 |
| Facebook: Europe I presume |
Preface
, J. Cottingham, R. Stootfhoff, and D. Murdoch (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
–––, [PW 3], The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Volume 3), J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, and A. Kenny (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Originally published, June 6, 2015 and revised for an entry on academia.edu on October 7, 2023.
Absolute Certainty
Back in 2015, an interesting discussion took place after main business hours at work where I emphasized that not all knowledge was empirical knowledge.
We also discussed certainty.
The person I was discussing and debating with claimed that one cannot be sure that God exists or that Christianity was certain.
I stated that only the first cause God, being the only infinite being, can have one hundred percent certain knowledge, one hundred percent certainty. Only God can have absolute certainty.
Now to be fair to my friend, even a Professor and mentor of mine at Trinity Western University, and a very intelligent theologian, incorrectly in my view, reasoned a Christian could hold to Christianity and the Gospel as one hundred percent certain as a worldview. Rather, I view the worldview as externally and internally reasonably certain against all counter arguments.
Therefore, the person I was discussing and debating with had at least some intellectual merit in stating that Christians were too certain that they were right. But I disagreed with his conclusion that certainty necessarily led to fundamentalism and intolerance, as in radical Islam. He eventually admitted that I was certain of my Christian faith and philosophy and yet remained tolerant and open-minded.
Probability
Ellery Eells explains probability is a numerical value that can be attached to items of various events, and kinds of events and measures the degree to which this may or should be expected. Eells (1996: 649). Eells reasons there are multiple interpretations of probability and there are abstract formal calculi and interpretations of the calculi. Eells (1996: 649).
Blackburn writes that 'probability is a non-negative, additive set function whose maximum value is unity'. Blackburn (1996: 304). Applying probability in the real world is more difficult and the first application is statistical. Blackburn (1996: 304). Statistical as in the tossing of the coin, heads versus tails and the frequency of a particular outcome and then calculating the probability of the outcome. Blackburn (1996: 304).
One account of probability is therefore known as 'frequency theory', as in the probability of an event with frequency of occurrence. Blackburn (1996: 304).
A second account of probability is described as 'an hypothesis as probable when the evidence bears a favoured relationship to it'. Blackburn (1996: 304). These are not empirical measures of frequencies. Basically they would be based on philosophical deductions based in reason.
A third approach is sometimes referred to as subjectivism or personalism. Basically not an objective or real evaluation of the world, but rather a subjective evaluation of personal reality. Blackburn (1996: 304). However, Blackburn does write that one should not be governed by empirical frequencies and not by 'licentious thinking' (without restraint). Blackburn (1996: 304).
Certainty
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. Gettier (1997)(1963: 3). In other words, many true propositions would have been deduced as true, not by knowledge but by felicitous (fortunate) coincidence. Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3).
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 (only the infinite God has 100% knowledge), 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. Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3). Klein’s certainty concept in regard to felicitous coincidence is similar to the one described below 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.
As mentioned previously on this website, from my PhD, 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. Klein (1996: 113). I like the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. Therefore in regard to the religiously historical, Christian faith, and its belief in Scripture inspired by God, the atoning work of Christ, the resurrection, and everlasting life, for the regenerate; these things could be viewed as certain provided there are no legitimate counter arguments that are superior. I believe that evidence shows Christianity is philosophically certain in this sense.
A classic view on certainty discussed in my PhD and in a previous blog article, I shall briefly review is that of Ludwig Wittgenstein: He does admit that there is in a sense objective truth, but something would be objectively true only within a system of reason and knowledge through the understanding of reasonable persons. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108). His view allows for the logical possibility that something considered objective truth in one system, is not objective truth in another. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108).
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. Wittgenstein does act with certainty, but it is his own. This does not in his mind justify his view as objective truth to others, it is simply belief. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 175). He reasons that ‘knowledge and certainty belong in different categories.’ Obtaining knowledge is very important, and more vital than having certitude. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308).
