Thread: The Great Sin ... redefined? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023121

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
In the early days of my Christian life I read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, and the chapter that had the most impact on me was entitled: "The Great Sin" on the subject of pride.

Lewis defined "pride" as the attitude of always wanting to be better than other people, and the proud person derives his pleasure, not by being, for example, rich, but by being richer than others.

This is clearly correct, and as Lewis stated: "Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man."

Recently I have seen the concepts of pride and humility redefined - especially in various debates. Confidence in God has been called "hubris". A desire to receive from God has been described in the language of pride. A rejection of certainty has been called "humility" (although strangely, holding to the certainty of this definition is not considered "proud"!!)

I find this utterly perplexing.

If someone is confident that something is true, how is he necessarily "looking down on other people" and wanting to be better than them? If he has a strong trust in something he has personally experienced, how is he being "arrogant" (especially as he makes no comment about other people's personal claims)?

How do others define "pride"?

Isn't it time we used this term with a bit more care?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Possibly.

I take it you're referring to some of my accusations against you of possibly spiritual pride, 'prelest' and hubris on the 'speaking in tongues' and other spiritual gifts threads?

A lot of it comes down to perception and tone. I might well be wrong - and I'd concede that - but on the threads in question (and I don't want to go over old ground again) my perception - I stress perception - of your position was one of an unwillingness to accept challenge, however mild, and of clinging to putative experiences and apparent 'gifts' that may or may not be the 'real thing' as though they were Holy Writ and set in tablets of stone.

You called me to Hell on it. I apologised. I then started narking at you again and you left the thread. And I can understand why. I have since attemped to make amends ...

But, to get back to the plot ...

There is, I submit, a fine line between 'confidence in God' and presumption. Our mileage may vary in the language we use and the issues we choose to be confident about, but essentially I would prefer to err on the side of caution when making claims about things that might - I said, might - be questionable or capable of adjustment in the light of further data.

I know you have me down as a Doubting Thomas, but on the tongues issue - to pick just one instance - it wouldn't dent or dampen by faith in God if it could be proven that every single person who had ever spoken in tongues were deluded and the whole thing wasn't 'real' in any demonstrable sense.

You might call that a lack of confidence in God. I'd suggest it was the reverse. We walk by faith, not by sight. Whether or not 'tongues' or other apparent spiritual gifts, miracles etc are the genuine article or not doesn't affect whether I'm a Christian or not. I'd be a Christian irrespective of whether these things were legit' or otherwise.

On the other hand, if archaeologists dug up the body of Jesus of Nazareth in Palestine next week and it could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that this was the same Jesus we believe to be the Messiah, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity - then I would find myself having to make some considerable adjustments.

Can you see the difference I'm trying to highlight here?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Oh - and while I'm at it, I don't accept that I have redefined the concepts you mention. Humility prevents me from suggesting that it is you have misunderstood them in the first place ...

But it might be better if someone else tackled you on that one rather than me ...
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Trouble comes when two parties who both express total confidence that they have the truth straight from their own private line to heaven radically disagree on what that truth is. The most notorious example in American history is, of course, the debate over slavery, which split some denominations straight down the Mason-Dixon line. In this case, both the defenders and the opponents of slavery at least had scriptural passages to debate, which provided a modicum of substance for third parties to appreciate. But when it comes to claiming that my private line is obviously better than your private line, or that obviously you have no private line at all, how can this claim be other than prideful and hubristic?

Such controversies in the church are a scandal. What can the rest of the world do but scoff at our entire faith?
 

---

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
Dare I suggest...that CS Lewis...might not be the ultimate authority in the meaning of a word?

It has been part of the tradition that pride is the root of all sins, going back to Adam & Eve wanting to go above their station and be like God (on their own terms).

In the many decades since CS Lewis wrote, feminists and others have (rightly, IMO) pointed out that pride isn't the root of sin for everyone. In particular, they pointed to the ways in which victimized women could easily be further victimized by being accused of pride when they tried to stand up for themselves (or, gasp, leave an abusive husband, e.g.).

A wonderful definition of humility I've picked up from somewhere is that it's knowing yourself and being secure in yourself. In other words, if you are smarter, stronger, richer, etc., than others, you don't need to constantly prove it or have others acknowledge it. If you're less smart, strong, or rich than others, you don't have to pretend you're something you're not.

So maybe the desire for certainty can become a matter of pride if a person needs to seem to have answers.

I don't understand the objection to framing humility in terms of accepting uncertainty, though. Plato had Socrates say that the beginning of wisdom is to know that you don't know. If you don't know, but you think you know, then you're deluded. If you know, and know you know, then you might think you have nothing left to learn. And if you know, but don't realize it, then your knowledge does you no good. (Actually, contemporary philosophers would say that last one doesn't constitute knowledge, but that's a whole other can of worms...)

The Bible also says "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." I think that "fear" in this case has to do with reverence, which is a form of humility: knowing God is God and you're not, and knowing you should look to God for answers.

In academic circles - we've all known someone who has to be perceived as the one with all the answers. We tend to think of them as pompous. Charles Peirce had a wonderful little doctrine he called "fallibilism" (he liked making up names for things): You're more likely to arrive at the truth if you admit you could be wrong than if you don't. Think about it.

I think Peirce's fallibilism is pretty much the definition of intellectual humility. No matter how certain you may think you are, it's still a good idea to recognize that, being human, you could be wrong. That doesn't mean you're wallowing in a pretense of ignorance or confusion. It means you operate under the working theory you have, but realize you may have to adjust your lenses at some point.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Indeed.

I'm wondering about C S Lewis in all of this. He once observed that 'miracles' and 'signs' were for those weak in faith.

'Jews seek signs and Greeks seek wisdom - but we preach Christ crucified,' and all the rest of it.

I do think that 'prelest' - or spiritual pride and spiritual deception - is a very great and present danger. We all succumb to it at times.

'Who can discern his errors?'

That's why I think that the prayer for general sins and absolution that we find in the Anglican, Orthodox and other traditions are a good thing - they cover all bases as it were.

We can all of us do things that we think are right and noble and good and true, not discerning that there might be mixed motives, attention seeking or a whole load of other hidden faults involved.

We need to 'walk softly' as the old Puritans used to say.

I can only speak for myself, but during the whole 'Toronto Blessing' thing I used to go around praying over people and they'd keel over, collapse or, sometimes, tremble and shoot backwards as though they'd been given an electric shock. I began to feel proud of my apparent spiritual abilities and power. 'People fall over when I pray for them ...'

The realisation of this gave me pause. Whilst I cannot explain all that happened at that time, I'm generally of the view that it was a very human thing ... something encouraged and inculcated to a large extent by cues and suggestibility etc. By no means all of it, but a substantial amount, I would say.

Consequently, I backed off and began exploring more traditional forms of spirituality - probably a trajectory I was already on anyway.

I'm not trying to bash anybody (although I have been guilty of that) but I am, I'm afraid, quite firmly of the opinion that charismatic spirituality does have an inherent tendency to encourage spiritual pride. Hence the Apostle Paul's warnings and corrections to the Corinthians.

Of course, what we need is regulation and proper use rather than non-use, but I'm very wary of anything these days that holds out particular experiences, gifts or apparent manifestations of the Spirit as a barometer for spiritual power and 'success'.

I'm not sure I'm any more humble, though. My pride has probably simply found other outlets. Lord have mercy.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
I think in this context we find pride where we can object to other people's beliefs with reasoned, well thought-out arguments; but when others respond to our beliefs with reasoned, well thought-out arguments we reply with...

(Not thinking of anyone on these boards, but more thinking of my past encounters with various people in RL.)
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Certainty can often come over as pride - as it doesn't allow that we could be wrong.

And, of course, any one of us could easily be completely wrong.

It's the only thing I look forward to about my death - because then I will be certain about all these things which are only held by faith (or I'll be nothing and know nothing of it)
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Gamaliel -

Can I take it that you admit that you could be wrong about everything that you have written on this thread so far?

Do you understand the point I am trying to make?

Those who see a connection between uncertainty and humility cannot actually say anything at all, because to say anything involves some element of certainty - even if it is just the "certainty" that "nothing is certain".

It's a bit like scepticism. A sceptic may say that "there is no such thing as knowledge", but fails to realise that that idea itself is therefore unknowable according to his own definition. As it happens, CS Lewis (not someone I regard as infallible) also recognised this danger, when he wrote: "There is therefore no question of a total scepticism about human thought. We are always prevented from accepting total scepticism because it can be formulated only by making a tacit exception in favour of the thought we are thinking at the moment - just as the man who warns the newcomer 'Don't trust anyone in this office' always expects you to trust him at that moment." (From: De Futilitate, Christian Reflections)

I touched on this point in the OP when I wrote: "...although strangely, holding to the certainty of this definition is not considered "proud"!!"

So it seems to me that you are being selective in what you are willing to be certain about, and therefore your "humility" is selective, and thus inherently unjust.

I was not at all unwilling to dismiss correction. I can see that you have your concerns about the Charismatic "movement" or "scene", but short of out-and-out cessationism, I doubt your concerns are any greater than mine. I am extremely critical of the Charismatic movement, and I was deeply opposed to the Toronto Blessing. The reason I was opposed to it was for reasons of discernment. But I had friends who were into it and even promoting it in writing (by which I mean: publishing books about it).

Now I can say that I don't agree with certain aspects of the TB, and a fellow Christian could tell me that he personally felt that his TB experiences were of God - on the basis of what he claimed to be the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. At that point we are out of the realm of the "Athenian marketplace" (i.e. the place where we can debate concepts) and into the realm of the personal and subjective. Once we are at that point, then all I can say is: "I have my views, which I hold on the basis of this evidence, but I cannot make any comment about your own subjective experience, because it is subjective. I have said my piece, but if you genuinely believe that your experience is of God, then we have to leave the discussion there." I might feel tempted to say something potentially smarmy like "I'll pray for you", but that's as far as it can go. In fact, critical though I may be of such a person's manifestations, it is perfectly possible that God may be doing a work in his life despite these experiences. It is not for me to say, and I would consider it an act of HUMILITY to respect that person's relationship with God. (Please note that last point, even if you ignore everything else I've written.)

If someone said to me that I cannot trust my mother to give me a slice of home-made cake that would not contain something unpleasant without there having been a full scientific analysis of the cake, I would think such a person was mad. I trust her because of the evidence of who she is, her character and her general competence. The same goes for God. If we are to humbly obey the first commandment, then surely that must involve at the very least the kind of trust that we would show towards our own loving human parents, mustn't it? "If your son asks for bread, would you give him a stone...?" Jesus recognised the importance of this basic trust in God, and on that basis we can have confidence in the validity and integrity of the things that he gives to us. How can it possibly be considered "proud" or "hubris" to exercise that trust?

It seems astonishing to me that "humility" before God should involve not actually trusting him. But that is what you seem to be suggesting.

You may think that my gift of tongues is dodgy. If I were arguing with a cessationist, then he would say that. I would just say: "Fair enough. You have to say that because of your theological position. Therefore we will just have to agree to disagree. End of conversation." Or we could have a protracted debate about the spiritual gifts. But I doubt such a person would pursue me on a personal level in the way that you have done.

Let me make it clear that I don't mind someone rubbishing my viewpoint. I have a video on YouTube (I'm not going to promote it here, unless you ask me to) on the subject of atheism. It has attracted many hundreds of comments, and some of them have been abusive. Here is an example of one of them (typos 'n' all):

quote:

---

pls tell me what other senses you have to get knowledge ? are you fucking stupid or insane...you dont have any other way to get information than your senses you moron even the bible is based on that you need to know how to read and to see the letters ahahhahah god could not give his message direct he had to made a illogical book...omg how retarded you are to believe somthing like that...people own you and you like a stuid child insist that your idiotic reasoning here is valid...get help

---

Do you honestly think I was upset when I read that? No. I almost wet myself with laughter. It really doesn't bother me when people just attack my views. But these atheists - even the worst of them - know where to draw the line. They may call me a moron, and retarded and needing help, but it's just a load of hot air. But your pursuit of me was of a completely different kind. It's as if you are personally offended that I should have any viewpoint at all, which I hold with a considerable level of confidence.

I consider that it is an act of humility to respect a person's testimony and to desist from trying to control that person's private life.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


'Can I take it that you admit that you could be wrong about everything that you have written on this thread so far?'

Of course. I might very well be wrong. So might you be. Have the humility to accept that possibility.

With the greatest respect, EE, I can see why you were narked at my 'pursuit' of you. Fair enough. I've apologised. I continued to do it after I'd apologised. You called me on it. I apologised again.

