63 replies to this topic

[Ryan H.]

Persiflage, on 02 April 2011 - 12:16 PM, said:

Paul's writing in Romans also says that nature testifies to the attributes (and therefore even the character) of God.

Well, Paul specifies the attributes of God to which nature testifies:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

There you go. His "eternal power and divine nature," which is more or less what I said General Revelation consists of, as well as a sense of the moral law. You seem to be suggesting that Paul's argument goes beyond those attributes. I'm not sure it does. And, more importantly, Paul goes on to say, "they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

This introduces another element into the conversation about the testimony of General Revelation. What is the effect of sin on the way that this testimony is perceived? That, I think, is where this discussion of epistemological uncertainty must very much begin. You talk a great deal about rational argument, about clear testimony, but not about the corrosive effect of sin on our ability to recognize truth.

Edited by Ryan H., 02 April 2011 - 12:40 PM.

[J.A.A. Purves]

Ryan H., on 02 April 2011 - 12:40 PM, said:

Well, Paul specifies the attributes of God to which nature testifies:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

There you go. His "eternal power and divine nature," which is more or less what I said General Revelation consists of, as well as a sense of the moral law. You seem to be suggesting that Paul's argument goes beyond those attributes. I'm not sure it does.

Eternal power and divine nature do consist of a number of different things. So in order for God's nature to be shown to be divine, you are going to have to go into specifics. I'll acknowledge these are generalizations that have the potential to run into trouble as different religions have disagreements over what divinity consists of. But, Biblically speaking, we are given specifics about what makes the nature of the God of the Bible divine. So when Paul says that Creation demonstrates God's divine nature to us, I take Paul to be speaking Biblically - he's referring to those attributes in the Bible that make God's nature divine. Instead of just going back and forth on which specific attributes would count, do you think we could at least agree that, according to this passage, there are at least a small collection of truths about God's divine nature that Creation reveals to us? I'd even say that a traditional view of Christianity (even if it's a view lost upon many modern Protestant churches) includes the idea that the very beauty of Creation itself reveals, to us, something about who God is.

Quote

And, more importantly, Paul goes on to say, "they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

This introduces another element into the conversation about the testimony of General Revelation. What is the effect of sin on the way that this testimony is perceived? That, I think, is where this discussion of epistemological uncertainty must very much begin. You talk a great deal about rational argument, about clear testimony, but not about the corrosive effect of sin on our ability to recognize truth.

Ok, granted. Sin has corrupted our understanding of truth and spiritual things. But isn't Romans 1:19-20 and 2:14-15 referring, not to Adam & Eve before the fall, but to fallen man? I understand that this gets into the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity. But so far, I've never read Kierkegaard discuss Calvin's view of total depravity, and there seems to be a difference between arguing that we can't know anything for sure without faith and arguing that we can't know truth about God because of sin. Tell me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, Romans is saying there is still truth we can know even as sinners.

I'm still working on trying to better understand these things. From talking with Reformed friends, I don't get the idea that Calvinist theology teaches we can't know things for sure. But I do get the idea that Christian Existentialism teaches that we can't know things for sure. If a majority of modern churches are now ignoring and discounting rational argument for the truths of Christianity, and, when challenged and asked questions by people who actually think, they tell them they just need to have faith, that's far closer to Existentialism than Reformed doctrine.

[Ryan H.]

Persiflage, on 02 April 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Eternal power and divine nature do consist of a number of different things. So in order for God's nature to be shown to be divine, you are going to have to go into specifics.

I'm wary of being any more specific than Paul is. Perhaps a more rigorous scholar of this text would have more detailed thoughts. But speaking purely as an armchair scholar who just took a quick look at the Greek, I'm not sure the term "divine" signifies anything in this point other than God's existence as a supreme being in broad terms.

Persiflage, on 02 April 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Ok, granted. Sin has corrupted our understanding of truth and spiritual things. But isn't Romans 1:19-20 and 2:14-15 referring, not to Adam & Eve before the fall, but to fallen man?

Indeed it is. But aren't we, in this discussions of "existentialist" Christianity, primarily concerned with the present experience of truth, and not the nebulous world of pre-Fall human experience, something we can hardly grasp at, much less comprehend? Sure, our discussion thus far has somewhat rotated around the narrative of the Fall, but I'm not sure that's the best starting point here.

Persiflage, on 02 April 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

I understand that this gets into the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity.

Well, it can. But more generally, it just gets into the doctrine of sin, period, whether it's a formulation of it that is Total Depravity or not.

Persiflage, on 02 April 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

But so far, I've never read Kierkegaard discuss Calvin's view of total depravity, and there seems to be a difference between arguing that we can't know anything for sure without faith and arguing that we can't know truth about God because of sin.

