Reasonable not absolute certainty required

Kelly Burchert: Facebook, today

New York Daily News February 2

'Interesting point, counter-point on religion'

My friend Dr. Jennifer Lloyd (UBC) sent this to me on Facebook.

My comments

In humanity, we all have faith because none of us have 100% certainty. Absolute certainty would require one to be infinite.

I can have reasonable certainty that I exist, but not absolute 100% certainty. I will admit I had an adviser and professor at Trinity Western University that disagreed with my view. He stated that the gospel was 100% absolutely certain. But I held to and hold to, that only God has absolute certainty. I have reasonable certainty in regard to the gospel as being true.

During my MPhil/PhD theses work, when I had to study Kant and Wittgenstein, I developed partly through the Cambridge Philosophy Dictionary, an understanding that there is humanly, no absolute, 100% certainty.

As well, reading Kant I did reasonably consider Kant's views on the noumenon, plural noumena realm. I can grant that the non-empirical spiritual realm is speculative and that God could not be known in a personal context by speculation alone. But, contrary to Kant, I do reason that both revelation leading to theology and philosophy of religion can contain reasonable certainty.

Reasonable certainty is that internally and externally premises and conclusion (s) are consistent and not disproved by counter propositions and conclusions.

In regards to the gospel, it is internally consistent as the Scripture is consistent. There is significant and sufficient manuscript evidence extant and the writings of Church Fathers, combined with effective scholarship.

Externally, in my view, no other worldview represented by premises and conclusion (s) is superior or disproves the gospel, the historical atonement and resurrection of Christ and related. Philosophy of religion and philosophical speculation could reasonably lead to knowledge in regard to the existence of God. As a matter of admittance, I did study atheistic, agnostic and critical perspectives for my British studies, as well as various Christian views.

Agreed, there is scientific empirical fact, such as the law of gravity. I can have reasonable faith in the law of gravity. There is also philosophical science, like transitional forms in Darwinian evolution, which are not established empirical fact within current scientific philosophy. My Manchester philosophy of religion professor granted that transitional forms is scientific theory only. Although he held to it as true.

A belief in one trinitarian God over 2999 other gods, is if properly and reasonably held, based primarily on Biblical revelation leading to theology and secondarily, philosophy of religion and philosophical speculation. I prefer the term 'first cause' over 'the prime mover', but I get the point from the video. Clarification: The trinity cannot be reasonable known other than via revelation. However, through reason and philosophy, one could for example, deduce that the infinite, eternal God required distinctions of personality within nature in order to be a personal being. Granted, within the eternal it would be timeless and all would be known within relationship.

Philosophical speculation on its own may reasonably lead someone to theism, but it will not lead someone to the revealed gospel (Romans, Hebrews, John, 1 John).

Mr. Gervais reasonably, does have faith in regard to science and philosophy.

Even if we grant that virtually, without infinite knowledge and certainty, he needs little faith to believe in the empirical, he needs faith to hold to non-empirical science and scientific philosophy.

Mr. Gervais also has faith, not fact that there is no evidence or knowledge of God, because he appears to assume that only empirical knowledge will suffice. This is very problematic as by definition, the immaterial, spiritual God will not be empirically provable. This is a common mistake of some agnostics, atheists and critics. They dismiss the religious history of revealed Scripture as a type of knowledge. They may dismiss philosophical speculation for theism and accept philosophical speculation against theism.

Mr. Gervais risks scientism, which humanist, British philosopher, Simon Blackburn describes in his Oxford Philosophy Dictionary.

From Oxford Scientism: '1 a: a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).'

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Woo

Mark Morrey: Facebook, today

Are human beings a mechanical tool? (PhD Edit)

From

Theodicy and Practical Theology, PhD, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010

G.C. Berkouwer reasons that God wants a free man, not a mechanical tool or creature that can be maneuvered as the Almighty sees fit. Berkouwer (1962: 333).

I reason human freedom always operates within the framework of God’s sovereignty and providence.

Plantinga postulates since a world containing significantly free creatures where good outweighs evil is more valuable than a world with automatons or robots. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30).

Also noted from my PhD:

'People were not robotically inspired to write Scripture.'

In other words I do not hold to dictation theory, but an inspiration theory through the Holy Spirit. For example, the Apostle Paul was a Hebrew Bible scholar and was inspired within that framework,

2 Peter 1:20-21

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

February 2, 2017

In my view, human nature is not neutral. It is fallen (Genesis 3, Romans, Hebrews). I therefore do not hold to libertarian free will. For the most part, one cannot choose his/her own nature and therefore, any significantly freely made thoughts, acts and actions come from that nature.

If thoughts, acts and actions are forced or coerced, a secondary entity is not significantly morally responsible. If something is forced or coerced, it could be considered as mechanical from the secondary entity. I do reason that God could force or coerce human beings and all creatures, but also reason human beings and creatures would not be significantly responsible for thoughts, acts and actions.

When I state, for the most part, I would reason that one could stop smoking, a slight change in nature, I suppose, but biblically outside of the triune God, the atoning work of Jesus Christ and the resurrection, one cannot stop sinning in the body. The essential ontological nature is set.

At least in general terms, I do not see human beings or angelic beings (demonic included) as mechanical tools because I reason limited free will exists, which has humanity and angelic beings as secondary causes, embrace the willfully made choices of God, the first cause. This is true whether God, directly wills something or indirectly allows something.

Berkouwer 2014

BERKOUWER, G.C. (1962) Man: The Image of God, Grand Rapids, W.M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

There are tears of joy and there are tears of sadness: Both can impair vision

Add caption

Professor Jurgen Schonwetter, Columbia Bible College, retired, stated:

(Paraphrased): 'There are tears of joy and there are tears of sadness. Both can impair vision.'

