Jesus says that we must deny ourselves take up our cross and follow Him. He also tells us that if we save our lives we will lose them. Paul says, it is no longer I who live, but Christ in me. (Matt 16:24-25, Gal 2:20 paraphrased) Clearly, after His Spirit is birthed within us, and we become new creatures, our life is it is not about us but about Him. Let’s become He-centered rather than me-centered.
Faith in faith is idolatry. This promotes faith in us rather than faith in God.
When I say “my faith“ or “my belief“, I’m unintentionally suggesting an end rather than a means. Yes, I have faith. But faith and belief are only as good as their object. I may have faith in a broken chair, but that does not alter reality when I sit down and come crashing to the floor. When someone says “my faith” I’m always inclined to ask, “your faith in what?” If we suggest that it is about “our faith” rather than about the God in who we place that faith, we are making ourselves the author and finisher of faith, rather than the Lord of glory.
The addition of my opens the door to subjectivity. I have my faith, you have yours.
In our pluralistic culture, “my faith” and “my belief” and “my God” are perfectly acceptable and noble phrases to use. It suggests that truth is relative and subjective, and while I have my faith, you have yours. It removes the uncomfortable and disturbing notion of reality, and pushes Christianity into the confines of the personal realm. Try saying that you "know God exists” rather than you “believe in God.” It will be shocking how uncomfortable everyone will be. But isn’t this what you mean when you say you “believe in God?” We must use definitive, uncompromising statements when we discuss the truth. Don’t expect to be well-received.
The one true God verses "my" God.
While there is nothing wrong with saying “my God”, we must again be sensitive to the cultural assumptions built in. When I’m among Christians, its easy and comfortable to say“our God” and this is right and good. God Himself says, “I will be your God, and you will be My people…” Ezekiel 36:28. But in public, among those who don’t know Him, we must clarify. What God? Who is God? The one true God. The God of the Bible. The God who is there.
Monday, November 21, 2011
How Do We Arrive At Truth?
On the day of Jesus' crucifixion, in John chapter 18, we see an interesting exchange. Pilate is questioning Jesus' about His identity because he is trying to determine if Jesus is worthy of death. After Jesus reveals to Pilate that he is a King, He tells Pilate why He came into the world. John 18:37 reads: "You say correctly that I am a king For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." Pilate responds with a question that I think that we all have asked at one time or another in our lives. In verse 38 when he responds: "What is truth"?
Many today are still on the hunt trying to define what truth really is. There are three main approaches that people tend to employ when dealing with the subjects of knowledge and how we can arrive at the truth (epistemology). For the sake of argument, I am not including relativism. Relativism is the belief that there is no absolute truth and that truth is relative to each individual person. So for instance, what is true for me, may not be true for you. Not to go down a rabbit trail, but this is a self refuting statement because in order to impose that there is no absolute truth is to affirm an absolute truth, namely that there is no absolute truth (if that makes any sense). The point is that I as a person have no bearing on what is & what is not. We merely discover truth & do not determine truth. For instance, someone may not want to believe that I am married, but that has no bearing on the fact that I am married. For the purpose of this discussion however, we will focus on the three perspectives that do point to the fact that there is absolute truth and that truth is knowable.
The first method that people employ when dealing with the subjects of knowledge and truth is rationalism. Rationalism holds to the view that knowledge starts in the human mind. There is an emphasis on thinking and ideas because after all, our minds are the source of all truth. Rationalism falls apart; however, because there is a built in assumption that our minds have the capacity to know everything. In other words, if we can't think it with our minds, then it can't really be. Therefore, there is no such thing as the unknown. The unknown simply represents those things that we have not explored with our minds yet. This view fails miserably because things don't exist merely because we can invent them with our mind. For example, gravity was not discovered by Sir Isaac Newton until the 1600's, but does that mean that gravity did not exist before then? Certainly not. Rationalism is a valuable tool for daily living, but are we willing to ultimately say that no truth exists outside of us? Truth and natural laws exists regardless of our awareness of them or lack thereof.
The second method that people employ when dealing with truth and knowledge is empiricism. Empiricism can be summed up with the phrase "seeing is believing". In other words, all that we can know is what can be determined by the use of our senses- what we see, hear, feel, taste and touch. Scientific experiments start from this perspective. However, this method is also limited because we can't reproduce events from the past. Neither can we see these events occurring. For example, none of us were around to see the Revolutionary War take place, but no one would question its' occurrence because of the historical evidence. But if I was applying the empirical method in this case, then I couldn't be certain that the Revolutionary War actually occurred because I wasn't actually there to see it happen. As I stated earlier, scientists approach experiments from an empirical perspective. Don't get me wrong, this is highly effective in dealing with observational subject matter (things that we can observe today in nature or in a laboratory). However, when dealing with forensic science (when scientists try to determine what happened in the past), empiricism falls short. Not to get off on another rabbit trail, but it's amazing how some scientists, who hold strongly to the empirical model, try to make dogmatic claims about the theory of evolution, when they were not around the supposed billions of years ago to see these supposed chemicals supposedly randomly arrange themselves together into a self-replicating molecule that supposedly was the spark of all life. There is a bit of hypocrisy there. Anyway, empiricism is useful, but ultimately it falls short, because truth then is limited to what we can see, hear, touch, taste and smell. Again, this leaves no room for the unknown or the past.
