Preface
Lego church: I considered attending, but frankly it was just too small for me.
Lego church: I considered attending, but frankly it was just too small for me.
This article from my PhD work, was originally published on August 8, 2009, prior to my finalized PhD thesis. This presentation will be edited in September 2023 for an entry on academia.edu.
A definition of certainty which I would consider helpful would be along the lines of what I found in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Peter D. Klein describes the Cartesian account of certainty as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it.
Wittgenstein and certainty
Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote On Certainty which is a classic philosophical work on the subject from the twentieth century.[1] Wittgenstein (1889-1951)[2] is an Austrian philosopher.[3] On Certainty deals with philosophical skepticism by postulating that knowledge exists, in a sense, but that this knowledge is dispersed and not completely dependable.[4] He notes that ‘I make assertions about reality, assertions which have different degrees of assurance.’[5] It is often general knowledge that is not generally doubted.[6] Skepticism cannot be refuted by claiming certain propositions are certain.[7] Argumentation cannot completely express metaphysical truths in particular.[8] He uses the example of a child taught either to be a theist or atheist, and the child will be able to produce evidence for either position depending on which one he or she is instructed to believe.[9] He does admit that there is in a sense objective truth,[10] but something would be objectively true only within a system of reason and knowledge through the understanding of reasonable persons.[11] His view allows for the logical possibility that something considered objective truth in one system, is not objective truth in another.[12] Philosophy should, therefore, not be understood as primarily making discoveries, as much a reminding persons of the issues that need to be dealt with when one turns to unfamiliar and uncertain issues.[13] Wittgenstein does act with certainty, but it is his own.[14] This does not in his mind justify his view as objective truth to others, it is simply belief.[15] He reasons that ‘knowledge and certainty belong in different categories.’[15] Obtaining knowledge is very important, and more vital than having certitude.[17] Knowledge and certainty are two different mental states.[18]
[1] Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
[2] Blackburn (1996: 400). Sluga (1996: 859).
[3] Blackburn (1996: 400).
[4] Sluga (1996: 859). Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 66).
[5] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 66).
[6] Sluga (1996: 859).
[7] Sluga (1996: 859).
[8] Sluga (1996: 859).
[9] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 107). I agree. Regardless of the truthfulness of either position, a child can be guided to have arguments for a taught philosophical viewpoint.
[10] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108).
[11] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108).
[12] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108). This is reasonable. If the laws of science were not the same as this universe, in a vastly different realm, for example, then objective truth could be much different at several points.
[13] Blackburn (1996: 401).
[14] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 179).
[15] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 175).
[16] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308).
[17] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308).
[18] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308). Knowledge and certainty are not the same thing for Wittgenstein.
My views on certainty
[1] Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
[2] Blackburn (1996: 400). Sluga (1996: 859).
[3] Blackburn (1996: 400).
[4] Sluga (1996: 859). Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 66).
[5] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 66).
[6] Sluga (1996: 859).
[7] Sluga (1996: 859).
[8] Sluga (1996: 859).
[9] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 107). I agree. Regardless of the truthfulness of either position, a child can be guided to have arguments for a taught philosophical viewpoint.
[10] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108).
[11] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108).
[12] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108). This is reasonable. If the laws of science were not the same as this universe, in a vastly different realm, for example, then objective truth could be much different at several points.
[13] Blackburn (1996: 401).
[14] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 179).
[15] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 175).
[16] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308).
[17] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308).
[18] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308). Knowledge and certainty are not the same thing for Wittgenstein.
My views on certainty
A definition of certainty which I would consider helpful would be along the lines of what I found in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Peter D. Klein describes the Cartesian account of certainty as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it.
I embrace the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. Therefore in regard to the Christian faith and philosophy, and its belief in Scripture inspired by God, the atoning work of Christ, the resurrection, and everlasting life, applied to believers, these things could be viewed as certain provided there are no legitimate counter arguments that are superior. I reason that evidence shows Christianity is philosophically certain in this sense. In other words, I do not reason that there are superior external (non-biblical) or internal (biblical) propositions, premises/conclusions that counter the Christian worldview.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
EELLS, ELLERY (1996) 'Probability', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 649-650. Cambridge University Press.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt
KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge.