Profound on perspective.

Profound on objectivity.

I have Christian and non-Christian friends of both sides of the political spectrum. I am a moderate conservative. I am not claiming a wishy-washy neutrality. Obviously, from reading my website it can be understood that I have some definitive and definite views.

My thoughts are that as biblical Christians:

The gospel is of far greater importance than politics. Notice the early New Testament Church was not very political, but was intensely gospel focused on the new heaven and new earth. Rome was not to be overthrown by revolution, but creation ultimately restored.

Loving those in Christ (Gospel of John, I John) takes priority over political disagreements in the Church.

Christians are to love their neighbour as they love self (Matthew 22, Mark 12). That includes those of other views, even if those views are in error.

Objectivity should take priority in politics as opposed to one almost always or always, siding with the left, right or centre, because that is what one usually does.

I.E. (That is) Because one was born on the 'green team' or grew into the 'green team' should not mean by default that one almost always, or always, supports the 'green team'. In prayer, seeking the objective truth, the 'purple team' might make more sense on some points, than, quite frankly, what a hasty evaluation from 'green team' members might conclude.

In prayer we should ask the Lord to avoid spiritual and political blindness.

Blackburn:

'Objectivism (ethics) Any view upholding the objective status of ethical commitment, in opposition to error theories, scepticism, and relativism. The central problem is finding the source of the required objectivity. (267).

Cambridge explains:

'Objectivism may be naturalist or non-naturalist. The naturalist objectivist believes that values, duties, or whatever are natural phenomena detectable by introspection, perception, or scientific inference. (244). This is connected to empiricism and empirical facts. (244). 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

SPRIGGE, T.L.S (1996) 'Ethical Objectivism', The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Binitarianism In Brief

I have watched 'Tomorrow's World' from The Living Church of God, twice recently. There are some good concepts, but I am somewhat familiar with the source.

The Living Church of God

Cited

'The Living Church of God (LCG) is one of hundreds of groups that formed after the death of the late Herbert W. Armstrong, when major doctrinal changes (causing turmoil and divisions) were occurring in the former Worldwide Church of God (WCG) especially during the 1990s. The LCG was formed in December 1998 and is an offshoot organization of the Global Church of God (GCG), which formed in December 1992.

The Living Church of God is one of multifarious Sabbatarian Churches of God church groups that have sprung up from the former WCG, known today as Grace Communion International (GCI). And even from the LCG organization itself, several other split-off groups have resulted, each one of which is headed by a former LCG minister.'

Cited

'After Armstrong died, WCG began to change many of its core doctrines, a process that brought the organization into the mainstream of Evangelical Christianity. However, many members objected, and hundreds of splinter groups arose as a result.[1]'

Doctrines include:

Cited

'Christians should observe the biblical seventh-day Sabbath.' Sabbatarianism. 'Certain laws should be adhered to by Christians today, including the "dietary laws", mentioned in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:3–21, delineating which animals may be eaten.'

This in my view is a failure to understand that the new covenant carries over the moral and ethical views of the Hebrew Bible, but is not an identical covenant to the old covenant with the same practices. Non-exhaustive references:

Luke 22:20 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. 

Hebrews notes the Old Covenant is obsolete 

Hebrews 8:13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 [a]When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is [b]ready to disappear.

'British Israelism: The belief that the Anglo-American people are descended from the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel and are the possessors of the birthright promises and accompanying blessings of Abraham’s descendants, through his grandson Jacob.'

This view would require greater scientific documentation in support.

And the main doctrine that interested me in the context of this website entry:

Cited

'Binitarianism: The belief that there is a two-person Godhead, consisting of God the Father and God the Son (also called The Word). The Holy Spirit is "not a Being", and is considered "the very essence, the mind, life, and power of God".'

Binitarianism

'Binitarianism is a Christian theology of two persons, personas, or two aspects in one substance/Divinity (or God). Classically, binitarianism is understood as a form of monotheism — that is, that God is absolutely one being; and yet with binitarianism there is a "twoness" in God, which means one God family. 'While binitarianism is sometimes used self-descriptively,[1] it is also used to denote Christian error or heresy[2]...'
---

I do not see significant biblical reasons for holding to Binitarianism. As in 'The Holy Spirit is "not a Being"...'

In Acts 5 it states:

New American Standard Bible:

5 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s [a]full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not [b]under your control? Why is it that you have [c]conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Lying to the Holy Spirit is equated to lying to God.

⊃ = means the same as

G (God) ⊃ H (Holy Spirit)

G ⊃ H

Matthew 28: 19-20 states that disciples are to make more disciples in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

France writes:

'It has been argued that these words were not part of the original text of Matthew, since Eusebius regularly in his pre-Nicene works quotes Matthew 28: 19 in the shorter form 'Go and make disciples of all nations in my name', but the fact that no extant manuscript of Matthew has this reading suggests that this was Eusebius' own abbreviation than a text he found in existing manuscripts' (415).

Ellison contrasts this by stating it should be interpreted: 'More literally 'into the name', i.e. as the possession of.' (1154). If this interpretation, which would need manuscript evidence (In agreement with France), was correct, it would not negate the Holy Spirit as God. There is no good New Testament reason, in my opinion, to reject trinitarian doctrine.

On what basis is the 'Helper' (NASB) from the Gospel of John, the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, anything other than God? Biblically, there appears no other spiritual (can apprehend God) ontological entities other than God, angelic beings, Satan, demonic beings and human beings. If the Holy Spirit is simply the Spirit of the Father and/or Son, why is this not made clear in the New Testament? Why is it (he) is differentiated as God, yet distinct from God the Father and God the Son?

ELLISON, H. L (1986) 'Matthew' in The New International Bible Commentary, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan, Grand Rapids.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985)(2001) Matthew, IVP/Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.