Forgive me, but you do seem to have a tendency to be rather binary about these things. I did not say that your 'speaking in tongues' was a load of baloney, I simply suggested that ALL of us who can apparently speak in tongues should be open to the possibility that our version of it is no more 'authentic' or legitimate than instances that can be demonstrated to be capable of explanation by other means.

I wasn't very gracious in the way I tried to explain that, nor was I explaining myself very well. But I certainly wasn't trying to stop you speaking in tongues or attempting to control your spiritual life. Give me some credit for goodness sake.

You also seem incapable of distinguishing a position of agnosticism or uncertainty on various secondary issues as evidence of lack of faith or lack of confidence in God. Now who's being judgemental?

I'm not saying that we can't be certain about anything. I am not denying the supernatural. I am not denying the historic Creeds. I am perfectly capable of asserting things in a dogmatic way.

But I am not infallible. YOU are not infallible.

From where I'm sitting it sounds as if you're setting yourself up as judge and jury in these matters and don't like it when anyone else proffers an opinion that differs from yours. But then, you'd probably say the same about me.

I actually think that there's more common ground between us than is apparent at first sight.

On the selectivity thing - you are just as selective as I am - it's just that you need to remove the whopping big telegraph pole from your eye in order to see it.

On the Toronto thing - so you had the discernment 'in advance' to suss it all out before I did. I had to be involved for a wee bit before my own discernment sensors kicked in (although I had initial reservations from the outset). Well, whoopy do, bully for you. Your discernment quotient was higher than mine on that occasion. Top marks, pass Go, collect your £200 ...

Seriously, there will be issues where your discernment strike-right, as it were, will be greater than mine. On other instances it might just possibly be the other way round. It doesn't really matter though, does it? This isn't a competition.

On the point about respecting other people's experiences and so on. Well, you might not think so, but I have done so in your case. Nowhere have I suggested that you stop speaking in tongues, for instance.

All I've done (admittedly clumsily) is suggest that we 'know in part' and should remain open to the possibility that we might get things wrong and you've gone up like a scalded cat. How dare that Doubting Thomas Gamaliel question MY ability to speak in tongues!'

Ok, so I rubbed you up the wrong way. I can see that. But I'd be prepared to accept the rest of your charges if I came along saying, 'That stupid pillock EE, he thinks he can speak in tongues. What a wally!'

But I've said no such thing. I am not a cessationist.

I submit that there are degrees of difference and shades of grey between an out-and-out cessationist and someone who is open to the charismatic dimension and yet sceptical about some aspects. What's the big deal about that?

You are right that there probably isn't a great deal of difference in our respective approaches to the charismatic thing in general. Great. Let's agree to agree on the things we agree on and to disagree on those minor points where we might diverge.

I've not helped, I admit, by adopting a rather strident and snarky tone. I apologise for that.

But on the other hand, and my offence is greater than yours on this one, you haven't helped either by suggesting that I'm more selective than you are and that I've moved the goal-posts and 'redefined' what it means to show a modicum of humility and even open and honest doubt when it comes to certain areas.

That doesn't seem good enough for you. You seem to want everything in black and white and - dare I say - seem so convinced of your own discernment abilities that you are unwilling to accept any suggestion that you might possibly get it wrong at times.

That doesn't count as humility in my book. It counts as hubris, it counts as 'prelest.'

And I'm saying that, I'm very, very conscious that I am equally guilty of the same thing. We all of us are. It simply manifests itself in different ways and over different issues. 'Who can discern his errors?'

'We know in PART ...'

But we still 'know'. We 'see through a glass darkly', but we can still 'see'.

Now, hear me right, I'm not saying that it demonstrates pride or hubris to trust God. What I am saying is that it CAN stray into pride or hubris if we hold on to a claimed experience or insight as though it were a really big deal - we have these things on trust. They are not OURS.

I'm not saying that this is the case with you. Just that (and I might be wrong) I've found your tone and your approach rather defensive and you've become entrenched as though I am out to 'get' you - which I am certainly not.

That's all I'm saying and beyond my rather clumsy explanations and sometimes strident tone, I don't really see what I've said that is so objectionable. I've apologised for having a personal go at you. Is that not sufficient?

'It seems astonishing to me that "humility" before God should involve not actually trusting him. But that is what you seem to be suggesting.'

Well, now it isn't. It's what you THINK I am suggesting. I'm not. So drop it.

'You may think that my gift of tongues is dodgy.'

I'm not saying it is. I was hypothesising. The mistake I made (and it WAS a mistake) was to use YOUR tongues speaking as a model. I should have used my own as an example and then you wouldn't have been upset.

'But I doubt such a person would pursue me on a personal level in the way that you have done.'

I've apologised for that and will apologise again. Please trust me, it wasn't meant to be personal but as Snags correctly 'discerned' my blood was up as some of the language and the tone you were adopting reminded me of some charismatics I've met in the past and opened old wounds. I was probably, unconsciously, pursuing them rather than you - if that makes sense. I was taking out on you some of the baggage from the past.

I'm not excusing my pursuit of you, just putting it in context. I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

'Let me make it clear that I don't mind someone rubbishing my viewpoint.'

I'm not rubbishing your viewpoint. I was trying to engage you in robust debate. Rather too robust it seems.

On the You Tube video thing - well sure, I would have a similar reaction if that were my You Tube video and I received those sort of comments.

'But your pursuit of me was of a completely different kind. It's as if you are personally offended that I should have any viewpoint at all, which I hold with a considerable level of confidence.'

I can see why you would suggest that but that certainly isn't the case at all. I would certainly not dispute your right to hold a viewpoint of whatever kind with a considerable level of confidence.

That wasn't the issue. The issue was your apparent insistence that you could be 100% sure that your 'tongues-speaking' was 'of God' and that to suggest that it may or may not be was tantamount to a lack of trust in God.

It really doesn't affect my faith in God one iota if you were speaking Mongolian or else going 'babababababa' and thinking that you were speaking the language of the Solomon Islands.

But I don't want to go over that again...

I hope I've made myself clearer. I was speaking hypothetically - 'some tongues might be legit', others aren't. How can we tell?' - and made the very big mistake of using your own as an example rather than keeping it abstract or applying it to myself.


I consider that it is an act of humility to respect a person's testimony and to desist from trying to control that person's private life.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Whoops - I'd copied and pasted parts of your post into mine, EE.

I didn't mean to leave this bit in:

'I consider that it is an act of humility to respect a person's testimony and to desist from trying to control that person's private life.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Humility is inversely proportional to the length of one's posts.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
But I am not infallible. YOU are not infallible.

From where I'm sitting it sounds as if you're setting yourself up as judge and jury in these matters and don't like it when anyone else proffers an opinion that differs from yours. But then, you'd probably say the same about me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you insist that humility requires that I admit that "my gift of tongues could be something entirely made up by me", then I could mouth those words, if you like. But I would be lying! I say this, because I do not believe that to be true

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve H
You can't believe that any of your beliefs are false without immediately falling into a rather obvious logical contradiction; but you can, and indeed should, admit the possibility that they might be wrong: that's proper intellectual humility, and if you don't admit it, you're a bigot, bigotry being a form of pride.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

If you insist that humility requires that I admit that "my gift of tongues could be something entirely made up by me", then I could mouth those words, if you like. But I would be lying! I say this, because I do not believe that to be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Humility is inversely proportional to the length of one's posts.

---

You can't help noticing the long, long explanations of Gamaliel and EE!
 

---

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve H
You can't believe that any of your beliefs are false without immediately falling into a rather obvious logical contradiction; but you can, and indeed should, admit the possibility that they might be wrong: that's proper intellectual humility, and if you don't admit it, you're a bigot, bigotry being a form of pride.

---

Since I don't want to be a bigot, I will therefore submit to what you say.

Therefore...

... "I affirm that it might be wrong to say that we should admit that our beliefs might be wrong."

Do you affirm this as well? I hope so. I wouldn't want you to be a bigot now!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve H
Go away, you silly little boy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
No you wouldn't be lying! I think this is at the centre of your 'problem' here. Saying you
could be wrong doesn't mean unbelief at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
No you wouldn't be lying! I think this is at the centre of your 'problem' here. Saying you
could be wrong doesn't mean unbelief at all.

---

Could you be wrong about that?

Are you prepared to apply your rule to that assertion? Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong to say: "Saying you could be wrong doesn't mean unbelief at all"?

You cannot have it both ways (which means that I am suggesting that your assertion is actually self-refuting).

And where do you draw the line? Surely there are certain things it would be insane to doubt, such as one's own existence? On what epistemological basis do you apply your rule?

---

Not at all - if we both agree we could be wrong, problem solved.


 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

So what are you then?

Humble or proud?

---

I was once given an award for humility. They took it away after I put it on display.
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Is that the award they gave to Akinola after you?
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
Eh... sorry, I don't get the reference?
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
Boogie wrote:
Not at all - if we both agree we could be wrong, problem solved


Hi Boogie, what's the point in debating a view that we don't feel confident about ourself and which we feel will edify and mature the body of Christ?

If you feel it's wrong, prove it. Even that helps to edify and grow the body of Christ.

2 Cor 10:5
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

In the NT church, the Apostles weren't always around:

1 Cor 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.


These guys were forming doctrine! But there were checks and balances:

1 Cor 3
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

See modernism reached wrong conclusions because, let's face it, the language is archaic. Postmodernism rejects ALL conclusions, skeptically asking, ”Sez who?”

Or ”Prove it”, like the men from Missouri, the ”Show me State”!

Well, current Biblical scholarship doesn't jump from the certainty and hubris of modernism into the skepticism of post modernism, but operates in the realm of probability:

Quote

DBW: Up until the last few years, I would say—and have said—that the practice of textual criticism neither needs nor deserves any theological presuppositions. For example, I am not convinced that the Bible speaks of its own preservation. That doctrine was first introduced in the Westminster Confession, but it is not something that can be found in scripture. But with the rise of postmodern approaches to biblical studies, where all views are created equal, it seems that theology is having a role in the discussion. The question is, Is it the right theology? What I didn’t care for about modernism was its tendency toward dogmatism; what I don’t care for about postmodernism is its tendency toward scepticism. I think we’ve jumped out of the frying pan of modernist certainty and into the fire of postmodern uncertainty. At bottom, historical investigation has to deal with probabilities. These fall short of certainty, but all views are not created equal.

Interview of Daniel B. Wallace on Textual Criticism


Daniel Wallace
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm sorry I write long posts. I don't always have time to write short ones.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
On a serious note, but I doubt EE will let it lie, I'm with Boogie on this one. If we could all acknowledge that we might be wrong then the problem's solved.

For some reason EE doesn't seem to want to do that.

I'm not holding myself up as an example, but when I was a full-on charismatic and used to speak in tongues regularly, I was simultaneously open to the possibility that I might be wrong. I've had several quite powerful experiences that I would consider to be experiences of the supernatural and the presence of God - and I believe that they were very, very real. But at the same time I remain open to the possibility that there was a natural explanation all along.

I can hold both ideas in tension.

I don't see the problem at all.
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
To put it in a nutshell, we can attack the issue, not the person or his attitude?
 

---

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 
EE - clearly, there are some things which must be true, because doubting them leads immediately into logical contradiction, such as one's own existance: that's the point of Descartes's "I think, therefore I am". There are also things which are not necessarily true, but which we have to assume if we're to reason and debate at all, such as the validity of human reason, and the reliability of our senses. Let's call these beliefs 'type-1 beliefs'. All other beliefs may or may not be true - you can hold them or not, without falling into immediate logical contradiction, or making all sensible debate impossible. I suggest that we call these 'type-2 beliefs'. Religious beliefs are type 2. You and I both believe in God, and in the full divinity and humanity of Christ, but we could be wrong: you can disbelieve in either or both without falling into a logical contradiction, or making reasoning impossible. I suggest to you that a belief that you might be mistaken in your type-2 beliefs is itself a type-1 belief, because it is clear that other people disagree with you, so unless you arbitrarily assume that you are right about everything, which is illogical (as well as incredibly arrogant), you must assume the theoretical possibility that you might be wrong in at least some of them. This is not the same thing as assuming that you are wrong, which, as I pointed out earlier, is logically contradictory.
No-one is asking you to renounce any of your beliefs - just to admit to the purely theoretical possibility that you might be wrong about some of them.

[ 03. June 2012, 17:59: Message edited by: Steve H ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, yes, and I should have done. I get things wrong. I am not infallible.

I'm not excusing my rants, but EE has suggested that I've been nagging at him because I'm some how wound up by his certainties. It ain't that so much as what I've taken (rightly or wrongly) to be the tone in which he says things. The same kind of tone he uses to scoff at RCs or Orthodox or anyone who has a higher view of Tradition than he has, for instance.