SLUGA, HANS (1996) ‘Wittgenstein’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
SLUGA, HANS (1996) ‘Wittgenstein’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Lego church: I considered attending, but frankly I just wouldn't fit in.
ReplyDeletePhilosophy of knowledge and certainty: Related to this is a quote a recall reading somewhere, to the effect of "There are no contradictions. If you run into a contradiction, check your premises."
Checking one's premises often requires humility, and not something we are readily apt to do.
Yes, premises need to be checked and rechecked when forming a conclusion and therefore an argument.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Chuck.
Funny Lego Church comments from both you, Russ, and Chucky.
ReplyDeleteTherefore in regard to the Christian faith and philosophy, and its belief in Scripture inspired by God, the atoning work of Christ, the resurrection, and everlasting life, these things could be viewed as certain provided there are no legitimate counter arguments that are superior.
Is this really true? What if Satan himself came and presented an ingenious argument that no human being could counter. Would that mean that Christianity was then false? I don't think the truth of something is based on how well someone can defend it. Of course, we as human beings certainly often act as if it were (for example, the smoothest-speaking politician often gets the votes, or the slickest lawyer often wins the case).
'Is this really true?'
ReplyDeleteI reason it is. Human beings and all finite beings cannot have infinite knowledge and therefore do not have 100% certainty.
God, however, does have 100% certainty and reveals his truth in Scripture and guides believers in Spirit.
'What if Satan himself came and presented an ingenious argument that no human being could counter.'
Satan would be able to present doubt, but I do not reason he would be able to counter with superior argumentation, argumentation within Scripture inspired by God.
A lie is still a lie, and can never be truth, but can only appear to be.
There is always an opportunity to point this out.
'Would that mean that Christianity was then false? I don't think the truth of something is based on how well someone can defend it. Of course, we as human beings certainly often act as if it were (for example, the smoothest-speaking politician often gets the votes, or the slickest lawyer often wins the case).'
God has absolute certainty of his existence and the truth of the gospel. We have reasonable certainty.
Thanks, Jeff.:)
Human beings and all finite beings cannot have infinite knowledge and therefore do not have 100% certainty.
ReplyDeleteOK, if you equate "100% certainty" to never, ever being capable of doubting, then I agree. I once read a book by Freud that was the strongest argument I've ever encountered for the non-existence of God, and for the first and only time in my life, I actually doubted that God existed. But that lasted for maybe 3 minutes at the most, until I began to think about how Jesus had changed my life, the lives of others I know personally, and still others that I have read about or heard about. Not to mention the miracles and ways He has worked in my life, in the lives of those I know personally, and in the lives of those I've heard or read about.
Satan would be able to present doubt, but I do not reason he would be able to counter with superior argumentation, argumentation within Scripture inspired by God.
Though I believe he does so all the time with unbelievers (since they do not have godly wisdom), you are probably right when talking about believers, since we have the indwelling Holy Spirit, Who guides us into all Truth. However, even with unbelievers, their mind is set on rebellion, so I don't think it's as much a case regarding a superior argument as it is with pure stubborn rebellion, because no matter how clever or well-presented the intellectual argument, they are not going to come to Christ without the Holy Spirit changing them and causing them to turn to Christ.
A lie is still a lie, and can never be truth, but can only appear to be.
I completely agree.
God has absolute certainty of his existence and the truth of the gospel. We have reasonable certainty.
Though Christians throughout history have had such certainty that they have been willing to die for their faith, and some have even stood by in confidence and joy as their children or spouse were tortured horribly and killed (I'm thinking of Foxe's Book of Martyrs), it is also true that Christians can have doubts at times. So, similar to the first point mentioned, if 'reasonable certainty' means that doubts can still arise, then I agree.
Cheers, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI reason although philosophy of religion can be opposed to the Bible, there are instances where concepts are non-Biblical as in with certainty, and yet are not opposed to Biblical truth.
From Scripture it is implied that we would not have infinite knowledge that only belongs to God.
We therefore have finite knowledge and certainty.
My conclusion is that philosophy of religion is at times a helpful discipline, even though it is basically theology's secular philosophical counterpart.
Enjoyed the video of the dog going down the slide into the pool.
ReplyDeleteVery Clever!