Knowledge and certainty are two different mental states. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308).
A classic view, but not one I hold to from what I noted.
In regard to probability, I suppose that truth claims could also be made in terms of probability as well as certainty. For example, one could hypothetically state Christianity is 9?% probable using Blackburn's second account as in 'an hypothesis as probable when the evidence bears a favoured relationship to it.'
However, providing a number as percentage does seem somewhat subjective in comparison to using certainty, although not without intellectual value.
Eells states three axioms for probability:
1. Pr (Probability)(X)>0 for all
2. Pr (Probability)(X)=1 if X is necessary
3. Pr (Probability)(X
(or) Y) = Pr (Probability) (X) + Pr (Probability) (Y) where means logical disjunction or set theoretical union, if X and Y are mutually exclusive. X and Y may be contradictions that both cannot both logically occur as events. Eells reasons these are provable axioms. Eells (1996: 649).
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Back in 2015, an interesting discussion took place after main business hours at work where I emphasized that not all knowledge was empirical knowledge.
We also discussed certainty.
The person I was discussing and debating with claimed that one cannot be sure that God exists or that Christianity was certain.
I stated that only the first cause God, being the only infinite being, can have one hundred percent certain knowledge, one hundred percent certainty. Only God can have absolute certainty.
Now to be fair to my friend, even a Professor and mentor of mine at Trinity Western University, and a very intelligent theologian, incorrectly in my view, reasoned a Christian could hold to Christianity and the Gospel as one hundred percent certain as a worldview. Rather, I view the worldview as externally and internally reasonably certain against all counter arguments.
Therefore, the person I was discussing and debating with had at least some intellectual merit in stating that Christians were too certain that they were right. But I disagreed with his conclusion that certainty necessarily led to fundamentalism and intolerance, as in radical Islam. He eventually admitted that I was certain of my Christian faith and philosophy and yet remained tolerant and open-minded.
Probability
Ellery Eells explains probability is a numerical value that can be attached to items of various events, and kinds of events and measures the degree to which this may or should be expected. Eells (1996: 649). Eells reasons there are multiple interpretations of probability and there are abstract formal calculi and interpretations of the calculi. Eells (1996: 649).
Blackburn writes that 'probability is a non-negative, additive set function whose maximum value is unity'. Blackburn (1996: 304). Applying probability in the real world is more difficult and the first application is statistical. Blackburn (1996: 304). Statistical as in the tossing of the coin, heads versus tails and the frequency of a particular outcome and then calculating the probability of the outcome. Blackburn (1996: 304).
One account of probability is therefore known as 'frequency theory', as in the probability of an event with frequency of occurrence. Blackburn (1996: 304).
A second account of probability is described as 'an hypothesis as probable when the evidence bears a favoured relationship to it'. Blackburn (1996: 304). These are not empirical measures of frequencies. Basically they would be based on philosophical deductions based in reason.
A third approach is sometimes referred to as subjectivism or personalism. Basically not an objective or real evaluation of the world, but rather a subjective evaluation of personal reality. Blackburn (1996: 304). However, Blackburn does write that one should not be governed by empirical frequencies and not by 'licentious thinking' (without restraint). Blackburn (1996: 304).
Certainty
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. Gettier (1997)(1963: 3). In other words, many true propositions would have been deduced as true, not by knowledge but by felicitous (fortunate) coincidence. Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3).
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 (only the infinite God has 100% knowledge), 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. Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3). Klein’s certainty concept in regard to felicitous coincidence is similar to the one described below 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.
As mentioned previously on this website, from my PhD, 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. Klein (1996: 113). I like the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. Therefore in regard to the religiously historical, Christian faith, and its belief in Scripture inspired by God, the atoning work of Christ, the resurrection, and everlasting life, for the regenerate; these things could be viewed as certain provided there are no legitimate counter arguments that are superior. I believe that evidence shows Christianity is philosophically certain in this sense.