The third perspective is what is known of as revelatory knowledge. This would describe the Christian view of knowledge. This view holds that truth does exist outside us and is revealed by Someone also on the outside. You see, God is a transcendent Being, which means that He exists above and beyond His creation. However, rather than remain outside, He has penetrated within His creation to reveal truth to us. There are two clear ways that God has revealed Himself to mankind. The first is through general revelation, which is through nature. Romans 1:20 declares: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse". So through His creation, we can clearly see that there is a Creator. Nature would include all of the created world so this would include our minds and our conscious, which point us to truth as well. Secondly, God also reveals Himself more specifically in His Word, the Holy Bible. Ultimately, we can know things about God from nature such as the fact that God is all-powerful, eternal and immaterial, but there are some truths that one will only ascertain by reading the Bible such as the Doctrine of the Trinity. When I say this, I am not saying that people can't know anything apart from God's Word. For instance, even atheists know that 2+2=4. So one can know particular truths even if they do not read God's Word. However, to know ultimate truth, the foundation on which to build one's life, you must come to realization of who Jesus Christ is & be in His Word. We use both Rationalism and Empiricism in our daily lives so they are not completely wrong, but rather are just incomplete because they are dismissing how knowledge works as a whole in the context of revelatory knowledge. To hold that all that we can know is what we can see and/or what starts in the mind is limiting and inconsistent. In the counter-examples that I pointed out earlier, there are things that we can know that can not be ascertained through Rationalism or Empiricism, yet it is only when we approach the subject of God that these views are leveled as the ultimate standard of knowledge.
The reason it is so essential to believe in God as the Source of knowledge is because as an all- knowing Being, God’s knowledge is comprehensive and exhaustive. He alone is aware of the breadth and depth of His own knowledge which equates to all knowledge. “Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has informed Him? With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, And informed Him of the way of understanding?” (Isa. 40:13-14; cf. 1 Cor. 2:16; Rom. 11:34).
So what was the answer to Pilate's question. What is truth? Jesus tells in John 14:6 that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that no one can come to the Father, but through Him. This is not a passage that we want to glance over abruptly. You see, Jesus was telling us that how we approach the subject of truth holds eternal consequences. It determines where we will spend eternity. My prayer for you is that you may know the truth and that the truth will set you free. I would like to close with words of one of Jesus' last prayers recorded in John chapter 17. He is praying on behalf of his disciples because He is about to be arrested, murdered and they will be alone, but He had been faithful to teach them the words of Scripture during their three year journey together. Verse 17 reads: "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth". His Word is truth. If you've never studied God's Word, I challenge you to do so. As you read the pages of Holy Scripture and as the Holy Spirit illuminates your understanding, you'll come face to face with the real Jesus.
Many today are still on the hunt trying to define what truth really is. There are three main approaches that people tend to employ when dealing with the subjects of knowledge and how we can arrive at the truth (epistemology). For the sake of argument, I am not including relativism. Relativism is the belief that there is no absolute truth and that truth is relative to each individual person. So for instance, what is true for me, may not be true for you. Not to go down a rabbit trail, but this is a self refuting statement because in order to impose that there is no absolute truth is to affirm an absolute truth, namely that there is no absolute truth (if that makes any sense). The point is that I as a person have no bearing on what is & what is not. We merely discover truth & do not determine truth. For instance, someone may not want to believe that I am married, but that has no bearing on the fact that I am married. For the purpose of this discussion however, we will focus on the three perspectives that do point to the fact that there is absolute truth and that truth is knowable.
The first method that people employ when dealing with the subjects of knowledge and truth is rationalism. Rationalism holds to the view that knowledge starts in the human mind. There is an emphasis on thinking and ideas because after all, our minds are the source of all truth. Rationalism falls apart; however, because there is a built in assumption that our minds have the capacity to know everything. In other words, if we can't think it with our minds, then it can't really be. Therefore, there is no such thing as the unknown. The unknown simply represents those things that we have not explored with our minds yet. This view fails miserably because things don't exist merely because we can invent them with our mind. For example, gravity was not discovered by Sir Isaac Newton until the 1600's, but does that mean that gravity did not exist before then? Certainly not. Rationalism is a valuable tool for daily living, but are we willing to ultimately say that no truth exists outside of us? Truth and natural laws exists regardless of our awareness of them or lack thereof.