-SPCA Baboon Boy-
Some thoughts to Wittgenstein and Certainty article. This theory believes that knowledge exists. If one didn't believe this as truth, then how could there be any certainty. It seems that a philosopher has to believe in both of these elements in order to make sense of the world.
ReplyDelete-Dr. Preoccupied-
'It seems that a philosopher has to believe in both of these elements in order to make sense of the world.'
ReplyDeleteI think my view on certainty, like Klein's, is reasonable and open-minded. Of course there will be disputes on the truth of premises and arguments even within that framework of certainty.
Thanks.:)
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing it.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Leon.:)
ReplyDeleteAtheist Summer Camp
ReplyDeleteExcellent and relevant, thanks Jeff.
ReplyDeleteAs noted from article:
He uses the example of a child taught either to be a theist or atheist, and the child will be able to produce evidence for either position depending on which one he or she is instructed to believe.[9]
[9] Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 107). I agree. Regardless of the truthfulness of either position, a child can be guided to have arguments for a taught philosophical viewpoint.
As for defining "knowledge", I'm not sure that we can really go beyond the popular definition: Knowledge is justified true belief (and by this I don't accept the "Gettier Problem" because I'm referring to a justification that is relevant to the particular belief in question). The epistemological question, in my mind, is never really answered fully...how can it be? We all have to start with something; but if our "starter" (our axiom) is wrong, then our conclusions are wrong (whether we know it or not). Everyone's supposed "knowledge" is the result of the axiom(s) that he/she has begun with (unless he/she is inconsistent in thought...which we all are to some degree). And who's to say which axiom is the proper base to know anything. In this case we can never be 100 percent certain of "knowledge" of anything because there is no axiom that can be proven true--that's the nature of an axiom. There will always be some uncertainty with regard to knowledge because knowledge does not equate with "truth".
ReplyDeleteSo, the question of certainty, I believe, is just as uncertain as that of knowledge. :-)
There will always be defeaters for any position of knowledge; and these defeaters are only...well...defeated :-) ...by argumentation that will in turn produce other defeaters, etc. etc., ad nauseum.
I agree with Wittgenstein that "knowledge" and "certainty" are two different mental states (that are intimately linked, of course), and that "Skepticism cannot be refuted by claiming certain propositions are certain".
But since Skepticism is not only self-refuting and completely unsustainable as a lifestyle (no one can live very long as a Skeptic), I believe that we must begin with a solid and effectual axiom in order for us to have a firm (albeit questionable) certainty of whatever we assume to be knowledge.
In this regard, I think this axiom is not only the axiom that is mandated by the Bible, but that it is also the starting point that delivers the most consistent understanding of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (or the nature and meaning of everything): God exists and He has revealed Himself and His purpose (as well as the nature and purpose of man) in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
With this as my axiom, I can build a system of knowledge that has a great degree of certainty as displayed by the consistency of the "truth" that is expressed therein. And, of course, because this is my axiom, I firmly believe that I am gaining knowledge and coming to know truth because this is the axiom that the Scripture itself is founded on and the Scripture teaches that God, by His Spirit, reveals knowledge and truth to those who listen to Him in the pages of the Scripture.
Is this circular reasoning? Well, yes...in a way (though it can be shown that the "evidence" supports the axiom and the consistent knowldege structure that is built upon it); but then again, every system of knowledge can be charged with circular reasoning because axioms are never "proven" first.
Well, I hope what I tried to convey made sense; but, of course, as far as the "post-modern" thinker is concerned you can't really know what I tried to say anyway :-)
Nice, though-provoking article, Russ.
And I absolutely agree with your hockey letter. I don't think we'll ever get the "good old days" of hockey back... :-(
GGM
Now if we just accept the Islamic Averroist "Two-Fold Truth" doctrine, we could avoid so many controversies between faith and science!
ReplyDeleteHi, GGM.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to to the NHL, their philosophy is why I have not been a fan in 14 years.
I discussed Gettier in a previous article on this blog, Knowledge and Certainty.