And the way he apparently sets himself up and his wonderful discernment as the arbiter of all that's good and holy and true.

I might very well be doing him a disservice. But it doesn't sound like it to me.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds his posts hubristic. Irish Lord has said similar.

I can't remember whether anyone else has tackled him over it. Rightly or wrongly, I have done so.

But you're right - it's the issue not the person.
 

---

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Steve -

So what are you then?

Humble or proud?

---

I'm humble and proud of it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What Steve H said.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
... About admitting the theoretical possibility that we might be wrong about our Type 2 beliefs. I don't see any problem with acknowledging that.

Not about the pride thing ... although it's a good line.

@Irish Lord - the Akinola reference was to a quotation of this Nigerian Bishop's which appeared, rather amusingly, on a Shipmate's sign - I forget whose - 'People often tell me how surprised they are at my humility.'


 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
Gotta admit he tends to pontificate, walk the Sir Oracle walk. And his loopy logic doesn't help!


 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
On a serious note, but I doubt EE will let it lie, I'm with Boogie on this one. If we could all acknowledge that we might be wrong then the problem's solved.

For some reason EE doesn't seem to want to do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Eh... sorry, I don't get the reference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
But the fact is, we don't know ourselves sufficiently to rightly discern what is what and which is which at all times and in all circumstances.

Which is one reason why we need one another, one reason why we need the Church (however we define it) and one reason why we need to be open to correction or to accept that what we might have taken as proof positive for something or other might not actually be the case ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I wonder if what we're all dancing around here is the fine line between confidence in our beliefs and the need to be right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve H:
Go away, you silly little boy.

---

quote:

---

3. Attack the issue, not the person

Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.

---

quote:

---

1. No personal attacks

We all have different opinions about weighty matters, some strongly held. Disagree with the view, not the person. The statement, "View X is stupid," is acceptable. The statement, "Person X is stupid," is not.

---

quote:

---

4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve H:
Go away, you silly little boy.

---

Commandment 3

quote:

---

3. Attack the issue, not the person

Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.

---

Purg Guideline 1

quote:

---

1. No personal attacks

We all have different opinions about weighty matters, some strongly held. Disagree with the view, not the person. The statement, "View X is stupid," is acceptable. The statement, "Person X is stupid," is not.

---

Steve H

Do I need to say more? You definitely crossed the line. Please don't do that again. I see what provoked the vent of course. You can vent as much as you like in Hell. Not here.Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If someone came to me and presented me with convincing evidence that my gift of tongues was just "made up" - i.e. there was absolutely nothing of God in it, then would I be prepared to accept that evidence and submit to it? The answer to that is a resounding 'yes'. Of course I would. If they make such an accusation, but are unable to present evidence, then I guess I would feel justified in telling them (as politely as I could) to sod off. And I don't care whether they are a "concerned Christian brother", a "Christian leader", a self-appointed "spiritual director" or who the hell they are. If someone has taken it upon himself to correct me, then come up with sound and logically coherent evidence (and also he could explain to me why he feels the need to correct me anyway. Does he go around assessing everybody in this way?).

---

At last! That's all anyone wanted you to admit to! (Well, it's all I wanted you to admit to, anyway, But I think Gamaliel and Boogie also) I'm not trying in the least to get you to say that your gift of tongues is not from God - it may well be: I don't dismiss tongues, or other gifts, absolutely - just to admit to the theoretical possibility that it could be, which you've now done. Now maybe we can all have a nice group-hug and make friends!

[ 04. June 2012, 07:43: Message edited by: Steve H ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I'm satisfied with that too, if that doesn't sound too pompous a thing to say.

And yes, I accept Barnabas62's warning shot across my bows. I can foresee that they may sometimes remain tensions between EE and myself given the spat we've had over the last week or so - and yes, I started it ...

But I'm prepared to put that behind and engage properly and appropriately with EE whenever I come across him on the Boards (which hasn't been very often so far as I can recollect). I have no desire to have another Hell bout.

I reiterate, my big mistake - my Capital M Mistake - was to use EE as an example rather than myself. Had I done so I doubt that EE would have felt that I was 'getting' at him. It would have remained in the realm of the hypothetical, the abstract as it were - which is where it should have remained.

Kaplan Corday's example is a good one. I like the Charles II quote. I also agree with him that a conveniently labelled corpse of Jesus of Nazareth is never going to be found. Hallelujah!

There, I told you I could do 'hwyl' at times ...

@Etymological Evangelical, I too have suffered from involvement in a very controlling fellowship and my reaction to that sort of thing is very similar to yours. I suggest that both of us may have been 'damaged' by this in different ways - but I can really only speak for myself and not presume to do so on your behalf.

I'm not suggesting I was RIGHT in this assumption but to some extent the certainty of your position reminded me of attitudes and stances adopted in that particular fellowship. Which is why I rounded on you.

It seems that an equal and opposite reaction was happening in your case, insofar as you took my challenge as an attempt to 'control' or regulate your private and personal spiritual life.

I was as non-plussed by that assertion as you were by mine. So perhaps our prior experiences coloured our perceptions of what each of us were saying?

If that was the case, then let's clear the air and bury the hatchet - and not in one another's heads ...
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 
@Gamaliel. You wrote 'The point I was making was that we can't be 100% certain about subjective experience.' Which I think captures the essence of much of the preceding discussion.

Reflecting on this, I reckon you can be more certain of your experiences than you seem to give yourself credit for.

Philosophers acknowledge beliefs which they describe as 'incorrigible.' Even though there is no external verifiable reason for that belief, it cannot be refuted in the experience of the individual. So I may experience physical pain. There may be no discernible medical reason for this but if I am experiencing pain, then this belief is, nonetheless, incorrigible. It's a subjective experience of which I am 100% certain.

Let's take this a step further. You love your wife and daughters. When you tell them you love them I have no doubt that does not come witn caveats like "But I might discover that I don't really love you, that what I think is love is actually a chemical reaction in my brain, or a desire to conform to an external set of social conventions regarding how a man should treat his family." Now being a deeply thoughtful individual you may well have considered all these possibilities and concluded that none of them are valid.

You therefore have *every* reason to believe that you do love your wife and daughters, and *no* reason to doubt it.

And even with my less than impressive grasp of mathematics that would appear to add up to a 100% certainty of the validity of your subjective experience.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, I can see what you're driving at, Drewthealexander - but I submit that there is quite a bit of difference between suggesting something like, 'I love my wife and daughters' and, 'I have just spoken in a language I have not learned and which I believe to be one given directly by God the Holy Spirit ...'

I'm not dismissing the possibility of the latter, simply suggesting that even if it does conform sufficiently to a linguistic pattern to satisfy the speaker (if not the hearer?) then it doesn't automatically follow that it IS a language.

It might be. It might not be.

That's all I'm saying. I may upset some people by suggesting that but that's all I'm suggesting.

It can only remain an assertion or a belief. And that's fine. I can live with the ambiguity of that.

I believe I've had various spiritual experiences over the years. I believe that I once heard angels singing, for instance. There was one other witness who also believed that they'd heard the same. I can't 'prove' it one way or another. My faith doesn't depend upon whether I was right or wrong.

If it were proven to me that I imagined it or mistook some ethereal sounding noises in the distance that appeared, by virtue of atmospheric conditions, to sound like angelic singing then fine ...

I'm not a million miles with EE on this one. He believes that he has spoken in a language he has not learned. I used to believe that too. I'm less convinced now but that doesn't mean that I'm not open to the possibility that I may have done.

I may have done. I may not have done.

I really don't see what the big problem is with entertaining some ambiguity here. I can live with the ambiguity.

I'm not suggesting that EE should entertain the same level of ambiguity - or that you should - or that anyone else ought to. Although I would like them to accept the theoretical possibility that they can do so - which seems to be where we're at now.

Which is fine.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think Gorpo has made a good point too ...

Just coming back to something that EE posted, in order to clarify my position rather than attempting to renew an argument I am now happy to relinquish ...

EE wrote:

'I just cannot see how coming to a conclusion about something is "arrogant".'

Nor do I. The persistent reluctance to accept that one might be wrong CAN be. I'm certainly not suggesting that in your case now and if I did before, I apologise.

'I certainly don't see the slightest evidence in the Bible that doubt is an inherent virtue or a sign of humility - in fact, the very opposite.'

Nowhere have I maintained that. I think, with respect, that you may have read rather too much into my posts at this point. I'm not saying that doubt is a virtue. I regularly pray 'Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief ...'

As it happens, I have come to quite a few conclusions about spiritual matters - I believe the Creeds, I believe in the Trinity, I believe in the Deity of Christ, I believe in the Resurrection and in much else besides ...

Like Kaplan Corday, I believe that they won't ever find a conveniently labelled corpse of Jesus of Nazareth in Palestine.

But I remain sceptical about SOME claims - in the 'testing all things' sense that you've alluded to.

I don't see how that amounts to 'chronic scepticism' nor anything else that I've posted on this subject.
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 
@Gamaliel. I think your line of thinking on the validity of subjective experience doesn't go far enough.

Consider this.

A person has a belief. Someone may raise a doubt about that belief. But that of itself does not then mean the person with the belief should hold it with an element of doubt. He should revisit the grounds of his belief to see if they are sound. He should also consider the potential defeaters to that belief to determine how strong they are. If he concludes that that they are too weak to undermine his belief, then he has no reason to doubt. His belief remains completely intact.

So when I consider my own experience of, for example, speaking in tongues (to take a recent example for discussion) what reasons do I have to believe it is a God- given language? Well I have my rational sense which tells me that, before I spoke in tongues, I was unable to maintain a constant stream of gibberish for more than a minute or so before drying up. I know enough about languages to recognise that I have not just copied the sounds others have made.

As Christians we also have a spiritual sense from which we make evaluations which Paul describes in 1Cor 2. On that basis I recognise I came into my experience in a Christian community, and through a process similar to one I find in the New Testament. On that basis I have concluded I am not deceived, and that my experience is not some spiritual counterfeit.

So at this moment in time, all the evidence I have available to me convinces me that my gift of tongues is God-given. I have considered the potential defeaters to that view and found them unconvincing. Should a future challenge arise I would, of course, have to give it honest consideration.

But for now I have many good reasons for my belief, and no reasons that give me any cause for concern. So on that basis I can be 100% convinced that my experience is God-given. The theoretical possibility that I might be wrong is entirely academic since I have no convincing reason - specific to mynexperience - to persuade me that I am.

So let's turn to a remarkable experience of your own. I have never heard angels sing. If you apply the same line of reasoning I've used to the experience you described above you could, under the circumstances in which the event occured, quite reasonably hold the view that you did in fact, hear angels sing. If you're only reason for doubting this is the general possibility that humans can be mistaken, I would suggest this is neither strong enough, nor context-specific enough, to defeat your conviction.

Doubt can be extremely helpful in testing the security of our convictions. But if we can challenge our doubts to the point where they cease to have any influence, then there is really no reason to hold on to them. They have fulfilled their purpose.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Yes, I agree, let's try and keep this discussion free of personal attacks and insinuations, and I admit that I am as guilty as anyone on that score. I must confess that it's not easy when dealing with matters which are, by their very nature, quite personal.

However, I am very interested in continuing the discussion about pride and humility as it relates to epistemology. I don't consider that this thread should become (or should have become) "hell-lite", and that was not my intention, but I acknowledge that it is certainly a follow up to our rather heated discussion on the "tongues" thread, which involved a diversion in "hell-proper". I don't intend another excursion down yonder, but I also hope that the atmosphere of "kiss and make up" will not tempt any of us to compromise our honest positions. I realise that it's a fine line we are treading, and I don't envy the hosts who have to keep the board categories "clean".

Anyway, back to the discussion...

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek
Dare I suggest...that CS Lewis...might not be the ultimate authority in the meaning of a word?

It has been part of the tradition that pride is the root of all sins, going back to Adam & Eve wanting to go above their station and be like God (on their own terms).

In the many decades since CS Lewis wrote, feminists and others have (rightly, IMO) pointed out that pride isn't the root of sin for everyone. In particular, they pointed to the ways in which victimized women could easily be further victimized by being accused of pride when they tried to stand up for themselves (or, gasp, leave an abusive husband, e.g.).

---

quote:

---

We say in English that a man is "proud" of his son, or his father, or his school, or regiment, and it may be asked whether "pride" in this sense is a sin. I think it depends on what, exactly, we mean by "proud of". Very often, in such sentences, the phrase "is proud of" means "has a warm-hearted admiration for". Such an admiration is, of course, very far from being a sin.

