Fallacious Faith

[scottatiwu]

Today @ 06:42 PM post located here
jpholding:

And you are plainly dodging the point that you do not live consistently with what you believe.

I'm living consistently by subjectively trusting what I see.

None. But if you lived consistently with this worldview you espouse, you would give in to madness and be found under the futon cowering in fear.

Not if I made a conscious choice not too.

When God sees or hears something, is it a subjective experience?

You're putting the creator on the same level as the creation, man is incapable of talking about Him in this way. Could there even be a difference between the two for God?

Was the Risen Jesus objectively in the room with Thomas?

I believe that he was, but Thomas could only know this by subjective means (sight, touch, etc).

Tell us WHY it should be called that.

Because it is experienced subjectively and we have no proof that our subjective sense aren't being fooled.

If your whole view is subjective, then why should I believe you when you say so, since you are trapped in a maze of subjectivism?

Because I experience objective reality through subjective senses, and you are a part of that subjective reality. I'm not saying "this is right for me, that is right for you," because that's egoism, I'm only saying "this is right for me, within the framework of my experience." And because I believe Christianity, I believe it's claims, namely that this is right for everyone. But I came to that point subjectively.

"Much to my pleasure"? That made sense!

Sorry, could have done that joke better, I was pointing to the whole "why don't you hide under the futon because you can't know" thing.

In the meantime, explain how the evidence "works in us" like this. It's hard to see a logical chain between "the tomb is empty" and "this means I'm a sinner".

Your right, I'm sorry, I should've caught that before I posted it. Here's something that might work a little better. Evidence shuts the mouths of those who believe they can disprove Christianity, and is also worthwile after conversion, and is important because of what it works in us, namely confirms our faith, our faith being based on our recognition of our sinfulness through the law and our reception of forgiveness. How's that for a run-on? ;-)

I present the meaning contextualized from ancient usages,

While I understand your intent, you're still bringing the experiences of your upbringing to your understanding of the context. Where you would associate evidence with science and validity, I don't see that as being a major area of preaching for them. It seems that there focus was on the Gospel, namely that God has come and is coming, repent now and believe. The evidence does not establish something as a fact, but opens up the door for one possibility of interpretation.

while you push a meaning found only in the Reformers, patently refusing my challenge to find it earlier,

Sorry, I didn't mean to refuse, it was a valid critique and so I've been spending some of my spare time to try to look into it before I answer you.

and answering not one point from the scholars cited,

What scholars did you reference to which I did not comment on?

Our actions infringe on that of gravitational pull.

There's no significant difference in the gravitational pull on the object. I'm just messing around here ;-)

Why are miracles of God, not God doing what we could as well do with the right resources?

Clarify for me first, is it the result or the method that makes it a miracle (concerning Christ's miracles). How about creation ex nihilo, could man achieve that with the right resources?

Ask the physicians who publish material about NDEs in professional medical journals. Perhaps you know something they don't.

Metaphysics, meaning conjecture about what lies behind an object, is not science because it can not be proven. We can hypothozise that there might be something, but we are unable to know distinctly what it is.

behind this lies a survey of 17 prominent social factors that would have killed Christianity if it lacked undeniable evidence of the Risen Jesus.

you assume would have killed it but which there could possibly be an infinite number of answers for. your's may be the most likely, but that does not make it the only valid one.

Islam had NO such run-in with its social world; the sword kept it from being wiped out,

I'll post a comment on this in a day or two.

The evidence points to it

How do you encounter the evidence?

Show us where Christ taught his disciples not to be objective.

here you are asking for a specific statement using terms that were not common to this era. Christ taught about subjective trust.

Matthew reports no such confession in his version. Try again.

Matthew 16:16-

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Is "God" one person, or three?

Both

If "God" is three persons, then is it not indeed misleading, or open to misunderstanding, to simply use God as a proper name, as though of one person?

No. He is both. In the west the oneness is emphasized, in the east the three persons are emphasized. The Lord your God is one; to say from a Christian perspective that this passage is in reference only to God the Father is to ignore that Christ was active in creation.

If "God" is three persons, why is it wrong to say that two persons (Son, Spirit) are hypostases of one (Father), ontologically equal to the one (Father)?

They are in hypostatic union, and the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son and the Father, but all are of the same substance and have the same attributes.

If the Nicean Creed does not say this, then what does it say?