Knowledge and Certainty
Portion:
Edward Gettier has argued in ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ that believing something is true does not make it knowledge because the person lacks sufficient conditions for knowing a proposition.[5] In other words, many true propositions would have been deduced as true, not by knowledge but by felicitous (fortunate) coincidence.[6] I can agree that finite human beings can deduce that something is true without really knowing it. As well, with the human lack of 100% knowledge of anything, it does mean that it is also possible that there could be conditions in existence not known and that a proposition that is held as true is really false. However, I do not think that Gettier’s argument should trouble those who view the Christian faith as certain because Klein points out concerning Gettier’s view that to many thinkers felicitous coincidence can be avoided if the reasons which justify belief are such that they cannot be defeated by further truths.[7]
Klein’s certainty concept in regard to felicitous coincidence is similar to the one described earlier from The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. In other words, if views are reasoned by deduction and evidence, they can be considered knowledge provided they are not countered by superior arguments. This does not require 100% certainty of anything, but rather an accurate understanding of conditions that would lead to the formation of propositions and arguments.
[5] Gettier (1997)(1963: 3).
[6] Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3).
[7] Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3)
GETTIER, EDMUND L. (1997)(1963) ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’, in Analysis 23, 1963, 121-123, Nottingham, England. Analysis 23.
http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html
KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION BIBLE (1984), Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.
Thanks, Mr.Ox.
ReplyDeleteFrom:
Averroes
'Averroes advocated the principle of twofold truth, maintaining that religion has one sphere and philosophy another. Religion, he said, is for the unlettered multitude; philosophy for the chosen few. Religion teaches by signs and symbols; philosophy presents the truth itself. In the mind, therefore, of the truly enlightened, philosophy supersedes religion. But, though the philosopher sees that what is true in theology is false in philosophy, he should not on that account condemn religious instruction, because he would thereby deprive the multitude of the only means which it has of attaining a (symbolic) knowledge of the truth. Averroe's philosophy, like that of all other Arabians, is Aristoteleanism tinged with neo-Platonism. In it we find the doctrine of the eternity of matter as a positive principle of being; the concept of a multitude of spirits ranged hierarchically between God and matter and mediating between them; the denial of Providence in the commonly accepted sense; the doctrine that each of the heavenly spheres is animated; the notion of emanation or extraction, as a substitute for creation; and, finally, the glorification of (rational) mystical knowledge as the ultimate aspiration of the human soul -- in a word, all the distinctively neo-Platonic elements which Arabians added to pure Aristoteleanism.'
I view theology and philosophy of religion as interacting disciplines where truth can be found.
You and your readers will really appreciate this great interview w/Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno on faith and science...
ReplyDeletehttp://thomistic.blogspot.com/2009/08/faith-and-science-vatican-astronomer.html
There is junk science and junk religion...true.
ReplyDeleteA person needs to be extra careful with analysis outside of his or her area of academic discipline.
Cheers, Mr. Ox.
Hey Russ, here's my belated question, with a bonus question tacked on because it's so late :-)
ReplyDelete1. One reason I've heard as to why God permits evil is that there is good that may result from any particular evil. Why then does God simply not create the good outcome, and skip the evil bits, or is that argument incorrect? Ie why didn't he just create the world as it will be post-second coming?
2. If it is a good thing for people to choose God when choosing evil is an option (for us) does that mean that there is some good that humans are capable of that God is not? Or does the option for evil not add 'goodness' to the choice?
'1. One reason I've heard as to why God permits evil is that there is good that may result from any particular evil. Why then does God simply not create the good outcome, and skip the evil bits, or is that argument incorrect? Ie why didn't he just create the world as it will be post-second coming?'
ReplyDeleteIt can be reasoned that those within the culminated Kingdom of God will surpass the first pre-fall persons created in spiritual maturity, as in experience. This would be so because those God saves will have experienced their own sin, death, the atoning work of Christ and his resurrection applied to them, and would be citizens of the culminated Kingdom of God. Persons cannot be created with experience, even if made with a level of initial maturity. Those within the culminated Kingdom of God would not possess the initial inexperience and immaturity of the first persons, Adam and Eve. It is reasonable to deduce that the problem of evil is possibly God’s means of developing certain individuals to eventual Christ-like stature, not sharing Christ’s divinity but becoming like Christ in a mature and moral manner, combined with an unbreakable devotion to God by being strongly guided within compatibilism by the Holy Spirit.
'2. If it is a good thing for people to choose God when choosing evil is an option (for us) does that mean that there is some good that humans are capable of that God is not? Or does the option for evil not add 'goodness' to the choice?'