A classic view on certainty discussed in my PhD and in a previous blog article, I shall briefly review is that of Ludwig Wittgenstein: He does admit that there is in a sense objective truth, but something would be objectively true only within a system of reason and knowledge through the understanding of reasonable persons. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108). His view allows for the logical possibility that something considered objective truth in one system, is not objective truth in another. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 108).
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. Wittgenstein does act with certainty, but it is his own. This does not in his mind justify his view as objective truth to others, it is simply belief. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 175). He reasons that ‘knowledge and certainty belong in different categories.’ Obtaining knowledge is very important, and more vital than having certitude. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308).
Knowledge and certainty are two different mental states. Wittgenstein (1951)(1979: 308).
A classic view, but not one I hold to from what I noted.
In regard to probability, I suppose that truth claims could also be made in terms of probability as well as certainty. For example, one could hypothetically state Christianity is 9?% probable using Blackburn's second account as in 'an hypothesis as probable when the evidence bears a favoured relationship to it.'
However, providing a number as percentage does seem somewhat subjective in comparison to using certainty, although not without intellectual value.
Eells states three axioms for probability:
1. Pr (Probability)(X)>0 for all
2. Pr (Probability)(X)=1 if X is necessary
3. Pr (Probability)(X
(or) Y) = Pr (Probability) (X) + Pr (Probability) (Y) where means logical disjunction or set theoretical union, if X and Y are mutually exclusive. X and Y may be contradictions that both cannot both logically occur as events. Eells reasons these are provable axioms. Eells (1996: 649).BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) 'First Cause Argument', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BROWNING, W. R. F. (1997) 'Alpha', in Oxford Dictionary of The Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18.
DESCARTES, RENE (1637) Discourse on the Method, PW 1, 121.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge.
WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
EELLS, ELLERY (1996) 'Probability', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 649-650. Cambridge University Press.
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
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
GIJSBERS, VICTOR, (2006) ‘Theistic Arguments: First Cause’ http://positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm pp. 1-2.
KEOHANE, JONATHAN, (1997) ‘Big Bang Theory’ http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html p. 1.
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.
KREEFT, PETER, (2006) ‘The First Cause Argument’ excerpted from Fundamentals of Faith.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0168.html pp. 1-5.
SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
---
Rene Descartes was referenced by Klein and noted by me from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Descartes, Rene, [PW 2], The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Volume 2)
Cited
'Certainty, or the attempt to obtain certainty, has played a central role in the history of philosophy. Some philosophers have taken the kind of certainty characteristic of mathematical knowledge to be the goal at which philosophy should aim. In the Republic, Plato says that geometry “draws the soul towards truth and produces philosophic thought by directing upwards what we now wrongly direct downwards” (527b). Descartes also thought that a philosophical method that proceeds in a mathematical way, enumerating and ordering everything exactly, “contains everything that gives certainty to the rules of mathematics” (Discourse on the Method, PW 1, p. 121).' DESCARTES, RENE (1637) Discourse on the Method, PW 1, 121.
 |
| Facebook |
A preacher was making his rounds on a bicycle, when he came upon a little boy trying to sell a lawn mower. 'How much do you want for the mower?' asked the preacher.
ReplyDelete'I just want enough money to go out and buy me a bicycle,' said the little boy.
After a moment of consideration, the preacher asked, Will you take my bike in trade for it?'
The little boy asked if he could try it out first, and, after riding the bike around a little while, said, 'Mister, you've got yourself a deal.'
The preacher took the mower and began to crank it. He pulled on the rope a few times with no response from the mower. The preacher called the little boy over and said, 'I can't get this mower to start.'
The little boy said, 'That's because you have to cuss at it to get it started.'
The preacher said, I can't cuss. It's been so long since I became a Christian that I don't even remember how to cuss.'
The little boy looked at him happily and said, 'You just keep pulling on that rope. It'll come back to ya.