That they are of the same substance, and have the same attributes, thus Christ would have been the transcendent God Himself which you denied.

[jpholding]

Um hm,

I'm living consistently by subjectively trusting what I see.

Are you? I've seen you in other threads here, Scotty. You're as much into evidential arguments as anyone else. Furthermore:

sub·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience....

Existing only in the mind; illusory.

So are you going to tell us right now that even when you sit down, you consider it possible that the chair exists only in your mind, but trust that it isn't? If you do, on what grounds do you do so? "Subjectively trusting" is an oxymoron:

trust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trst)
n. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.

Not of "your mind." This is reliance on the external world.

Not if I made a conscious choice not too.

Obviously. A conscious choice to IGNORE the problems inherent in the view. Inconsistency.

You're putting the creator on the same level as the creation, man is incapable of talking about Him in this way. Could there even be a difference between the two for God?

Just answer the question, Scotty: Does or does not God have objective experience? Yes or no? This is dodgeball again. When you answer the question, THEN we will deal with whether there can or could be a difference here.

I believe that he was, but Thomas could only know this by subjective means (sight, touch, etc).

First: Unfortunately, the dictionary does not define "subjective" as you do:

ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Your claim that sight and touch are "subjective" -- existing only in the mind -- isn't backed up by this. At best you are arbitarily declaring that the senses actually ARE subjective, but in order to say this, you need an OBJECTIVE view that is able to determine that the senses are reduced to subjectivism -- and once again your view shoots itself in the foot. Now:

If the Risen Jesus WAS objectively in the room, and all Thomas had was subjective (illusory) consciousness of this, then how do you explain the amazing coincidence of correspondence betwen what objectively happened and what was subjectively (in the mind only) perceived?

Because it is experienced subjectively and we have no proof that our subjective sense aren't being fooled.

Once again, the definition of "subjective" here is not even correct.

Because I experience objective reality through subjective senses, and you are a part of that subjective reality.

And what is your justification, again, for claiming that your senses have "subjectivized" anything, and how can you claim this, not having had an objective outsider's view to say so?

I believe it's claims, namely that this is right for everyone. But I came to that point subjectively.

Again, this form of evangelism is conscicuously missing from the NT. Questions:

Do you think Peter, Paul, James, and even Thomas believed in and/or endorsed the view that you do?

Would Thomas himself have regarded his experience with the Risen Jesus as objective or subjective?

If your answer is "no" and "objective" to these two questions, why should anyone want to adopt your subjective viewpoints, when it was not believed in by those who first preached the kerygma?

Evidence shuts the mouths of those who believe they can disprove Christianity, and is also worthwile after conversion, and is important because of what it works in us, namely confirms our faith, our faith being based on our recognition of our sinfulness through the law and our reception of forgiveness. How's that for a run-on? ;-)

It made more sense than anything you have said so far. Yes -- the main purpose of apologetics has always been to shut mouths and strengthen faith; at least, IN the Western world of individualism. Not so for the ancients. I'll stop at that, both to celebrate that you DID say something that made sense, and because to go further afield would take us into TULIP territory, which is another issue.

While I understand your intent, you're still bringing the experiences of your upbringing to your understanding of the context.

I wasn't "brought up" with the definition of pistis found in Greco-Roman works, Scotty. All of this was entirely new to me when I read it out of the sources. It made a better fit with the contexual data than the old "just shut up and believe" model.

Where you would associate evidence with science and validity, I don't see that as being a major area of preaching for them.

What did Peter appeal to in Acts 2, Scotty? What did Paul appeal to in Acts? Repent and believe was there -- tacked on to the end, of what?

The evidence does not establish something as a fact, but opens up the door for one possibility of interpretation.

I have to wonder what other "interpretation" you think was available for the ancient Mediterranean peoples in Judaism. All other "interpretations" are sorely decontextualized. The opponents of Christianity did not propose alternate "interpretations" until the Gnostics took Jesus out of Judaism and made him into a Greek mystic -- decontexualization. Thus the evidence only opens other doors if you selectively ignore evidence behind other doors with it.


What scholars did you reference to which I did not comment on?

Back in the article, deSilva and Malina and Neyrey.

There's no significant difference in the gravitational pull on the object.

Nevertheless, we work against it. But:

Clarify for me first, is it the result or the method that makes it a miracle (concerning Christ's miracles). How about creation ex nihilo, could man achieve that with the right resources?