Adam and Eve did not choose God in the beginning, as by nature they were with God and not evil. But, they were likely not filled with the Holy Spirit as regenerated new Kingdom believers will be. Adam and Eve were made in a way that God knew they would freely fall. At a certain point, within God's will, they dabbled with evil and were corrupted. It was a wrong choice and sin, but one God had planned for with the atoning and resurrection work of Christ
Cheers, Trevor.
Interesting pics!
ReplyDeleteAmazing pool!!! I could live in one of that... ;D
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jimmy.
ReplyDeleteThanks Li, I agree. It would be nice to have a pool, even a little like that one in my backyard.
Russ:)
The whole lego thing is cool, I have a picture or two of something like that but made with cans of food, I will post those on my food blog soon. rick b
ReplyDeleteThanks, Rick.
ReplyDeleteAs that lego church, or the Lego Church is plastic my friend Bobby Buff tried to attend but his muscles were too big to fit through the door.
If he would have forced his way into the church he would have collapsed the building and Bobby would have been falsely accused of being an antichrist.
Well, I am going for a walk.
There is a book out called "The Islamic Antichrist: The Shocking Truth about the Real Nature of the Beast" by Joel Richardson.
ReplyDeleteJoel Richardson is a human rights activist, lecturer, and artist. Involved in evangelism and ministry to Muslims since 1994, he is the co-author, along with Walid Shoebat, of "God's War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy, and the Bible" and co-editor of "Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out."
One review states:
"After decades of reading popular prophecy books and even best-selling fiction like the "Left Behind" series, millions of evangelical Christians around the world are dreading the day when a beastly figure known as the Antichrist emerges as a global political and religious dictator.
Most expect him to come from a revived Roman Empire, which many have assumed is associated with the Roman Catholic Church and the European Union.
Not so, argues a controversial new book that makes the case that the biblical Antichrist is one and the same as the Quran's Muslim Mahdi.
Meet "The Islamic Antichrist," a book almost certain to be greeted in the Muslim world with the same enthusiasm as Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses." The author, Joel Richardson, is prepared. He has written the book under a pseudonym to protect himself and his family.
Today, the first day of promotion of this trailblazing new book, it has risen to #1 on Amazon among books on religion and spirituality, Islam and theology.
"The Bible abounds with proofs that the Antichrist's empire will consist only of nations that are, today, Islamic," says Richardson. "Despite the numerous prevailing arguments for the emergence of a revived European Roman empire as the Antichrist's power base, the specific nations the Bible identifies as comprising his empire are today all Muslim."
Richardson believes the key error of many previous prophecy scholars involves the misinterpretation of a prediction by Daniel to Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel describes the rise and fall of empires of the future, leading to the endtimes. Western Christians have viewed one of those empires as Rome, when, claims Richardson, Rome never actually conquered Babylon and was thus disqualified as a possibility.
It had to be another empire that rose and fell and rose again that would lead to rule of this "man of sin," described in the Bible. That empire, he says, is the Islamic Empire, which did conquer Babylon and, in fact, rules over it even today.
Many evangelical Christians believe the Bible predicts a charismatic ruler, the Antichrist, will arise in the last days, before the return of Jesus. The Quran also predicts that a man, called the Mahdi, will rise up to lead the nations, pledging to usher in an era of peace. Richardson makes the case these two men are, in fact, one in the same.
In "The Islamic Antichrist," Richardson, a student of Islam, exposes Western Christians to the Muslim traditions. He says most Christians have no idea of the stunning similarities between biblical Antichrist and the "Islamic Jesus."
"Sound, responsible scholarship. A timely breakthrough in biblical eschatology, The Islamic Antichrist presents a captivating paradigm that will profoundly change your perspective on the endtimes."
— Jeremy Ray, Sr. Pastor, Old Washington United Methodist Church, Ohio
"Joel Richardson provides a weighty analysis of Islam and its messianic figure. The Islamic Antichrist is central to recognizing the fulfillment of biblical endtimes prophecy in our day and understanding the role Islam plays in it."
— Pastor Reza D. Safa, former radical Muslim, author of Inside Islam
Though the Bible does not address this point as far as I know, in Heaven, I would guess that believers would no longer need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, since we will no longer have a sin nature to combat, and since we will be dwelling with God.