Do not mess with a camel
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteBreaking News: Condoms don't guarantee safe sex anymore. A friend
of mine was wearing one when he was shot dead by the woman's husband.
I haven't verified this on Snopes, but it sounds legit… A recent
ReplyDeletestudy found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer
than the men who mention it.
ReplyDeleteThe Lone Ranger and Tonto walked into a saloon and sat down to have a beer.
After a few minutes, a big tall cowboy walked in and said, "Who owns the big white horse outside?"
The Lone Ranger stood up, hitched his gun belt, and said "I do....why?"
The cowboy looked at the Lone Ranger and said, "I just thought you’d like to know that your horse is about dead outside!"
The Lone Ranger and Tonto rushed outside and sure enough, Silver was ready to die from heat exhaustion. The Lone Ranger got the horse water and soon Silver was starting to feel a little better.
The Lone Ranger turned to Tonto and said, "Tonto, I want you to run around Silver and see if you can create enough of a breeze to make him start to feel better."
Tonto said, "Sure, Kemosabe", and took off running circles around Silver.
Not able to do anything else but wait, the Lone Ranger returned to the saloon to finish his drink.
A few minutes later, another cowboy struts into the bar and asks, "Who owns that big white horse outside?"
The Lone Ranger stands up again, and claims, "I do, what's wrong with him this time?"
(....I JUST LOVE THIS PART....)
"Nothin', but you left your injun runnin'....."
ReplyDeleteTWO DIFFERENT DOCTORS' OFFICES
-- Boy, if this doesn't hit the nail on the head, I don't know what does!
--Two patients limp into two different medical clinics with the same
complaint.
--Both have trouble walking and appear to require a hip replacement.
The FIRST patient is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day
and has a time booked for surgery the following week.
--The SECOND sees his family doctor after waiting 3 weeks for an
appointment, then waits 8 weeks to see a specialist, then gets an x-ray,
which isn't reviewed for another week and finally has his surgery
scheduled for 6 months from then.
Why the different treatment for the two patients?
The FIRST is a Golden Retriever.
The SECOND is a Senior Citizen.
Mrs. Baker, a fifth grade teacher, observed a student in her class during a True/False test, flipping a coin and then choosing an answer.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Baker thought to herself, "Hah! Norman didn't study again."
This answer selection method continued throughout the entire test.
After Norman was obviously finished, Mrs. Baker again watched Norman flipping the coin and continuing through the test a second time.
"Norman, what are you doing now?" asked Mrs. Baker.
Norman replied, "I'm doing what you always tell us to do! I'm checking my answers!"
…..Mikeys Funnies (www.mikeysFunnies.com) by way of “Christian Voices” (ChristianVoices@att.net)
Bringing in the Sheaves
ReplyDeleteI'm reading that thick Perspectives book edited by Ralph Winter, and it's eye-opening. I'm learning that there are groups within a culture, each with their own orientation, and if you want to reach out to them you've got to understand each where they are. Sometimes it takes believers from outside to get through, since local insiders are so wrapped up in their own group.
I can do big-big picture: everyone in the West for the last two hundred years is a Kantian, used to the idea that religion is just one way of looking at the world, and must coexist with other ways that contradict it. That means, Jesus is important but keep him in his place. That helps us understand Germans and Canadians and Americans, but maybe not Africans? That's a beginning, but with the in-groups we are talking with, maybe even being Kantian means different things for different groups?
I hope I'm reading Ralph Winter wrong, but he can sound as if this is a job for only very skilled cultural experts, while the rest of us just aren't qualified. So what can you and I do with all that? I start off by being so joyful over what just happened in my PCA denomination. In their yearly General Assembly, so many people repented of their indifference to the sufferings of blacks during the Civil Rights times. I just did not expect that from Southern white people, but it really happened, it's continuing to happen, black people are helping us to get all our story straight, so this time around our repentance won't be as shallow as it easily could become. I wish so much I'd been there, but the report itself is so encouraging. God is at work, even in our coming to terms with our history of deep disinterest in each other. People must have been praying, but it was still so unexpected—the Lord himself did this!