Well, the Reformed tradition is far broader than just Calvin, so you'll run into trouble if you use him as the guiding lamp for all things Reformed. And Kierkegaard was Lutheran, and understanding Kierkegaard's thought as an outgrowth of his Lutheran thought is a fairly worthwhile endeavor. There are a lot of assumptions lying behind his thought.

Persiflage, on 02 April 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Tell me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, Romans is saying there is still truth we can know even as sinners.

I would say more rightly that Romans 1 is somewhat ambiguous on this question, depending on what you mean by the term "know." Not all kinds of knowing are the same. It would seem to me that what Paul speaks of in this passage is that there are things so deeply imbedded in human nature, which carries the imago Dei, that even if they go unrecognized, forgotten, or denied by an individual that they nevertheless witness against our violation of the proper order.

Persiflage, on 02 April 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

From talking with Reformed friends, I don't get the idea that Calvinist theology teaches we can't know things for sure.

Which Calvinist theology? Some, more extreme formulations have been very pessimistic about what we can truly know, at least about ourselves. But most Reformed theology is not so pessimistic about the question of knowledge because, in its best versions, it has a strong view of the revelation of the Holy Spirit as the revealer of truth and sustainer of the world. But, in general, Reformed theology tends to be more pessimistic about the ability of the unaided, fallen individual to grasp truth.

Persiflage, on 02 April 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

If a majority of modern churches are now ignoring and discounting rational argument for the truths of Christianity, and, when challenged and asked questions by people who actually think, they tell them they just need to have faith, that's far closer to Existentialism than Reformed doctrine.

I can't think of any headlining existentialists who would give such a simple, trite, insufficient answer to such challenges. And, I think it's questionable as to whether a majority of modern churches are now ignoring and discounting rational argument. After all, there are many kinds of rational argument, and you seem to lament the absence of a certain kind.

Edited by Ryan H., 02 April 2011 - 03:37 PM.

[Thom Wade]

[quote name='Persiflage' date='02 April 2011 - 01:16 PM' timestamp='1301764564' post='248627']
I could delete all the above mentioned Bible verses from the above post, and that wouldn't change the logical arguments.[/quote]


Something can have a logical argument without be "true".

[quote][quote name='Persiflage' date='25 March 2011 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1301083194' post='248055']

Well, it's not every religious leader who just outright tells everyone that he happens to be God, can forgive your sins, and save you.[/quote]

Certainly was not the first or last to do so, though.

[quote name='Persiflage' date='02 April 2011 - 01:16 PM' timestamp='1301764564' post='248627']
[quote]Absence of current information regarding complexity in nature isn't proof of God.[/quote]
You're right there.

[quote]And can you show me a soul? I've never seen one before.[/quote]
And come on now, I've had other discussions with you before, I know you can do better than make arguments like that (not a very existentialist argument either, it's more of an extreme hyper-rationalist argument).[/quote]

I never claimed to be an existentialist of any kind.



[quote name='Persiflage' date='02 April 2011 - 01:16 PM' timestamp='1301764564' post='248627']
[quote name='Ryan H.' date='25 March 2011 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1301091342' post='248063']
Having a conscience does not mean that you are suddenly inclined to believe that Jesus is the Son of God.[/quote]
Agreed, but don't you see? All a seeker needs to do is pick up one little truth at a time. The existence of right and wrong is one truth that must be accepted in order to become a Christian in the first place, and it's a truth that many deny accepting. Having a conscience (and therefore soon recognizing yourself as a sinner) makes one more inclined to believe Christianity than someone who has somehow managed to rid himself of his conscience.[/quote]

This sounds more like an argument that people are prone to superstition.

[quote name='Persiflage' date='25 March 2011 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1301075672' post='248041']

[quote][quote name='Nezpop' date='25 March 2011 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1301087652' post='248060']That's an interesting list. However, none of which is somehow factual proof of God-let alone Christianity.[/quote]
Yeah, all of them can be substantially challenged, and to believe that they automatically point to God, you kind of have to look at them already believing in God to begin with.[/quote]
I guess the problem with your viewpoint here is that many of these arguments have been explained to us by men who did not believe in God to begin with.[/quote]

But after they chose to believe. And just because some thing(s) was convincing to, say, C.S. Lewis and resulted in his conversion doesn't make it a proof. Certainly no more than an atheist converting to Islam proves Islam true. The problem I see with the argument you are presenting is that you seem to equate "it was enough to be convincing to some people" with "It is an undeniable truth and fact."

Edited by Nezpop, 04 April 2011 - 08:38 AM.