ReplyDelete'Though the Bible does not address this point as far as I know, in Heaven, I would guess that believers would no longer need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, since we will no longer have a sin nature to combat, and since we will be dwelling with God.'
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
Adam and Eve were finitely perfectly good and yet fell.
In the resurrection and culminated Kingdom we shall also be finitely perfectly good.
We will have experienced the problem of evil, salvation and resurrection that Adam and Eve did not before the fall.
We shall have greater spiritual experience and maturity than Adam and Eve had prior to the fall.
Even so I reason that we could still fall because of finite goodness and therefore would need to be determined with soft-determinism/compatibilism not to sin, and this would be in line with a life filled with the Holy Spirit.
As a footnote to this argument may I add that an alternative outside of compatibilism/Holy Spirit in keeping persons from sin in the Kingdom is hard determinism where God limits human freedom and forces persons to do good only. This hardly seems Biblical and reasonable for a loving God that appears to desire significantly free creatures.
Cheers, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteA question is whether Muslims that have no images or idols in mosques would ever worship a man/image. The mosques I have read about and been in are idol free from their perspective. It could be that his supernatural abilities will sway Islam, or it could be Muslims will be persecuted along with Christians and Jews and some others.
I have seen similar views (Islamic antichrist) many times. Whether it is Roman, Islamic, or secular, or other (say a real long shot like a LDS prophet) it will be a type of false Christ I reason, even if the word Christ is not mentioned.
Billions could be swayed because although the antichrist will not have absolute power of life and death as does Christ/God, he will likely be able to do many miracles, perhaps heal people at death's door, or save some newly medically dead like hospitals do at times, but again he will not have absolute power over life and death. The antichrist may also fix, at least temporarily, many world problems through force, coercion and persuasion related to the problem of evil that God as of yet has not corrected.
Many will look at the actual practical results of what the antichrist has done and think he does more than the Biblical God, and he very likely will accept more sin as normal.
People will foolishly overlook the fact that without the absolute power over life and death, the antichrist and power source (Satan, but most will not realize that) is not God the first cause and should not be followed and worshipped. They will overlook Scripture such as 2 Thessalonians and Revelation, if there are many Bibles left.
I reason many will gladly go along with the murders of Christians and others, in order to maintain a newly improved temporal state of happiness.
Russ:)
Also from the article previously mentioned:
ReplyDelete"So what happened? Why do we have such a variation between contemporary versus traditional? The problem began in 1981 when Greece joined as the tenth nation in the European Union and many sounded a false alarm that announced they unlocked the mystery and have the fulfillment of Revelation 17, all with its ten horns, to later be embarrassed when the European Union mushroomed into twenty some nations.
Instead of pulling back their books, these analysts ran back to the drawing board, not to confess their error, but to insist that the E.U. model must shrink to only ten.. They still chose to finagle with the theory. Some, like Arnold Fruchtenbaum, realized that this was wrong: “It has become common today to refer to the ten kingdoms as being in Europe only, especially the Former Common Market, now the European Union. But the text does not allow for this kind of interpretation. At the very best, the European Union might become one of the ten, but it could hardly become all of the ten.''
According to Fruchtenbaum, the European model comprises only one tenth, a mere slice of the whole pie. Jamieson Fausset & Brown insist that, “the ten toes are not upon the one foot (the west), as these interpretations require, but on the two (east and west) together, so that any theory which makes the ten kingdoms belong to the west alone must err..”
'The problem began in 1981 when Greece joined as the tenth nation in the European Union and many sounded a false alarm that announced they unlocked the mystery and have the fulfillment of Revelation 17, all with its ten horns, to later be embarrassed when the European Union mushroomed into twenty some nations.'
ReplyDeleteYes, the issue of the modern European Union being overly connected to the antichrist has concerned me.
I plan on keeping my UK/EU citizenship and passport.
Thanks, Jeff. Good points.
A question is whether Muslims that have no images or idols in mosques would ever worship a man/image. The mosques I have read about and been in are idol free from their perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to that may be the fact that Muslims are looking for a coming Mahdi.
From CHALLENGES:
"The Mahdi is well-documented in all of the main Hadith collections—Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Al-Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn Majah, Sunan Abu Dawud, and Sahih Al-Nisa'i."