ReplyDeleteCan we keep on doing that, this time in understanding the people in poverty around us? Or underpaid women? Or children in schools where it's hard to learn anything? Can we understand people, not just to make their coming to Christ easier, vitally important though that is, but also to make their lives better, much more livable? That will take some serious political thinking. Should we vote to support those who make abortion more difficult? That sounds right, but aren't they the same people who want a tax policy that stands in the way of people escaping poverty? I enjoy asking big questions like that—but am I just doing that to avoid talking to the folks next door? I wave when I see them outside, but that can't be nearly enough if I really wanted to get to know them.
Winter is probably right and really figuring out a whole culture is going to be hard. So what should we be doing, all of us no
n-experts? We're surrounded by people who don't know Jesus, and we need to get to know them and to bring the love of God into their lives. Don't we? We do have a lot in common with them, and talking about the weather isn't worthless, nor about the schools, nor about the election coming up. We need you Ralph Winter, but we know we're called to love those near us too, without waiting for you to tell us how, though we wish you would.
ReplyDeleteThere is that thing called prayer, it's real and it's our calling. O Lord, help me hear what's important to him, help me ask her the right questions, change my heart so I'm doing the Great Commission and showing the love of Christ too, the way it's supposed to be.
But there's even more to it than that. What those Perspectives people are saying is this: when we send the message that to come to Christ you will have to leave your culture and join ours, there may be some who will do that—but the other people in their old culture will see that to be a believer in Jesus means abandoning your old culture and kin and friends. Could it go the other way, that we don't harvest an individual out of his culture, but instead we bring almost the entire group to Jesus? That's really what the book is about.
ReplyDeleteWe know the Jew/Gentile interaction is different, since Jews were truly God's chosen people—but still, what is the NT about besides Gentiles coming to Christ too and Jews trying then to figure out how we could all be one people of the Lord? Read the book of Acts again and see thousands of Jews coming to Christ at the same time! There's the other piece of Winter and friends, telling us not only to focus on cultures but also to do it so thoroughly that we harvest almost an entire culture at once. Doesn't that remind you of Jesus' strange words, that the harvest is so big that there's a shortage of harvesters?
So here are two lessons at once: speak to people in language they understand, and work toward how that will bring many of them in at the same time. That fits not just foreign mission fields but where we are ourselves, as the gospel becomes less and less meaningful for so many here, so that where we are looks more and more "foreign."
Could that mean we should be getting to know people from Christian traditions besides ours? My own experience is that much of our religious identity comes from being different from others, so it comes down to, "we're not like that." Some Christians are eager to understand where women are today, and so have no problem with women leading in worship (let's leave out the ordination thing now)—and that can make others so uncomfortable they can't imagine worshipping with them. In my philosophy world there have always been different approaches to understanding reality, and so that naturally results in diverging theological methods, another place for discomfort and avoidance. The list goes on forever, of things that push us apart.
ReplyDeleteI read books, many books—and I'm surprised how much better I can understand God's word from what I learn from people from the "wrong tradition." Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, dispensationalists, people still in liberal denominations—somehow they know things I didn't know before I read them. How can that be, people are consistent aren't they, so must I not be really understanding what I think they are saying? But if when I look at the part of the Bible they are talking about, and see that what they say fits what it says, then something good is going on. I and my wife Carol are now on a presbytery committee doing "fraternal relations" and very soon we'll be thinking together about the spiritual needs of Philadelphia. I am getting ready for that, that's why Perspectives is so helpful.