---

quote:

---

Pleasure in being praised is not Pride. The child who is patted on the back for doing a lesson well, the woman whose beauty is praised by her lover, the saved soul to whom Christ says "Well done", are pleased and ought to be.

---

Both these quotes indicate that Lewis acknowledged that there is a legitimate form of pride, which is really respect, including self-respect. So the woman who stands up for herself in an abusive marriage is exercising her sense of "pride" - i.e. "self-respect". This kind of "pride" should be honoured and protected.

But a woman who gets into a conflict with her husband simply because she is trying to control him or wants to be better than him (not simply equal with him), is influenced by a different kind of "pride", which is sin.

When a husband accuses his wife of "pride", he needs to be sure he is using the correct definition. So I don't think your example contradicts what Lewis wrote.

Of course, I realise that Lewis' writings are not Holy Writ, but certainly his argument makes a lot of sense. But whether he - or the Bible - would agree that there is a necessary relationship between "pride" and "certainty" is another matter...
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Drewthealexander -

You have just expressed what I have been struggling to articulate. That is exactly my position.

Gotta run now (some of us have to work on a bank holiday!), but I hope to follow this up later...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thing is, lads, it isn't that far from my position either.

To address Drew's point about tongues-speaking - sure I could have written that myself. I could babble away quite fluently in tongues if I wanted to - it's still 'there' even though I don't tend to 'use it' as it were that often these days.

But the ability to speak apparently fluently in 'tongues' - and I tend to think that my own efforts - if that's what they are - sound a lot more 'convincing' in a linguistic way than many I've heard in charismatic circles - doesn't in and of itself 'prove' that I am speaking an actual language.

Without going over the issues on the tongues thread again, it has been amply demonstrated that people without any faith whatsoever can apparently 'speak in tongues' with the minimum of instruction or prompting and that they can keep on doing so.

Hence the instructions that many charismatics receive when they are first inducted into the 'gift' and instructed in its use ie. they are told that they should continue to 'use' it in order to become fluent.

It is axiomatic that by speaking in tongues regularly you are likely to become more adept at it and sound more convincing. It's like riding a bike in that respect.

Now, that in and of itself doesn't prove nor disprove 'tongues' as a phenomenon.

Just as the experience I had with the apparent angelic signing 'proves' the existence of angels or heaven or anything else. I don't see how acknowledging as much some how diminishes the experience.

I'm really not a million miles from either of you guys - I share a similar charismatic evangelical background - although I feel I'm a lot 'broader' than that now (which isn't to suggest that either of you are necessarily 'narrow' in comparison).

I do believe in angels, I do believe in spiritual gifts and I do have a high view of the Bible - even if I don't take all of it in very literal terms - our mileages may vary there.

It's just that I don't apparently place as much store as you might on the significance or import of some of these experiences. They may well have been real - I believe they were - but I might equally be mistaken.

I don't really see why that is a deficient view to take. How am I selling myself or anyone else short in adopting such a stand-point?

I don't HAVE to have absolute 100% certainty about absolutely everything.

Otherwise there'd be no need for faith would there?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
One more thing, you keep making a distinction between C S Lewis and 'Holy Writ', EE - and rightly so. But you don't apparently appear to recognise that what any of us do when we approach scripture is to interpret it through an interpretive lens of some form - we all do this, whether we are evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox, liberal Protestants, Mormons, secularists or whatever else.

Consequently, it seems to me, you tend to have a one-size-fits-all approach to the scriptures that CAN (I say CAN) appear rather fundamentalist at times. But I'm wary to go down this route with you lest you accuse me of accusing you of spiritual pride etc.

We all of us interpret the scriptures from the standpoint of whatever tradition we are part of - and that applies to evangelicals as much as it applies to anyone else.

That's why I've teased you about your being your own Pope. Setting yourself up as the final arbiter of what's true and what's to be believed.

Now, I'll admit that I'm in a quandary on this one, as the sort of Tradition-trumps-it-all stance adopted (apparently) by the likes of Mark Betts (see the Authority and Tradition thread) makes me want to run a mile in the opposite direction.

Conversely, the kind of rather individualised evangelical approach of Me and My Bible - as exemplified at times by both EE and Drewthealexander, I would submit - makes me want to run back in the opposite direction and embrace something with a more 'conciliar' approach - 'that believe everywhere and by all' as exemplified by the historic Churches such as the RCs, the Orthodox and the Higher reaches of Anglicanism.

None of us are infallible. And neither is our interpretation of scripture. Not you, not me.

Just thought that would complicate things a bit more and liven things up ... not seeking to pull either of you down. Just saying.
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 
@Gamaliel. Whilst I don't want to overplay the differences of our understanding on this, there is an important distinction I would like to be clear about. You pointed out that questions have been raised about some people's claims that they have spoken in tongues. Indeed there have, and I know some of these questions to be well founded.

But the question then is the extent to which the experince of other people is relevant to me. I should certainly consider the possibility where we claim a common experience. But if I find enough dissimilarity between my experience and that of others which are questionable, then I need no longer be concerned with their experience as a factor which may relate to mine.

This extrapolation of doubt is simply a mistake.

We might like to have a separate discussion on faith. In my book, faith itself can bring us to 100% conviction on many matters. But perhaps we can pick that up some other time.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Perhaps.

I can see what you're saying, but still think you're not comparing like with like. On the tongues thing, I know of people who've backslidden from Christianity to the extent that they are now atheist - but can still apparently speak in tongues.

It doesn't 'prove' anything. We have to make a value judgement and interpret that in some way.

Using Occam's Razor I'm inclined to go for the simplest solution.

For instance, my rather more charismatic than I am brother-in-law once responded to a comment I'd made that linguists have found that many people in charismatic congregations apparently emulate the 'tongues' of the leaders by saying, 'Well, perhaps God has given them all the same tongue ...'

Well perhaps, but surely the simplest and most plausible explanation would be that they are all unconsciously following the leader, so to speak ...

Now, that doesn't of course imply that YOU are or that EE is or that I am doing the same thing. Of course it doesn't. It simply suggests that there are other explanations available.

Faith isn't all about having 100% certainty about things. If it were it wouldn't be faith, would it?


 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Consequently, it seems to me, you tend to have a one-size-fits-all approach to the scriptures...

---

What do you mean?

What have I written that has given you this impression?

And how is my perceived view of the Bible any different from anyone else's?

In fact, I find this comment rather ironic, given the recent thread I started on the Parable of the Good Samaritan (which I notice you contributed to). There I was accused of reading too much into the parable, in other words, not holding to a simple one-track interpretation. I was even accused of being liberal!!

I am really not quite sure what "churchmanship lenses" I am wearing when I read the Bible. I have been Methodist, Anglican (Evangelical and currently "middle of the road" eucharistic), Pentecostal and Charismatic (and not to forget periods of "unchurched" Christianity - i.e. periods of "had enough of it all"). I even seriously considered converting to Catholicism at one point about seven years ago (and I flirted with the Orthodox Church also).

I certainly accept that I (and indeed all of us) need to have a humble attitude of willingness to accept correction. But it is impossible to accept "correction" if no views can ever be considered "correct"!! Think about it. Without at least some views having the status of "certainty", we have no basis by which to correct each other, have we? All we can do is say: "I think this and you think that. Let's just agree to disagree. End of."

Therefore humility must be dependent on some measure of certainty, because the process of correction requires it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Now, if I had SEEN one of the angels I believe that I heard singing some 30 years ago now, it would no longer be a 'belief' but an absolute certainty. Unless I'd seen an hallucination or something.

I don't really want to get side-tracked by a discussion about what I heard - or felt I heard or believe I heard - although I would be open to discuss that another time - but I do maintain that there is a difference between faith and knowing something to be 100% fact.

Sure, 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.' But that's surely the whole point? Things remain unseen.

We haven't seen Jesus like the early disciples did. Our hands haven't handled, our eyes have not looked on what we have heard concerning the word of life ...

That doesn't mean that the testimony of the Apostles is shaky. We accept it by faith. We can have very, very, very deep conviction about it. But that's not the same as proving it 100%.

Nor does it matter, surely? Just because we can't prove it 100% it doesn't bring the whole edifice crashing down does it?

'Firmly I believe and truly, God is Three and God is One.'

Yes, I believe that. I can't PROVE that.

What's the big deal?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not saying that your perceived view of the Bible is necessarily different from anyone else's, EE, just that it is that - it is A view of the Bible.

And you'll have lenses that consist of all those traditions you've just listed and I will be wearing lenses that have been built up by the ones I've been exposed to - which happen to be very similar to your own, by and large.

I'm sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention. I'm not saying your view of the Bible is deficient or less fully-rounded than anyone else's. I'm simply stating that it is a VIEW just as my own is a VIEW. Please don't misunderstand me.

It so happens that most of your posts that I've read lead me to believe that you are very conservative in your approach. Obviously, I'd overlooked the Good Samaritan one so I stand corrected on that score.

I'm not ATTACKING your view of scripture anymore than I am anything else about you (at least, not at this stage ... )


All I'm saying is that we need to be aware that we are bringing baggage to the table and that we don't come to the scriptures outside of any kind of context. That context conditions and determines, to a large extent, the way we approach the scriptures.

What's the big deal about saying that?

I don't know what it is, EE, but I can't seem to suggest that we are all subjective and limited in our understanding to some extent or other without Drewthealexander or yourself assuming that I'm out to undermine the whole kit and kaboodle.


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Look - let's get this straight once and for all, right?

I have said that I believe certain doctrines to be correct.

I have repeatedly said that I believe the Creeds, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity etc etc etc.

I believe them to be CORRECT.

But there's the magic word - 'believe' - I BELIEVE them to be correct.

I can't possibly KNOW that they are correct - well, not until I'm dead. But that doesn't stop me believing in them.

Does that make it any clearer?



or


 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Now, if I had SEEN one of the angels I believe that I heard singing some 30 years ago now, it would no longer be a 'belief' but an absolute certainty.

---

Hmmmm - why so?

I saw and heard angels one evening many years ago. I know now that this was intensity of prayer and imagination mixed with a lot of expectation. I was alone but very fervent and
very certain such stuff could happen. I'd been reading books like 'Heavenly man' at the time.

I'm now sure (as one can be!) it was auto-suggestion. I'm just glad I didn't tell anyone about it at the time. I would be now.

[ 04. June 2012, 17:18: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Faith isn't all about having 100% certainty about things. If it were it wouldn't be faith, would it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Am I therefore supposed to trust my sister only 99.99%, because there exists this possibility? Because "I could be wrong" (in a philosophical sense) about the good character of my sister, am I really not allowed to trust her 100%?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

So, yes, we can assert things with a great degree of certainty. I just did about the Creeds. Boogie would have done at one time about her experience with the 'angels' - but she later changed her mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Look - let's get this straight once and for all, right?

I have said that I believe certain doctrines to be correct.

I have repeatedly said that I believe the Creeds, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity etc etc etc.

I believe them to be CORRECT.

But there's the magic word - 'believe' - I BELIEVE them to be correct.

I can't possibly KNOW that they are correct - well, not until I'm dead. But that doesn't stop me believing in them.

Does that make it any clearer?



or

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Eh... sorry, I don't get the reference?

---

Akinola was the previous Archbishop of Nigeria, and once said in an interview, "People have told me that I embarass them with my humilty". It caused much mirth on the Ship, and someone had it as their sig for a while.

---

Some still do.
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 
@Gamaiel wrote: 'Faith isn't all about having 100% certainty about things. If it were it wouldn't be faith, would it?'

In common parlance, you would be correct. But this isn't the Biblical definition of faith. In the NT faith denotes not uncertainty, but rather certainty. Faith is evidence. We don't need to see physical evidence of what is unseen - faith *is* the evidence.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
@Gamaliel. Now where did all this discussion about 'proof' come from? The line or argument from Drew and EE is about *warrant* for personal belief rather than proof. Their convictions aren't 'proof' of the objective correctness of their belief, anymore than someone else's doubt, or experience is a defeater.

You don't seem to be getting your head around this.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I believe the Creeds. I can't PROVE the Creeds. I can assert on the basis of Holy Tradition or received tradition with a small 't' that they are true but I can't prove it scientifically. I don't see the issue.

What's the problem here?

---

quote:

---

Atheism and science promote TRUE humility. The humility to say "I don't know" when you face an unknown. The humility to accept when your ideas and theories are wrong.