"In 1976, the Muslim World League (Rabitah al-‘Alam Al-Islami), probably the most prestigious and one of the largest Muslim Sunni organizations in the world, issued a fatwa which declared that belief in a coming Mahdi is universal for all Muslims: “The Memorizers and scholars of Hadith have verified that there are reliable and acceptable reports among the Hadiths on the Mahdi; the majority of them are narrated through numerous authorities."
"Like Mohammed, the Mahdi is exalted by Islam to be above all of creation, and is claimed by Islam to sit in the Temple of God in Jerusalem. Mahdi in Islam has titles that belong only to God."
"The Mahdi, like Muhammad, exalts himself above all that is called God. In other words, he gives himself titles that only belong to God."
Also pointed out in the article is that Muslims worship Muhammad as well as the Black Stone:
"FACT—MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE BLACK STONE
Islam teaches that every Muslim must get his sins cleansed by venerating The Black Stone at least once in their lifetime, since the Black Stone is black due to it taking away the sins of Muslims. From a biblical definition—not only do Muslims deify Muhammad, they also deify the Black Stone—this idol takes the position of Jesus Himself, since only Jesus can remit all sin."
For many years I have suspected the Dome of the Rock to be the Abomination of Desolation.
'FACT—MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE BLACK STONE'
ReplyDeleteMany Muslims probably would not see this as fact, but I am no expert on Islam. Certainly the veneration of it is very off-putting, Jeff. It should be totally unnecessary for one with a proper Biblical understanding of God.
It remains to be seen whether they would worship a man in the flesh or an idol/image. It certainly is a thought to ponder on.
Just with a quick glance I see an article by a Muslim claiming it is not worshipped so I reason it will be a contentious issue which I am not going to argue about since I am not expert.
stone
Quote:
'THE BLACK STONE IS NOT WORSHIPPED BY MUSLIMS
The Stone is not be worshipped or regarded as anything but a marker.'
Also here is another:
stone
'The point that Islam encourages idolatry isn't true; because no other religion opposes idolatry as vehemently as Islam.
As for the Black Stone in the Kabah, it is not an idol; and nobody worships it. It is simply 'a black stone' and its chief use in the Kabah during pilgrimage is as a marking stone.'
'Many critics of Islam make much of this stone, trying to find some sort of justification for their own polytheistic practices. But the founding principle of Islam is the concept of the Oneness of God: la ilaha illa Allah; there is no one that deserves worship or obeisance except the One and Only God.
So, Muslims do not worship anybody--or anything--other than Allah, Almighty. This was the teaching of all prophets of God from Adam to the Last Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon them all).'
Cheers, Jeff.
Walid Shoebat has said that even the Koran/Qur'an allows Muslims to lie, if a "greater good" is established by doing so. Therefore, I don't always trust arguments or claims by Muslims.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I agree that these points are controversial and have been and are being debated among various individuals.
I am no expert on Islam, or on the End Time prophecies either, so I cannot be dogmatic about any of this. Not only that, but only God knows all the exact details of the end times, when they will occur, in what order, and who/what the AntiChrist is, despite the fact that He has given us an overview in Revelation, Daniel, etc.
'Walid Shoebat has said that even the Koran/Qur'an allows Muslims to lie, if a "greater good" is established by doing so.'
ReplyDeleteYes, I have been told that is so by a former missionary to Muslims.
'Nevertheless, I agree that these points are controversial and have been and are being debated among various individuals.
Cheers.
I know I am not the antichrist!
BTW, re:
ReplyDeleteAs for the Black Stone in the Kabah, it is not an idol; and nobody worships it.
Similarly, Catholics will tell you that they don't worship Mary or the saints.
Yet in Miami, many Catholics have statues of Mary or one of the saints in their front yard, or on the dashboard of their car.
Seeing the bumper Sticker on your blog made me think, I have two shirts and a bumper sticker that have a skull and cross bones and it says,
ReplyDeleteThe Beatings will continue until moral improves. Thats my new motto.
Then I saw another one that is so true, it said,
10 out of 10 terrorists prefer Obama for president. Ain't that the truth. Rick b
PS, Were the lego's created after they melted down M Jackson and all the plastic he had in him?