How can I talk to and then work with Roman Catholics? I know church history, and what Martin Luther discovered in the RC church was really there, the message that if you try really hard there's some chance the Lord will give you grace, maybe. He was totally right to move the focus away from trying harder to God's gift of Savior Jesus. His word "extraspective," that you should look not at yourself but at Jesus the Christ, is by far the best word not in the dictionary. They refused to listen to him, why would they listen to me? What would be the point?
ReplyDeleteBut if I listen first, what could happen? Catholics know a lot more Bible than they did then, maybe they read it more than most Protestants? I'm trying to learn about the "spiritual disciplines," and I wonder if they could tell me if I'm doing the Great Silence right? Or what I can learn about following Jesus from Mary and her faith? I think I'm almost ready to listen.
Or listening to Liberal Protestants, the people who once believed it all and then dumped it? Could you tell me how the Bible works in your heart even though it's full of errors? Is that similar to the way there are parts of it I avoid reading? Tell me about how the old social gospel made a difference?
This isn't the same as Perspectives, it's about groups within a non-Christian culture, and I'm thinking about groups within our shallow religious world, the world I live in. What will come from our all getting to know each other in Philadelphia? Groups of people enjoying a much deeper faith? Not individuals crossing lines to come to us, but reaching out vigorously so many will remain in their accustomed places, but knowing and loving the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ more?
ReplyDeleteAt least I'm not recycling old thoughts, right? I know a godly group of people who after 80 years have grown to a church of 31K, and I honor them. But is there another way, of deeper faith and greater blessing for everyone in Philadelphia? Of an honest exploring that even our young people would enthusiastically join in?
D. Clair Davis
The Court and our Repentance
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court's decision enabling same-sex marriage in all states has gotten much attention, positively and negatively. It will facilitate unbiblical marriages everywhere, and God and his law will be massively mocked. Of course that is very serious. Going ahead, will those opposing this decision be convicted of hate-crime? It is very possible.
But how is this anything new? Some of us can remember when states followed biblical norms, permitting divorce only in cases of adultery. That was when people went to Reno, Nevada to live for six weeks until they could obtain a "no-fault" divorce there. Those finding that inconvenient were able to enlist private detectives to help them set up a phony adultery in raids on hotel rooms. I can't remember how believers responded to Reno, but wasn't that just as serious then as the Court's decision today?
ReplyDeleteNo doubt there are legal and social advantages to "marriage," but in a hook-up culture, that has little to do with sexual activity. Puberty comes earlier and marriage much later, do the math yourself. No one says "common-law marriage" any more, but what could be more common? Has the evangelical Christian church, along with Catholics and Orthodox, been consistently clear?
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with our welcoming people. Jesus welcomed all us sinners and we are so glad. But along with our trusting Jesus Christ comes repentance for our sin, and that is what we know ourselves and seek to tell others. I tell this story, one that I actually experienced, about getting drainage pipe for a plot of ground and asking for a much bigger pipe than the clerk suggested, prompting his response as he sold me the really big one, "you do have a drainage problem." That the Beloved Son of the Father should give up his life for us sinners, crying out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me"—that wasn't to show off, that was because of our sin.
ReplyDeleteWe are called to welcome all to Jesus, but clearly. Turning to him means turning away from whatever idol you worship, including "same-sex" relations. We need to show and tell that means us too. We are not called to be Pharisees, to look down on those not as holy as we are. In no way are we worthy.
ReplyDeleteWere we sloppy about Reno? Hook-ups? It is time for us to repent of that and our own respectable sins too. (I am so amazed and delighted over my PCA's repentance over indifference to racial oppression, are we now on a God-given roll?) The Court has gotten everyone's attention right now, why should we delay our own repentance? And along with that calling the world around us to Jesus the Savior? Not just same-sex people, that suggests their sin is greater than ours, and it isn't. That suggests cultural narrowness, and our calling is to the whole world. The Court has people awake, now is the time to talk, more clearly and consistently than ever before.
ReplyDeleteD. Clair Davis
Two New Posts Today
ReplyDelete