---

There is, of course, a half-truth is what he wrote (obviously I don't agree with the way he conflates "atheism" and "science"). But there is a serious problem at the heart of this kind of thinking, of linking humility with ignorance, or the admission of ignorance. And this kind of thinking seems to have been imported into the Christian Church. Yes, we should have the humility to accept when our ideas and theories are wrong. But the point is how can we possibly discover they are 'wrong' if all ideas are merely tentative? What is it that we are using to demonstrate that an idea is wrong? Another possibly wrong idea? Ridiculous.

If I were, say, a maths teacher and I was trying to convince someone that 2 + 2 = 4 (to use a ridiculously simple example), because this pupil was stubbornly insisting that the answer was 5, then I could not say to him: "Well, I might be wrong, and don't take this as 100% gospel truth, but I think you ought to seriously consider that 2 + 2 = 4. I don't want to be bigoted and dogmatic, you know, son, but really do be open-minded to my theory." Of course, no maths teacher (who wanted to keep his job) would come out with such crap. He explains to the pupil that 4 is the correct answer, because he (the teacher) knows that it is correct. He doesn't just "believe" it as a likely theory; he "knows" it.

If he "believed" this to be true in your definition of "belief" (which I don't think is the correct understanding of belief anyway), then he would have no right to try to correct this pupil.

So I come back to my point about the church. How can we be humbly open to correction if there is no basis at all by which we can correct one another?

It's clear to me that if humility is to be defined as "willing to be open to correction", then there have to be facts and evidence which we can justifiably "know" to be true, which function as the means by which we actually receive correction. In a world of total subjectivism there can be no such thing as correction, because there are no ideas that can ever be deemed to be "correct"!

So certainty is a necessary condition for the functioning of this kind of humility. Therefore it cannot necessarily be proud to claim certainty about something.

(I also think that people who promote subjectivism could actually be setting up a huge smokescreen to avoid having to accept any correction. If all ideas are tentative, and no one can claim to be right about anything, then, of course, "anything goes". It's a deep seated pride masquerading as humility.)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Right, that's it. I've lost my faith. I'm becoming an atheist. I'm getting de-baptised tomorrow.

You guys have driven me to it ...

I mean - what the ... ??! 'In common parlance, you would be correct. But this isn't the Biblical definition of faith.'

Isn't it? Isn't it?

What IS the Biblical definition of faith?

I've already quoted the 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen'. But that isn't good enough for you.

It's not sufficient to have faith, we have to have 'sight', we have to prove everything 100% even if it means we have to speak gobbledegook in order to convince ourselves of it ... (or at least not be open to the possibility of that's what we're doing) ...



If anything would convince me to lose my faith it would be you guys with your certainties.

I've already said I believe the Creeds. But that's not sufficient. Your super-faith has to do.

I'm out of here. Where's the National Secular Society when you need them?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I do 'get it', Ramarius. I just happen to believe that a nasty old Jesuit was fairly close to the mark when he said, 'The opposite of faith isn't doubt. It's certainty.'

I might be wrong, but the way EE and Drewthealexander are posting it sounds to me at any rate that they are taking about more than having a sense of conviction about one's beliefs.

I've got a sense of conviction, a warrant if you like, for my beliefs.

Or at least I did before these guys caused me to lose my faith and join the National Secular Society ...


 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'The opposite of faith isn't doubt. It's certainty.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
...these guys caused me to lose my faith and join the National Secular Society ...

---

 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM that this phrase is logically and theologically false. The opposite of faith is unbelief. I think I know what you are getting it in the way you keep using it, but if you are going to pick a life motto it would seem sensible to pick one which is at least coherent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM that this phrase is logically and theologically false. The opposite of faith is unbelief. I think I know what you are getting it in the way you keep using it, but if you are going to pick a life motto it would seem sensible to pick one which is at least coherent.

---

Odd. You know what it means but it is incoherent. And you think Gamaliel has problems with logic?

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM that this phrase is logically and theologically false. The opposite of faith is unbelief. I think I know what you are getting it in the way you keep using it, but if you are going to pick a life motto it would seem sensible to pick one which is at least coherent.

---

Odd. You know what it means but it is incoherent. And you think Gamaliel has problems with logic?

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM that this phrase is logically and theologically false. The opposite of faith is unbelief. I think I know what you are getting it in the way you keep using it, but if you are going to pick a life motto it would seem sensible to pick one which is at least coherent.

---

Odd. You know what it means but it is incoherent. And you think Gamaliel has problems with logic?

--Tom Clune

---

But the opposite of faith is not certainty. That slogan is really just another way to control a conversation, to try to dismiss opinions you disagree with while blocking any reply. Its a sort of rhetorical pulling rank, an assertion that your opinion is more important than someone else's because they are immature fundamentalists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I just happen to believe that a nasty old Jesuit was fairly close to the mark when he said, 'The opposite of faith isn't doubt. It's certainty.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I just happen to believe that a nasty old Jesuit was fairly close to the mark when he said, 'The opposite of faith isn't doubt. It's certainty.'

---

Faith is no more the opposite of certainty than eating is the opposite of food.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

If you have certainty you can't have faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Ken is disingenuos ( as usual)

---

quote:

---

ST IIa IIae q2 a1:
Whether to believe is to think with assent?
... this expresses completely the nature of the act of believing. For among the acts belonging to the intellect, some have a firm assent without any such kind of thinking, as when a man considers the things that he knows by science [edit: "Science" here means the certain knowledge of a demonstrated conclusion through its demonstration, e.g., a "mathematical proof".], or understands, for this consideration is already formed. But some acts of the intellect have unformed thought devoid of a firm assent, whether they incline to neither side, as in one who "doubts"; or incline to one side rather than the other, but on account of some slight motive, as in one who "suspects"; or incline to one side yet with fear of the other, as in one who "opines." But this act "to believe," cleaves firmly to one side, in which respect belief has something in common with science and understanding; yet its knowledge does not attain the perfection of clear sight, wherein it agrees with doubt, suspicion and opinion. Hence it is proper to the believer to think with assent: so that the act of believing is distinguished from all the other acts of the intellect, which are about the true or the false. ...

---

quote:

---

ST IIa IIae q161 a3:
Whether one ought, by humility, to subject oneself to all men?
... We may consider two things in man, namely that which is God's, and that which is man's. Whatever pertains to defect is man's: but whatever pertains to man's welfare and perfection is God's, according to the saying of Hosea 13:9, "Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in Me." Now humility, as stated above (1, ad 5; 2, ad 3), properly regards the reverence whereby man is subject to God. Wherefore every man, in respect of that which is his own, ought to subject himself to every neighbor, in respect of that which the latter has of God's: but humility does not require a man to subject what he has of God's to that which may seem to be God's in another. For those who have a share of God's gifts know that they have them, according to 1 Corinthians 2:12: "That we may know the things that are given us from God." Wherefore without prejudice to humility they may set the gifts they have received from God above those that others appear to have received from Him; thus the Apostle says (Ephesians 3:5): "(The mystery of Christ) was not known to the sons of men as it is now revealed to His holy apostles." On like manner, humility does not require a man to subject that which he has of his own to that which his neighbor has of man's: otherwise each one would have to esteem himself a greater sinner than anyone else: whereas the Apostle says without prejudice to humility (Galatians 2:15): "We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners." Nevertheless a man may esteem his neighbor to have some good which he lacks himself, or himself to have some evil which another has not: by reason of which, he may subject himself to him with humility. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
If there is one thing these discussion convinces me of more and more its that an awful lot of theologically liberal Christianity is really about class and social control. About thinkng you are better than people who actually are willing to say they believe and what they belive in, and fiunding ways to twist words to stay in cahrge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, social control?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
I note that Ken never addressed the points that I made.

---

quote:

---

What was elitist; snobbish; anti-fundamentalist or "liberal" in the argument I made or the words used?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
You should know that belief cannot be equated with faith. Not in the Biblical sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
You should know that belief cannot be equated with faith. Not in the Biblical sense.

---

I've just looked up a few NT Greek dictionaries and they all read "Pistis = faith / belief."

I am certain that you are wrong. In the biblical sense.

Interesting that we have got stuck on this merry-go-round since I've been reflecting on the use of the word believe in evangelical circles. I moving towards replacing it with the word trust. Years of 'the sinner's prayer' has led many people to equate believe with a merely intellectual assent. I think, in the 21st century, trust conveys more of what is meant by the Greek pistis.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I mean the kind of handwaving psychobabble that rules out all opposition by redefinign language.

---

quote:

---

So onece the Great Fowler or the Mighty MBTI have pronounced, no-one is permitted to an express an opinion against them - no-one CAN express such an opinion because the words they do it in have been redefined so that anything they say doesn't count.

---

quote:

---

Like "faith is not the opposite of doubt, faith is the oppostie of certainty" In other words if you say you really belive something then you have no faith.

---

quote:

---

And yes, I was ranting a bit. My brain doesn't work at that time in the morning. Or indeed any time in the morning.

---

quote:

---

People ought to be given a hearing. Even when they talk shite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So I can even enlist the support of Professor Dawkins when I say that "faith (belief) is no more the opposite of certainty than eating is the opposite of food."

---

You can, but I'm not sure what point you think you're making by doing so. Dawkins is no liberal - when it comes to the nature of belief and faith he's every inch a fundamentalist.

In terms of the discussion on this thread Dawkins is firmly on your side
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And ISTM that Jesus agrees, or such is my reading of John 20. Thomas believes because he has seen - he knows, he doesn't have faith. But Jesus says that those who believe without seeing - without knowing - are more blessed, because they are guided by faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
That some very creative hermeneutics Marvin.

---

Thank you

quote:

---

In John 20 Jesus specifically applies exactly the same verb (pisteuo = have faith / believe) both to those, like Thomas, who believe after seeing and to those who believe without seeing.

---

quote:

---

In other words, it is more likely that John 20 is saying the opposite of what you believe it to be saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
OK, so even using that interpretation, why do you suppose those who believe without seeing are more blessed? What do you suppose the difference is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
It doesn't say more blessed, just that those who believe without seeing are blessed. You've added the comparative bit all on your ownsome.

---

quote:

---

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

---

OK, there's no "more", but it certainly sounds comparative to me. Clearly it doesn't to you. And that's fine, because I'm not claiming to have The One And Only True Revelation Of God - IMO to do so is stupid because it's all a matter for faith, not knowledge, and therefore there is no "One Truth". You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, now let's get on with being Church together
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
It doesn't say more blessed, just that those who believe without seeing are blessed. You've added the comparative bit all on your ownsome.

---

quote:

---

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

---

OK, there's no "more", but it certainly sounds comparative to me. Clearly it doesn't to you. And that's fine, because I'm not claiming to have The One And Only True Revelation Of God - IMO to do so is stupid because it's all a matter for faith, not knowledge, and therefore there is no "One Truth". You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, now let's get on with being Church together

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, now let's get on with being Church together

---

To the tune of "I am the church, you are the church, we are the church together." OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm back ... blimey, look what I've started. I've been down in London for a few days and whilst I've taken a few peeks at the threads I've been involved with recently I haven't interacted with them ...

Will do so when I have more time.

Meanwhile - the 'opposite of faith ... certainty' thing isn't a liberal Protestant aphorism, it was coined by a Jesuit. Which is even worse ...

It is, of course, exaggerating to make a point. Of course the opposite of faith can be unbelief. But it can also be a rigid and unyielding form of certainty. And that's all I was getting at ...

I can't see how the otherwise estimable ken can leap from that to an anti-fascist tirade ...



I'll join him in anti-fascist tirade any day of the week, but I ain't going to accept charges of mind-control, dismissing the lower orders and all that malarkey - fundies are more likely to do that sort of thing.

Or at least - ultra conservative forms of certainty a la the RC Church in Francoist Spain or the Orthodox in Tsarist Russia - both of which can be regarded ambiguously by their own adherents ...

Anyway ... I'll get back to it when I have more time.
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 
@Gamaliel. You wrote 'It is, of course, exaggerating to make a point. Of course the opposite of faith can be unbelief. But it can also be a rigid and unyielding form of certainty. And that's all I was getting at ...'

Rigid and unyielding certainty can be a toxic by-product of faith when misapplied. Indeed so. But certainty of any kind can never be the *opposite* of faith. Faith cannot be both certainty and unbelief.

I have to agree with Johnny S that this notion is logically incoherent.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Gamaliel. You wrote 'It is, of course, exaggerating to make a point. Of course the opposite of faith can be unbelief. But it can also be a rigid and unyielding form of certainty. And that's all I was getting at ...'

Rigid and unyielding certainty can be a toxic by-product of faith when misapplied. Indeed so. But certainty of any kind can never be the *opposite* of faith. Faith cannot be both certainty and unbelief.

I have to agree with Johnny S that this notion is logically incoherent.