The second method that people employ when dealing with truth and knowledge is empiricism. Empiricism can be summed up with the phrase "seeing is believing". In other words, all that we can know is what can be determined by the use of our senses- what we see, hear, feel, taste and touch. Scientific experiments start from this perspective. However, this method is also limited because we can't reproduce events from the past. Neither can we see these events occurring. For example, none of us were around to see the Revolutionary War take place, but no one would question its' occurrence because of the historical evidence. But if I was applying the empirical method in this case, then I couldn't be certain that the Revolutionary War actually occurred because I wasn't actually there to see it happen. As I stated earlier, scientists approach experiments from an empirical perspective. Don't get me wrong, this is highly effective in dealing with observational subject matter (things that we can observe today in nature or in a laboratory). However, when dealing with forensic science (when scientists try to determine what happened in the past), empiricism falls short. Not to get off on another rabbit trail, but it's amazing how some scientists, who hold strongly to the empirical model, try to make dogmatic claims about the theory of evolution, when they were not around the supposed billions of years ago to see these supposed chemicals supposedly randomly arrange themselves together into a self-replicating molecule that supposedly was the spark of all life. There is a bit of hypocrisy there. Anyway, empiricism is useful, but ultimately it falls short, because truth then is limited to what we can see, hear, touch, taste and smell. Again, this leaves no room for the unknown or the past.
The third perspective is what is known of as revelatory knowledge. This would describe the Christian view of knowledge. This view holds that truth does exist outside us and is revealed by Someone also on the outside. You see, God is a transcendent Being, which means that He exists above and beyond His creation. However, rather than remain outside, He has penetrated within His creation to reveal truth to us. There are two clear ways that God has revealed Himself to mankind. The first is through general revelation, which is through nature. Romans 1:20 declares: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse". So through His creation, we can clearly see that there is a Creator. Nature would include all of the created world so this would include our minds and our conscious, which point us to truth as well. Secondly, God also reveals Himself more specifically in His Word, the Holy Bible. Ultimately, we can know things about God from nature such as the fact that God is all-powerful, eternal and immaterial, but there are some truths that one will only ascertain by reading the Bible such as the Doctrine of the Trinity. When I say this, I am not saying that people can't know anything apart from God's Word. For instance, even atheists know that 2+2=4. So one can know particular truths even if they do not read God's Word. However, to know ultimate truth, the foundation on which to build one's life, you must come to realization of who Jesus Christ is & be in His Word. We use both Rationalism and Empiricism in our daily lives so they are not completely wrong, but rather are just incomplete because they are dismissing how knowledge works as a whole in the context of revelatory knowledge. To hold that all that we can know is what we can see and/or what starts in the mind is limiting and inconsistent. In the counter-examples that I pointed out earlier, there are things that we can know that can not be ascertained through Rationalism or Empiricism, yet it is only when we approach the subject of God that these views are leveled as the ultimate standard of knowledge.
The reason it is so essential to believe in God as the Source of knowledge is because as an all- knowing Being, God’s knowledge is comprehensive and exhaustive. He alone is aware of the breadth and depth of His own knowledge which equates to all knowledge. “Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has informed Him? With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, And informed Him of the way of understanding?” (Isa. 40:13-14; cf. 1 Cor. 2:16; Rom. 11:34).
So what was the answer to Pilate's question. What is truth? Jesus tells in John 14:6 that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that no one can come to the Father, but through Him. This is not a passage that we want to glance over abruptly. You see, Jesus was telling us that how we approach the subject of truth holds eternal consequences. It determines where we will spend eternity. My prayer for you is that you may know the truth and that the truth will set you free. I would like to close with words of one of Jesus' last prayers recorded in John chapter 17. He is praying on behalf of his disciples because He is about to be arrested, murdered and they will be alone, but He had been faithful to teach them the words of Scripture during their three year journey together. Verse 17 reads: "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth". His Word is truth. If you've never studied God's Word, I challenge you to do so. As you read the pages of Holy Scripture and as the Holy Spirit illuminates your understanding, you'll come face to face with the real Jesus.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
To Realize His Presence
I love to read the writings, sermons & letters of the old theologians & pastors such as Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, Martin Luther, Augustine & others. One of my favorite theologians of all time is Dietrich Bonhoeffer. His testimony has influenced my life in so many ways. Bonhoeffer was a German theologian. Though I do not hold to all of his theological positions, he was a devout student & teacher of God's Word. He founded a seminary for the Confessing Church, which which was made up of a group of 5,000 Christians who refused to be a part of Hitler's pro-Nazi denomination & they pledged total obedience to God's Word. Even after most of the Confessing Church succumbed under Nazi pressure & pledged allegiance to Hitler, Bonhoeffer was one of the few Christian voices who protested Hitler's massacres & atrocities against the Jews. This should serve as an example to us as we fight the good fight and defend the sanctity of all human life. After getting himself entangled in a plot to overthrow Hitler & smuggling Jews out of Germany, Bonhoeffer was arrested & later thrown into a concentration camp. On the Sunday after Easter, 1945, he preached a short sermon to his fellow prisoners, which was his last. Just four months before Hitler was defeated & the Allied Forces were victorious, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was hung. He was 39 years old. Below, is one of his writings that he wrote from prison, which I have pondered & has truly challenged me. May you ponder it & be challenged as well:
To Realize His Presence
How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know; God wants us to realize His presence, not in unsolved problems, but in those that are solved.
Here again, God is no stop-gap; he must be recognized at the center of life, not when we are the end of our resources; it is His will to be recognized in life, and not only when death comes; in health and vigor, and not only in suffering; in our activities, and not only in sin.
The ground for this lies in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. He is the center of life, and He certainly didn't 'come' to answer our unsolved problems.
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)