Now that I think about it, the answer is No, those legos would have been used for building a satanic Church, not a Godly Church. Rick b
'Similarly, Catholics will tell you that they don't worship Mary or the saints.'
ReplyDeleteYes, and even if it is just veneration, it is still Biblically unnecessary.
Christ should be that focus.
'PS, Were the lego's created after they melted down M Jackson and all the plastic he had in him?
ReplyDeleteNow that I think about it, the answer is No, those legos would have been used for building a satanic Church, not a Godly Church. Rick b'
Would that be bad?
Or would it just be a thriller?
WoW! those are some awesome pics. as well as some cute video.. The dog and the slide so cute!
ReplyDeleteTo know for certain, it has to get into your heart, a changed life is certain enough for me that Jesus is certain!
God bless you :)
Cheers, Tamela.
ReplyDeleteGod was revealed to persons in ancient times corresponding to Old and New Testament eras.
This religious history was documented in both Testaments.
It was a reasonable presentation within actual reality.
Christian faith and philosophy results and includes the concept of regenerated persons.
Tamela, I have a short new post on satire and theology.
satire and theology
I just now saw Kenneth Copeland on TV promoting a 2-CD set called Manifesting The Sons of God. The first thing that hit me about the title is that the only time the term "sons of God" is used in the Bible is to refer to what I believe are demons/fallen angels in Genesis 6:2,4. However, I also found out that there is The Manifest Sons of God, or Manifested Sons of God, which is related to The Latter Rain Movement and Charismatic Dominionism.
ReplyDeleteHONOR KILLINGS IN ISLAM
ReplyDeleteRifqa Bary: "I am fighting for my life, you guys don't understand...he said he would kill me"
Watch the YouTube video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0P5IaIE_LI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jihadwatch.org%2Farchives%2F027189.php&feature=player_embedded#t=134
“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.” — ‘Umdat al-Salik o8.1-2
“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” — Muhammad
Other versions of this story:
WFTV
http://www.wftv.com/news/20349388/detail.html
CBN News
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/August/Christian-Girl-Says-Her-Muslim-Family-Will-Kill-Her/
ASSIST News Service
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2009/s09080085.htm
A couple more:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027189.php
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
SIMILAR STORIES
'Honor Killing' Motive for Slain Sisters?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4102781&page=1
Honor killing - Man Charged With Killing Married Sister
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/08/jordan-honor-killing-of-married-sister/
78 Percent of Pakistanis Support Death Penalty for Leaving Islam
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/08/pakistan-78-percent-call-for-apostate-deaths/
Abduction and Forced Islamization of Christian Coptic Girls Continues in Egypt
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/08/egypt-abduction-and-forced-islamization-of-girls/
Jeff, thanks very much.
ReplyDeleteThese comments were not sent to my email and so I just published them now. My apologies on behalf of Blogger.;)
I am working on a comment in reply to a Latter-Day Saint on satire and theology. I also discuss the concept of gods.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteThis is 'a small post'? Anyway, here is my thought. If you lived inside a box with some air holes poked in the sides you would be living the limited reasoning ability of the human mind. You could make observations in the light of those holes. You could peek out a hole here and there and see a portion of what was outside the box and make more observations. These observations might make perfect sense and be quite logical based on what your eye could see. However, they might also be totally erroneous for the same reason. You may live in your box in certain ways because of what you believe from what your can see. But the way you choose may not work best for you, yet you might not acknowledge that. Another hole is punched in the box and you peek out and perhaps what you see alters your past view. But you must choose to peek out each hole and to ignore even one may lead you astray. You can only know what the person punching the holes reveals. You can never be certain until the person removes the lid and takes you out of the box where you can see it all.
We are in a box created by God. We cannot see all that exists around us, as God does. We don't see the movements of the Angels and the Demons. We don't see the future. We don't see the "hows". We don't see Heaven and hell. But we have been given holes to peek through where God revels Himself to us. Still, we need to peek through those holes and believe what we see. Those who consider themselves "enlightened" and deny God or His Power do so because they have limited their vision to only holes of their choice and ignore the fact they haven't see everything.
Larry E.
Well stated, Larry, thanks.
ReplyDeleteWe have finite knowledge.
God has infinite knowledge.
God can reveal unknown truth to humanity.