---

quote:

---

footwasher: If something is certain, why should loyalty not be given?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

footwasher: If something is certain, why should loyalty not be given?

---

How should I give my loyalty to gravity?

---

quote:

---

footwasher: LeRoc, loyalty is given only to "persons"!

---

LOL, you're the one who said "If something is certain"

I completely agree with you that faith is related to loyalty. But it doesn't need to be based on certainty. In fact, loyalty becomes quite hollow if it is based on something that you're certain the other will do.

The fact that you're going to take a piss in the next 24 hours doesn't require much loyalty from my side.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What Irish Lord said.

There's nothing illogical in holding that position.
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

footwasher: LeRoc, loyalty is given only to "persons"!

---

LOL, you're the one who said "If something is certain"

I completely agree with you that faith is related to loyalty. But it doesn't need to be based on certainty. In fact, loyalty becomes quite hollow if it is based on something that you're certain the other will do.

The fact that you're going to take a piss in the next 24 hours doesn't require much loyalty from my side.

---

quote:

---

footwasher: John 20:28 Thomas replied to him, “My Lord and my God!”

The "something" which was certain was that Jesus was "Lord and God".

---

quote:

---

footwasher: Not in the English!

---

quote:

---

footwasher: That's fideism!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What Irish Lord said.

There's nothing illogical in holding that position.

---

On reflection Gamaliel, I may have done you a disservice. One can certainly be certain of a certain matter of which they have come to the certain certainty that they are uncertain. I would certainly affirm the rationality of a certain person holding to such an uncertain position being absolutely certain in their uncertainty. I would even say such a view is incorrigible. But as you probably realise by now I consider you quite incorrigible already.

I would be flattered if the feeling was mutual.

Yours aye...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That's fine by me.


 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I think the point is that faith is belief despite a lack of certainty. If something is certain, it doesn't require faith to believe it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

This is where I take issue. By saying that certainty is the opposite of faith something else entirely is being implied. We've now moved beyond establishing that it is okay to doubt and ask questions, now we are actively denigrating confidence and certainty in beliefs.

---

I agree - and that is exactly what I am doing. Confidence and certaity when it comes to matters of faith can be very close to arrogance and/or gulability, imo.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not suggesting that lacking faith in Christian doctrines or belief is a virtue in-and-of-itself. I'm simply saying that it MAY not always be virtuous in and of itself to hold tightly and unyieldingly to particular pet positions.

I don't see why this is such a big deal.

I'm certainly not claiming that there's anything virtuous or commendable about unbelief.

But then, neither do I see that it follows that to hold unyieldingly to a particular position is necessarily a sign of virture either.



The Jesuitical quote, like many from that particular stable, is deliberately provocative and meant to make us think. It's meant to be a bon-mot, not a definitive doctrinal statement.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

This is where I take issue. By saying that certainty is the opposite of faith something else entirely is being implied. We've now moved beyond establishing that it is okay to doubt and ask questions, now we are actively denigrating confidence and certainty in beliefs.

---

I agree - and that is exactly what I am doing. Confidence and certaity when it comes to matters of faith can be very close to arrogance and/or gulability, imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
Confidence and certaity when it comes to matters of faith can be very close to arrogance and/or gulability, imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
Confidence and certaity when it comes to matters of faith can be very close to arrogance and/or gulability, imo.

---

Are you confident and certain about the truth of that assertion, or not?

---

Nope - that's why I said 'imo'. It's my opinion, how I feel about it.

Which is just as valid as anyone else's.



<typo>

[ 09. June 2012, 15:45: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
Confidence and certaity when it comes to matters of faith can be very close to arrogance and/or gulability, imo.

---

Are you confident and certain about the truth of that assertion, or not?

---

Nope - that's why I said 'imo'. It's my opinion, how I feel about it.

Which is just as valid as anyone else's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So you would acknowledge that it is your opinion that you are "very close to arrogance and / or gullibility", given that you are expressing confidence and certainty about something?

If not, then what were you talking about originally?

And if so, then you are hardly in a position to criticise anyone else who does what you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

It seems to me that the logical consequence of your reasoning is that none of us can escape the charge of arrogance and / or gullibility, because we all need to be "certain" of something (and I am not just talking about "scientific" certainties either).

---

I think there is a very fine line between confidence and arrogance - one that is hard to tread for all of us. It is important to be confident, but not arrogant - if only because arrogance loses us friends!

My son is training to be an airline pilot, he needs to be hugely confident but, imo, to steer clear of arrogance as that would make his passengers less safe.

There is nothing wrong with some degree of certainty, so long as we are open to the idea that we could be wrong. Which is what I have been saying all along.


 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
My son is training to be an airline pilot, he needs to be hugely confident but, imo, to steer clear of arrogance as that would make his passengers less safe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
There is nothing wrong with some degree of certainty, so long as we are open to the idea that we could be wrong. Which is what I have been saying all along.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It seems to me that the proper remedy for arrogant and/or gullible Christians is that they should grow in wisdom and humility, not scepticism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
There is nothing wrong with some degree of certainty, so long as we are open to the idea that we could be wrong. Which is what I have been saying all along.

---

You seem to be agreeing with me here - I fully agree with this statement. However, I'm confused since you agreed with the original quote. If there is nothing wrong with some degree of certainty then how can it be the opposite to faith?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
All these things are to be found on continuums/spectrums (spectra?), are they not? None is cut and dried. The saying 'The opposite of faith is certainty' is an excellent start to get us thinking about the nature of faith and the fact that no-one has the answers.

---

quote:

---

3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

It seems that Luke thought that encouraging people to have certainty about the Christian gospel was a good thing.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 




I don't know what it is and why it is, but I'm finding the very linear, propositional (and very Modernist ) approach adopted by Johnny S and others here to be immensely frustrating.

I've already said that the Jesuit quote is a piece of rhetoric, it sets forth a conundrum, it messes with our expectations ... there will be a literary term for it no doubt.

This is how it works:

The originator of the quote says:

'The opposite of faith isn't doubt ...' thereby arresting our attention because our immediate response/reaction is to expect it to be doubt. So he is playing with our expectations.

But ...' (or 'It's ...') - whereupon we sit and take notice, wondering what it could possibly be if it isn't doubt.

Then comes the pay-off:

'Certainty.'

And we go, 'Ah!' or 'Oooh!' or 'Funny, I never thought of that but now you come to mention it ...'

Or at least, that appears to be the intention from my reading. It is a provocative statement intended to arrest our attention and make us think ie. 'In what way is certainty the opposite of faith? Ah, I get it, by removing the reason for faith in the first place ... if it's so cut-and-dried then there's no need for faith ... I get it now ...'

Or words to that effect.

But what do we get instead?

We get counter-assertions and arguments thrown up against it as if it is some kind of faith-dissolving, faith-undermining proposition. It isn't calling for us to have NO faith, it is actually inviting us to HAVE faith ...

Really, the arguments that Johnny S and some others are putting forward here are so wooden that I want to put them in the park and sit on them. They'd make a nice park bench, but aren't really of much more use than that.

I'm surprised you all haven't got jobs in the Forestry Commission. As trees.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Really, the arguments that Johnny S and some others are putting forward here are so wooden that I want to put them in the park and sit on them. They'd make a nice park bench, but aren't really of much more use than that.

I'm surprised you all haven't got jobs in the Forestry Commission. As trees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S
BTW As it happens the preacher at church tonight quoted this from Luke 1 that made me smile:

quote:

---

3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

It seems that Luke thought that encouraging people to have certainty about the Christian gospel was a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I just happen to believe that a nasty old Jesuit was fairly close to the mark when he said, 'The opposite of faith isn't doubt. It's certainty.'

---

Faith is no more the opposite of certainty than eating is the opposite of food.

---

I think you have a category error here.

If you have certainty you can't have faith. Faith pre-supposes an element of uncertainty. Faith is essentially trust in the absence of certainty.

---

quote:

---

When it comes to personal relationships you cannot be absolutely certain of anything, because there is always the possibility that somebody will change their mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In other words, my faith is dependent on some element of conviction of truth in which I then put my confidence. It's nothing to do with uncertainty and doubt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

To me, the fact that there are different roads to faith is a Good Thing™. It conveys to me that God is great indeed, and that He is more than capable to relate to different kinds of people in different ways. Good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

But what I'm feeling a bit in this topic, is that some people are arguing that their way to come to faith is the only way. I guess it's happening from both sides in some degree, but it's especially when Bible verses are cited to show that the path that goes through certainty is the only, required path, that I have some trouble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
I think Boogie is on to something here. Perhaps at the heart of her reasoning is the fact that Truth is not propositional but personal. And, at the heart of Christian faith is the concept of relationship.

For myself I do not start off with God but with Jesus. As with the first disciples they acknowledged him at first to be a man. This developed as a result of their relationship with him to acknowledging him to be the Christ. But "Christ" is not a divine title. It is a functional title; God's anointed. It was only after the resurrection that they acknowledged him to be divine. Thomas said "My Lord and my God". Matthew says that just before he ascended "they worshipped him"

But that developing acknowledgement came out of relationship and was not a response to any propositional statement about him.

As Boogie says you cannot be 100% cetrtain in any relationship; hence the need for trust. It is only experience which, over the years, proves whether that trust was misplaced or not. I do not know of anyone who has gone through a divorce who ever got married without being, at the time, "certain" of their love and commitment. Somewhere along the line that "certainty" proved fallible.

The demand for "certainty" seems to me to be indicative of a fundamental insecurity which we all have to live with. To find security in a catalogue of of "certainties" is understandable. But, ISTM, that it is the opposite of what we mean by faith.

I simply add that my own faith in God has 99% of the time derived from what others have mediated through their words and lives. And it developed as did the faith of those first disciples. Whatever certainty I have is the consequence of relationship and experience, not the starting point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
But the answer to being certain and having negative fallouts because of assertiveness is not to be polite and non assertive but to be certain and joyful and share revelation.

---

quote:

---

Jolly Jape: Rather, the impression that I get is that really many people find the idea of that sort of confidence to be distasteful.

---

Let me try to answer that. It isn't that I find it distasteful, if people are happy with it then hey, go ahead. But I'd like to try to explain why it doesn't combine with me.


First, as with other people on this thread. Faith is very much a relational thing to me. Sometimes when someone has to take a difficult decision, or faces a difficult task, another person will come up and say: "I have faith in you."

Saying this has nothing to do with "I believe that you exist" or even with "I'm 100% certain that you can do it." It is a relational thing, and it is much more in this sense that I understand my faith in God.

Now, suppose that I have a proof that gives me 100% confidence in someone else. Then "I have faith in you" wouldn't have much meaning anymore. It would have become a hollow phrase.


Second, the fact that I don't require 100% confidence from myself gives me much more room to deal with doubt. I'm pretty certain about my faith now, but there have been times in my life where I had some doubts.

The fact that I don't have to be 100% confident, allowed me to accept these doubts for what they are, and to live through them.


Third (I managed to make this a 3 point sermon ), maybe this is also because I'm a continental European, and I'm undoubtedly influenced by a culture that is suspicious of all currents that are 100% certain about anything. History has shown us what these can do, and it's always healthy to keep some room for doubt, self-critic and self-humour (especially the last).
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

The fact that I don't have to be 100% confident, allowed me to accept these doubts for what they are, and to live through them.


Third (I managed to make this a 3 point sermon ), maybe this is also because I'm a continental European, and I'm undoubtedly influenced by a culture that is suspicious of all currents that are 100% certain about anything. History has shown us what these can do, and it's always healthy to keep some room for doubt, self-critic and self-humour (especially the last).

---

 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
Boogie, I think people find assertiveness distasteful because they equate it to dogmatism, and the wars that resulted.

It's interesting that you are certain that not all people can be certain about anything. And in case you say you are talking about relationships, what are the elements of relationships but propositional facts. You can't quantify fuzzy wuzzy warmth!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
But the answer to being certain and having negative fallouts because of assertiveness is not to be polite and non assertive but to be certain and joyful and share revelation.

---

You assume that those who don't have certainty in faith are not assertive people.

Not so.

In company you would find me far too assertive for comfort! It's not about personality, it's about outlook.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Footwasher. A straight question. Was Jesus approving of the Jewish search of the scriptures or saying that it was inadequate?

Nothing loopy about the clear implication that he thought they had got it wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Anybody who quotes The Message as authoritative gets a thumbs down from me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
I think Boogie is on to something here. Perhaps at the heart of her reasoning is the fact that Truth is not propositional but personal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
What I find mystifying about this thread is the perception by some, maybe most, of the posters that in defending the role of confidence in God, or, if you like, certainty, those who do so are in any way looking down on those in whose thinking certainty does not play a part.

---

quote:

---

It's not even that the confidence is in the believer themselves. It is, rather, confidence they have in God the Father Himself. If our confidence is in ourselves, the we are, of all people, to be pitied; if it is in God, then I submit it is of all confidences the most secure.

---

 

---

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
I would prefer the tired MOTR cliches to the platitudinously pious propositions of evangelical lefties any day.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

originally posted by Le Roc

Let me try to answer that. It isn't that I find it distasteful, if people are happy with it then hey, go ahead. But I'd like to try to explain why it doesn't combine with me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
I would prefer the tired MOTR cliches to the platitudinously pious propositions of evangelical lefties any day.

---

You rang?
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
I would have said put up or shut up but I'm too "platitudinously pious" to stoop so low!


 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If you don't believe me, ask Johnny S.

---

What me? I don't know what he's on about guv.

I thought JJ was a sock-puppet for John F. MacArthur.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Jolly Jape: The message that is coming across is that "I don't have certainty, and therefore neither should you, and, furthermore, if you do, you are, by definition, a gullible bigot.

---

I feel that in this topic, some amount of reading-things-in-other-people's-posts-that-aren't-really-there is going on, from both sides. Looking back at my posts, I see that I'm probably a part of this, and I apologize for that. FWIW, I don't believe that people who are (or claim to be) 100% certain about their faiths, are gullible bigots, and I think I said so much.

I guess things like this are bound to happen in a discussion about this kind of subjects. But in fact, I got a lot out of this discussion (and I liked your contributions to it as well).
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Pax
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
At the risk of kicking off a reaction from EE, he started this thread in response to comments I'd made over on the 'tongues' thread suggesting that we couldn't know for sure whether any 'gift of tongues' (or other spiritual gift?) that any of us believed ourselves to have received was the actual, real deal.

He didn't like that and so responded with this thread, among other things.

So, the context of my objections have been around that mysterious area of spiritual discernment etc rather than, by extension, doubting the existence of God, that God is reliable etc etc etc.

That might help put some perspective on the whole thing. It certainly - to my mind - puts the kibosh on Ken's assertion that there's elitism or mind-control/social control going on here.

Far from it.

I would posit that there is a difference between expressing confidence in the creeds, the Bible, the Christian revelation per se - and equally Tradition and so on - and expressing confidence that this or that 'tongue' or 'prophecy' and so on was most definitely beyond any shadow of doubt 100% 'of God.'

It might be. But we can't say for certain.

That's all I was trying to say.

And I still don't understand why some posters have become so hot-under-the-collar on this one.

Still ...
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
At the risk of kicking off a reaction from EE, he started this thread in response to comments I'd made over on the 'tongues' thread suggesting that we couldn't know for sure whether any 'gift of tongues' (or other spiritual gift?) that any of us believed ourselves to have received was the actual, real deal.

---

quote:

---

He didn't like that and so responded with this thread, among other things.

---

quote:

---

That might help put some perspective on the whole thing. It certainly - to my mind - puts the kibosh on Ken's assertion that there's elitism or mind-control/social control going on here.

---

quote:

---

I would posit that there is a difference between expressing confidence in the creeds, the Bible, the Christian revelation per se - and equally Tradition and so on - and expressing confidence that this or that 'tongue' or 'prophecy' and so on was most definitely beyond any shadow of doubt 100% 'of God.'

---

quote:

---

And I still don't understand why some posters have become so hot-under-the-collar on this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But I can certainly understand why some people have nervous breakdowns, attempt suicide or completely collapse morally when subjected to false accusations, particularly concerning the validity of their experience of God through the Holy Spirit. Perhaps others don't see this, and they comfort themselves with the adage that words don't matter and only "sticks and stones" can hurt....?

---

quote:

---

EtymologicalEvangelical: Having had the experience of a manipulative fellowship, I know that one of the methods of mind-control is the process whereby the leader seeks to develop an atmosphere of spiritual insecurity. If people can be made to feel insecure about their relationship with God and fail to live confidently in the grace of God, then they are easy targets for those who wish to control their lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc
And it seems to me that a community where doubts aren't allowed and cannot be expressed is potentially far more manipulative.

---

quote:

---

EtymologicalEvangelical: If people want to express their doubts about their own beliefs and even experience, that's fine. But there is a huge difference between that and someone taking it upon himself to express doubts about someone else's personal experience of God - or refusing to respect someone else's testimony. There may be a place for that (pastorally speaking), but I rather think the Ship is not that place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc
But when you're saying that every Christian should feel this kind of certainty (for example "we should go through a healthy process of discernment in order to come to a settled conclusion"), I happen to disagree.

---

Well, you've interpreted my words in a certain way. Perhaps you should have used the word "if" rather than "when" in the above sentence.

I made the comment about "settled conclusions" not meaning to imply that this is compulsory on every Christian (as if to suggest that no issue should ever remain unresolved), but rather to counter the idea that the concept of "testing all things" should be used to justify chronic doubt as the "norm" for the spiritual life.

I said "in order to come to a settled conclusion" meaning that this is the purpose of testing. But a purpose can sometimes remain unfulfilled. I have doubts and great struggles about many things in the Christian life, so I am not imposing a "spirituality of certainty" on anyone. In fact, I am not judging anyone (which was the original accusation against me) - simply expressing an opinion about an aspect of my own Christian life, which I am perfectly entitled to do, especially considering that I was asked a specific question which required this type of response.

[ 13. June 2012, 14:06: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - fair call, EE. Quoted the way you quoted 'em, my comments do look fairly 'loaded' ie. 'reaction' rather than 'response' etc.

I can see what you're getting at, but tend to think (from my perspective of course) that you are putting 2 and 2 together from my posts and making a manipulative 5. Our respective mileages may vary. I am quite happy to hold relatively 'loosely' to experiences and so on that I, and others, have considered to be the unmediated work of God the Holy Spirit. They may very well have been, but I'm open to alternative explanations too.

I don't see how that implies that I'm advocating chronic or debilitating doubt. That's the point I was trying to make.

Other people may see these things differently - as you clearly do - and see the admission of the possibility of any alternative explanation as a slippery slope towards unbelief and even outright apostasy. I'm not so sure it's as narrow a path as that, but I might be taking what you're saying the wrong way. I don't know. I'm open to doubt about that ...

I think there's a fair bit of leeway between entrenched positions on either side of this debate. 'Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief ...'

I'm certainly not suggesting that a position of doubt indicates greater humility than a position of certainty does.

I don't recall ever implying that.

At any rate, I'd suggest that any claim to humility is an indication of the opposite tendency by anyone who dares to make it ...
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Other people may see these things differently - as you clearly do - and see the admission of the possibility of any alternative explanation as a slippery slope towards unbelief and even outright apostasy.

---

No, I don't see the admission of the possibility of any alternative explanation as a slippery slope to anything. All my Christian life I have been open to "alternative explanations", and I have tried to evaluate evidence that calls into question my beliefs. But there comes a point where one has to (or at least can) come to conclusions about certain things. If someone should argue that we can never really come to any definite conclusions about spiritual things, then that is tantamount to encouraging chronic doubt (and it does make the process of "testing all things" seem rather pointless).

So it is not that I have never considered the evidence for an alternative explanation, but rather I have looked at the evidence and concluded that there is no alternative explanation for the subject in question.

What has rankled is not so much the discussion of evidence - in fact, I welcome that - but the assumption that because I have drawn a conclusion about some aspect of my spiritual life, this somehow implies that I am sitting in judgment on other people. Hence the charge of pride (and thus the reason for this thread). I am still not sure quite what I said that gave that impression.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Any more than I can't see how anything I've said goes against 'test all things' or contributes to chronic doubt or spiritual inertia.

Which leaves the pair of us non-plussed ...


 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

I certainly accept that I (and indeed all of us) need to have a humble attitude of willingness to accept correction. But it is impossible to accept "correction" if no views can ever be considered "correct"!! Think about it. Without at least some views having the status of "certainty", we have no basis by which to correct each other, have we? All we can do is say: "I think this and you think that. Let's just agree to disagree. End of."

Therefore humility must be dependent on some measure of certainty, because the process of correction requires it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

Just as art requires constraints, a meaningful dialogue requires a topic that is neither all-opinions-equally-valid nor black-and-white true-false dichotomy. The important questions are in the messy middle where neither model applies.

---

In two sentences you have put your finger on what I have been trying to say throughout this thread.

Thank you.

<code>

[ 14. June 2012, 07:25: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I like that too, Russ, 'the messy middle.'
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
Just to get some perspective in the matter...

Matthew 25:14-30 NET “For it is like a man going on a journey, who summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The one who had received five talents went off right away and put his money to work and gained five more. In the same way, the one who had two gained two more. But the one who had received one talent went out and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money in it. After a long time, the master of those slaves came and settled his accounts with them. The one who had received the five talents came and brought five more, saying, ‘Sir, you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’ His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful in a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ The one with the two talents also came and said, ‘Sir, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more.’ His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful with a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten. For the one who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Some people are going to be in for a surprise.

How would you like your pilot to answer to the question, ” Is the air craft we are traveling on today safe?”

Like this:

Quote
Up to date, there are over 1215 Boeing 747s being built and about 1,100 are still in service. Over the past 30 years, 2.2 billion passengers have flown on this airplane. So, the integrity of this plane should not be of any safety concern, otherwise it would not have been that popular!

http://www.askcaptainlim.com/-air-safety-aviation-35/106-how-do-you-compare-the-safety-of-the-boeing-747-400-to-the-boeing-77 7.html

Or:

Well I would not want to be arrogant or proud, so I would say that we have a fifty fifty chance of arriving in one piece!
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

EtymologicalEvangelical: I said "in order to come to a settled conclusion" meaning that this is the purpose of testing. But a purpose can sometimes remain unfulfilled.

---

quote:

---

footwasher: How would you like your pilot to answer to the question, ” Is the air craft we are traveling on today safe?”

---

I would like him/her to be honest: "We cannot guarantee 100% safety, but we'll do anything in our power to make your journey as safe as possible." And you're talking with someone who's in the process of developing a genuine fear of flying


(PS I don't really need the Bible quotes, a reference to the Parable of the Talents would have sufficed. I still don't understand very well what connection you wish to make between this Parable and the discussion at hand, an explanation of that would be much more welcome.)
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
@LeRoc, I would venture you do not know what the sin of the lazy servant is.

How will you avoid traffic tickets if you don't know the requirements?
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

footwasher: @LeRoc, I would venture you do not know what the sin of the lazy servant is.

---

quote:

---

footwasher: How will you avoid traffic tickets if you don't know the requirements?

---

Driving here in Mozambique, I sometimes I get a ticket, mainly because traffic rules are terribly vague here and can be interpreted in multiple ways. Sometimes I think the same about the Bible But I have full confidence that God will be more forgiving than a Mozambican police officer
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ
The important questions are in the messy middle where neither model applies.

---

quote:

---

footwasher: Strange, that was exactly the sin of the lazy servant. He did not even perform at all. The other two performed at 100% and won approval.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

How would you like your pilot to answer to the question, ” Is the air craft we are traveling on today safe?”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
No plane is 100% safe - but it is as safe as possible. Many checks are made by engineers and pilots before taking to the air. My son is training to be a pilot (Next stage aerobatics!) and he says the same. His confidence and skill is growing with every flight - but 100% certainty would mean he was less careful to make checks and keep safety first imo.

---

quote:

---

footwasher: It says God expects us to harvest even where He has not sown.

---

quote:

---

footwasher: This means stuff like that which Paul did: he took the story of Hagar and concluded that Abraham's descendants were by likemindedness and not blood! So Abraham is the father of all who have faith in God. So our coreligionists are all those who follow justice, mercy and love as a worldview! Ie, Muslims, Hindus, anybody who is peaceloving.

---

I can't follow you very well here. It seems that you've become remarkably pan-ecumenical

quote:

---

footwasher: IOW, talents are revelations!

---

quote:

---

footwasher: Exactly. Without a high certainty, nothing functions.

---

Wow, you managed to turn your argument around 180 degrees. You should become a politician!
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
No, it doesn't. In the story, the servant accuses his master of harvesting where he did not sow. To me it seems that 'harvesting were you did not sow' is a Bad Thing™ in this story, an expression of greed.

But the Master accepts that the accusation is true! Yabba dabba dooo!

I can't follow you very well here. It seems that you've become remarkably pan-ecumenical!

See, that's the revelation I got. Now I have to get a profitable return on it! I have to convey it's meaning to others!

No, this is a non-sequitur. This isn't anywhere in the text, only in your interpretation of it.

Jesus's main problem with the Pharisee were that they were rented a vineyard (Scripture) and they mis-used it as a club to club people on the head with. They did not extract life giving wine from it. The Body of Christ has the Gospel from Scripture. You should put your Gospel to good use so that it earns "interest". That's the least you can do. You can extract even more from Scripture and edify the Church. You can even harvest where He has not sown (directly taught) and edify the Teachers.

Wow, you managed to turn your argument around 180 degrees. You should become a politician!

Yabba dabba doo!
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course we have to be conscious of the possibility that things can go wrong, but that is the whole point of "testing" - for which your son's checks are an apt analogy. We do not test things in order to make them unsafe, but in order to make them as safe as is humanly possible. We test things in order that we can then have confidence in those things. What sort of airline would thoroughly test and maintain its planes in order that the passengers may not be confident in their safety?

---

quote:

---

EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course we have to be conscious of the possibility that things can go wrong, but that is the whole point of "testing"

---

quote:

---

EtymologicalEvangelical: How can it be "arrogant" for a pilot to be confident that his plane is safe after the proper process of maintenance and checks has been completed?

---

quote:

---

EtymologicalEvangelical: The more I protest, the more I am called arrogant and conceited. Honestly, words fail me at times...

---

quote:

---

footwasher: But the Master accepts that the accusation is true!

---

quote:

---

footwasher: Jesus's main problem with the Pharisee were that they were rented a vineyard (Scripture) and they mis-used it as a club to club people on the head with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
Yes - and testing things that we rely on, like planes and chairs etc is good and desirable.

Testing relationships, not so. If you constantly check up on someone you are showing a lack of trust and faith imo.

Our faith in God is about relationship - so to keep on 'testing' God in order to produce a level of certainty is counter-productive imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc

quote:

---

EtymologicalEvangelical: The more I protest, the more I am called arrogant and conceited. Honestly, words fail me at times...

---

I haven't called you any of these things, and I won't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shamwari
EE. Methinks thou doth protest too much. And over-protesting is possibly indicative.

---

quote:

---

As someone once said "I have made up my mind. Dont confuse me with the facts"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shamwari
Posted by EE "But what if someone has made his mind up on the basis of the facts?" Can you give us any "factual" (i.e. evidential proof) of the existence of God or any other credal statement? Yours is a circular argument. I believe that. Therefore it is factual. Therefore I can have absolute confidence in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I believe in God, I believe in the 'age to come' and so on, but I can't prove it.

---

quote:

---

footwasher: “Nolo Contendere” or non denial of charges is tantamount to admission of guilt!

---

quote:

---

footwasher: That's an acceptable methodology in hermeneutics:

---

quote:

---

footwasher: Here's the thing: Jesus's society was an agrarian society, so He used farming terms to explain His teachings. Wherever He used words like crop, harvest, fruit, wine, bread, chicks, children

---

I knew that. But what I don't know, is what this (or the Pharisees in the vineyard) has to do with our discussion about being 100% sure about something. (And is a child a farming term? )

quote:

---

footwasher: Amazing, you're actually looking for facts! Sorry! that was a poor attempt at humor, I commend your effort.

---

quote:

---

footwasher: Quotes are hard because I'm using an Android smartphone. Stuff disappears when I use the quote function.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Now, I believe in God, I believe in the Resurrection, I believe in much else besides. I have CHOSEN to do so. I might be wrong, I might be mistaken. But that's where faith comes in ...

If we can prove something incontrovertibly beyond any shadow of doubt then there is no room for faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Now, I believe in God, I believe in the Resurrection, I believe in much else besides. I have CHOSEN to do so. I might be wrong, I might be mistaken. But that's where faith comes in ...

---

Yes, if something is incontrovertible then there is no choice, and faith is always a matter of choice.

In fact evangelical talk of faith is FULL of choices - as far as I can see.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Arrgghhh!!



EE, where did I say that God was a phantom being that didn't exist?

'I will assume that you are right.'

Thanks, I may be, I might not be. That's where faith comes in. That's the whole point I am trying to make!

You wrote:

'On the basis of that, I must admit that it is really very strange that the Bible informs us that the most important commandment is to love someone who we are to believe may not actually exist. And we are to love this phantom being with "all our heart, mind, soul and strength". I must confess that I find it extraordinarily difficult to give that kind of commitment to a possibly fictional character.'

Again -

'Though you have not seen him, you love him ...' as John wrote in one of his Epistles.

Read.my.lips.

I believe in God. I believe that he exists.

I can't PROVE that he exists.

Can't you see the difference?

You also wrote:

'I must say, that in the absence of certainty about the existence of God, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Bible doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense.'

Well or course the Bible is certain about the existence of God and the resurrection of Christ. Why should it be otherwise? I'm also certain about the existence of God and the resurrection of Christ. But I can't PROVE it. That's not how it WORKS.

Why is this so difficult to grasp, so difficult to understand?

And:

'I suppose we could always just fall back on Pascal's Wager. But then how would we know that the Muslims are not right? They could be right and we Christians are all infidels heading for hell!!'

Well, I don't believe that to be the case, but I can't ultimately PROVE that it is not the case.



'Certainly this doubt kills any communication of the gospel. In fact there is no gospel, if we are just swimming in a sea of scepticism.'

Who is swimming in a sea of scepticism. I have said, 'I believe in God, I believe in the resurrection of Christ.' Does that sound like scepticism?



I'm sorry, EE, but sometimes you sound like Mr Wooden of Woodensville, Woodenshire in Woodensland, Planet Wooden.

Of course the Bible takes the existence of God as read. Of course as theists, and as Christian theists, we believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord ... etc.

I.am.not.saying.otherwise.

But the whole point is that this is a FAITH position, we have to take a step of faith to embrace and believe it. Otherwise there wouldn't be any need for faith at all.

Sure, there are good grounds for believing and trusting the Gospel to be true, but we can't PROVE it to be true. If we could then there would be no need for faith would there?

'We urge people to believe in Jesus, and they respond with a shrug of the shoulders. Who can blame them? Certainly not us, if we are not sure that what we believe is actually true.'

Once again

Where have I said that I don't believe the Gospel to be true? Why are you so binary? I say that we can't prove it and you accuse me of scepticism, unbelief and goodness knows what else.

I despair sometimes. Then you wonder why I threaten to go off and join the National Secular Society when confronted with your black-and-white and woodenly wooden of woodenest approaches.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
For the record, an Orthodox Christian (and a former evangelical at that, just so you can see that he was kosher to some extent, EE) once said to me that the 'unseen world' ie. the 'world' if you like, of heaven, angels, the spirits of just men (and women) made perfect etc was a lot more real than the world we see with our physical eyes.

C S Lewis, I believe, once said that the reason the resurrected Christ could apparently walk through walls etc was that he was more 'real' than they were.

There's a heightened reality about this stuff to some extent.

And yes, I believe in it. But that doesn't mean that I don't waver at times - all of us do.

Nor does it mean that I can't hold faith in tension with not knowing all the answers.

I really, really, really don't see what's so incompatible or inconsistent between what I'm saying on this thread and the idea of loving God with all our minds, soul, heart and strength.

It's not really that complicated. Surely.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
I despair sometimes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ
The important questions are in the messy middle where neither model applies.

---

Or perhaps not?

After all, if we can't be certain of anything then we can't be certain of the truth of your assertion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

I'm afraid I have to take the humble path and say that you could be wrong.

---

Just in case this isn't intended as irony...



It is doubting the adequacy of one's own understanding that is being put forward as the humble path. Not doubting others. Not doubting God.

Best wishes,

Russ
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Now let's apply this to the existence of God. Suppose I were to say that "I believe in God but I am very willing to consider that he may not exist." So someone then comes along with some evidence or argument to claim that God does not exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes, if something is incontrovertible then there is no choice....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes, if something is incontrovertible then there is no choice....

---

That simply doesn't square with reality.

There are plenty of examples of people refusing to accept things with incontrovertible evidence.

Psychologists even made up a term for it - denial. It must be pretty common then.

IMO the distinction being made between things based on evidence and things based on faith (i.e. religion) is a false one.

I'm not disagreeing with Gamaliel's comments about the humility that should be engendered from the fact that we cannot prove the existence of a theistic God.

For want of a better word I'm saying that everything (to some degree) is a matter of faith.

---

Even THAT is an uncertain statement.

Hope that helped muddy waters a bit more.


 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes, if something is incontrovertible then there is no choice....

---

That simply doesn't square with reality.

There are plenty of examples of people refusing to accept things with incontrovertible evidence.

Psychologists even made up a term for it - denial. It must be pretty common then.

IMO the distinction being made between things based on evidence and things based on faith (i.e. religion) is a false one.

I'm not disagreeing with Gamaliel's comments about the humility that should be engendered from the fact that we cannot prove the existence of a theistic God.

For want of a better word I'm saying that everything (to some degree) is a matter of faith.

---

Even THAT is an uncertain statement.

Hope that helped muddy waters a bit more.


 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes, if something is incontrovertible then there is no choice....

---

That simply doesn't square with reality.

There are plenty of examples of people refusing to accept things with incontrovertible evidence.

Psychologists even made up a term for it - denial. It must be pretty common then.

---

quote:

---

For want of a better word I'm saying that everything (to some degree) is a matter of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I assume you are not saying this is the problem for those who lack religious faith?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I assume you are not saying this is the problem for those who lack religious faith?

---

Maybe I am.

It could also be a problem for those with faith too.

I'm saying that your distinction between things that we need faith for and things that we don't doesn't hold.

You're far too binary for me Boogie.

---

 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
You've got it wrong, EE. I'm not 'despairing' because of the strength of your belief in God. Why would that make me 'despair'?

What I despair at is your apparent (I say 'apparent') inability to accept that you might not be 100% correct on certain things. Either I'm not making myself understood very well or you are twisting my words and throwing them back at me. You are, as I see it, insulting my intelligence - which I find just as insulting as any cavil on my part about what I take to be the wooden inflexibility of your approach.

Russ got it in one:

'It is doubting the adequacy of one's own understanding that is being put forward as the humble path. Not doubting others. Not doubting God.'

That's what I'm trying to say. Obviously not clearly enough.

Interestingly, Bishop Joseph Butler of Durham (1692-1753) is commemorated in the Anglican Calendar today and he took on the Deists using very rational arguments to defend the truth of the Christian revelation. Good for him. Good for you, too, in having a strong Christian faith.

I really can't see how there's anything I've said here that would go against Butler's admittedly propositional (and somewhat dry) 'Enlightenment' approach and the sort of arguments that Johnny S and yourself are putting forward for us to have confidence in God and to be secure in our faith.

And whenever I come out with what I consider to be a fairly moderate, reasonable and completely mainstream view that isn't at all at variance with Christian orthodoxy you start accusing me of scepticism, of lack of trust in God and of all manner of apostasies and infidelities ...

Then you wonder why I go all hyperbolical on you and threated to join the National Secular Society ...


 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Either I'm not making myself understood very well or you are twisting my words and throwing them back at me.

---

You are very clear Gamaliel - EE is twisting your words then throwing them back at you.

He does the same to me - it becomes very frustrating because I think he hasn't understood.

This is all becoming very circular for sure!

<code - again >

[ 16. June 2012, 09:09: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
What I despair at is your apparent (I say 'apparent') inability to accept that you might not be 100% correct on certain things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The original discussion was about something entirely personal to me...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
and I can't see what difference it makes to anyone else whether I believe this is entirely 100% of God, or not. This is the thing that "gets" to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99
Which you brought up in a public internet forum, therefore making it a subject of discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ
It is doubting the adequacy of one's own understanding that is being put forward as the humble path. Not doubting others. Not doubting God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
EE - did you read this ? (Recommended up-thread by shamwari)

It describes faith perfectly.

---

quote:

---

I am no fool, I have my reasons for
This faith, but they are not the reasonings,
The coldly calculated formulae
Of thought divorced from feeling. They are true,

Too true for that. There's no such thing as thought
Which does not feel, if it be real thought
And not thought's ghost--all pale and sicklied o'er
With dead conventions--abstract truth--man's lie
Upon this living, loving, suff'ring Truth, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

So to set certainty and emotion against each other is just unacceptable, as far as I am concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99
Which you brought up in a public internet forum, therefore making it a subject of discussion.

---

Errmm... not quite true. I was asked a question to which I gave an honest reply, and that should have been the end of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
God is indeed trustworthy (and for this to be true he would, of course, need to exist! And I would need to be sure of that).
...
evidence
...
I am entirely within my rights (according to the law of logic), to say to one who challenges me: "You should be prepared to take the humble path and admit that you could be wrong."

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0