The point I have tried to make is that it is more method. Ex nihilo is perhaps the one exception, though even there I wonder whether God drew from His infinite energy and converted it to matter (E = mc2). That would still be "ex nihilo" in a sense.

Metaphysics, meaning conjecture about what lies behind an object, is not science because it can not be proven.

As I said, talk to the physicians.

you assume would have killed it but which there could possibly be an infinite number of answers for.

Then come up with at least two for each of the 17 if you can:

http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html

with the one for Islam at the bottom, too.

How do you encounter the evidence?

Obviously through sense, which leads us back to the above.

here you are asking for a specific statement using terms that were not common to this era. Christ taught about subjective trust

I don't need terms, but the only way I see that if if you beg the question and assume that his appeal to see and touch assumed the subjective paradigm -- which, I challenge you to show specifically taught, and to explain why or how Paul, et al thought this way.

Matthew 16:16-

That's not at the time I'm referencing by the Sea of Galilee.

Both

A logical impossibility, which I know is not bothersome to you, but it is also not creedal. The oneness emphasized in the west is not of personhood but of ontological nature -- the Godhead. The Shema did not exclude hypostases; Proverbs 8 tells as much.

They are in hypostatic union, and the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son and the Father, but all are of the same substance and have the same attributes.

That is 100% in line with what I have been saying.

thus Christ would have been the transcendent God Himself which you denied.

I have not done so; I have said that "God" is not a personal name, but rather a conceptual description like "deity"; in that respect, I have said Christ is God (deity). The difference:

John is Fred.

vs

John is human.

A few more lines and maybe we'll get some juice out of you yet!

[scottatiwu]

this is starting to become more enjoyable, thank you.

Yesterday @ 11:41 PM post located here
jpholding:


Are you? I've seen you in other threads here, Scotty. You're as much into evidential arguments as anyone else.

But I argue from evidence after having made the conscious decision, which everything pivots around for me.

[i]sub·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience....

I know I have been using the word subjective out of context, but I couldn't think of a better word to refer to a sollipsistic (sorry my spelling is terrible there) standpoint. I also mean subjective to refer to the person directly first.
I would posit that if we truly let honest inquiry take it's full course, we end up only being able to have confidence in a form of sollipsism (sp again), or subjectivism. This form of subjectivism would not deny the possibility of objective truth existing, but denies our ability to know if it does for certain. We may see things we believe to be objective experiences, but because we experience them through our senses, we cannot be sure that we see what truly is.

So are you going to tell us right now that even when you sit down, you consider it possible that the chair exists only in your mind, but trust that it isn't?

Let me clarify what I mean. It is possible that the chair may only be in my mind, but I qualify that only with the possibility that all of existence might only be in my mind (ie "brain in a vat" syndrome). Thus, even the act of sitting down would be only "in my mind" if this were the case, and so I don't have to worry about the interaction between the two. I will always see cause and effect, but that doesn't mean that cause and effect is what exists, it may mean, as Hume says, that it is only what I observe.

trust ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trst)
n. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.

Here we get into doubting both the ability to know external truth, which leads to an infinite number of possibilities, and doubting the validity of histories conection with the "reality" that I observe. The second form of doubt arises from the inability to have absolute knowledge of history. Like I stated earlier, all historical assumptions are subject to a sort of "best guess" syndrome. Though we may narrow the options down, even to one single option, contradictory evidence could always turn up. Should I rest my faith in something I can't be sure of? That is not to say that evidence isn't useful before faith, but it shouldn't be the dictator of faith.

Obviously. A conscious choice to IGNORE the problems inherent in the view. Inconsistency.

I'm not ignoring the evidence per se, but basing the choice on something other than the evidence. The question thus becomes no longer "What is real?" but "What do I do?" As Christians we say over and over again "to not choose is to make a choice," and I assume we mean it... so I must make a choice. I can either choose to accept Christ's teachings and submit my life to them, or I can choose not too. There are steps that lead up to this choice, but we can discuss those later if you like.

Just answer the question, Scotty

That was my answer JP, that question cannot be answered. We have no knowledge of how God experiences the world, and I don't think it's worthwhile to try to make conjecture about it.

ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Once again, I was playing loose with the terms, sorry. Objectivity from the standpoint I am proposing carries two connotations. 1. In relation to physical existence, something which is verifiable. (You can see the obvious delima here from a sollipsistic standpoint) and 2. When someone is speaking objectively, they are speaking in much the same way as some have tried to speak about aesthetics, namely in a rationally disinterested manner. Meaning, they have no personal attachment one way or the other to the outcome of their examination of an 'object'.

Your claim that sight and touch are "subjective" -- existing only in the mind -- isn't backed up by this.

What sight and touch correspond to, their object of sensation you might call it, could very well exist in actuality, but sight and touch themselves are, or rather could possibly be (if I am to stay consistent), the stimulations of nerve cells that our brain processes.

At best you are arbitarily declaring that the senses actually ARE subjective, but in order to say this, you need an OBJECTIVE view that is able to determine that the senses are reduced to subjectivism

Logically I don't think it is neccesary to validate this, but rather I think it would be the other way around. Any material evidence is still filtered through those senses which I am claiming are subjective in the first place. Though I know this sounds circular, consider my reasoning. We would need and additional source outside our senses to validate their accurate responce to objects which actually exist. This is something we are incapable of as of yet.

If the Risen Jesus WAS objectively in the room, and all Thomas had was subjective (illusory) consciousness of this, then how do you explain the amazing coincidence of correspondence betwen what objectively happened and what was subjectively (in the mind only) perceived?

Here you might be picking and choosing the definitions from the dictionary that you would prefer to use. The objective presence of Christ is something which cannot be validated on anything other than the personal (ie "subjective" but not neccesarily illusory) testimony of Thomas, and the others who were there. However, all of this (what I read about it) is still filtered through my own personal senses.

thus Christ would have been the transcendent God Himself which you denied.

I have not done so;

You did in your original post. If you remember, that specifically was what I dubbed heretical.

As a couple last notes, I'll respond to the large chunk I cut out later on. Also, I would posit that according to the ECF's, particulary those following the Nic. Creed, the oneness emphasis is on the unity of personhood as well. Next week I could probably post a few quotes, but right now I'm in the middle of mid. term week. Also, just as a heads up; since most reformation theology came out of the Augustinian tradition, thats most likely where I will reference to for things such as faith being above reason. The faith seeking understating paradigm is really what that concept grew out of. You can go ahead and reply to this now if you'd like though.

[jpholding]

Well now,

But I argue from evidence after having made the conscious decision, which everything pivots around for me.

Is this not contrary to the spirit of use of evidence? If I read this right, you have decided in advance what the truth is based on. And thus you are vulnerable to the charge that the theory is held supreme to the facts -- which is exactly what Mormons, atheists, and others do regularly. Which leads again to the same question: Can you really tell us why to prefer your view over theirs?

I also mean subjective to refer to the person directly first.

Can you find me a single word that expresses this? Is this it?

sol·ip·sism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy 1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.

This form of subjectivism would not deny the possibility of objective truth existing, but denies our ability to know if it does for certain.

Very well, then, in this light going through the questions I asked.

Let me clarify what I mean. It is possible that the chair may only be in my mind, but I qualify that only with the possibility that all of existence might only be in my mind (ie "brain in a vat" syndrome).

Do you really think God would create such an existence for us?

Do you think this type of thinking would have been received by Paul, Peter, and James?

Here we get into doubting both the ability to know external truth, which leads to an infinite number of possibilities, and doubting the validity of histories conection with the "reality" that I observe. The second form of doubt arises from the inability to have absolute knowledge of history

In response to the first, I ask the same questions as before. For the second it is a given that we just don't have thorough knowledge, but I do not see that historians have thrown up their hands in despair of this, or reached conclusions that i.e., Julius Caesar may have been a Venusian. That sort of thing only gets published well outside the range of peer review! Moreover:

Like I stated earlier, all historical assumptions are subject to a sort of "best guess" syndrome. Though we may narrow the options down, even to one single option, contradictory evidence could always turn up.

If this is so then the conclusion must be that historians should just become janitors, since they will never have definitive knowledge. Again, too, how will you respond to Mormons for example who use the same reasoning against observations that nothing in North American archaeology supports the Book of Mormon? Heck! I just had one say exactly this about the fact that extant documents from the patristic era do not support their interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:29. It sounds like you have yet to find anything you can be "sure of" that can't be said to be "sure" for someone with an opposing viewpoint.

That was my answer JP, that question cannot be answered. We have no knowledge of how God experiences the world, and I don't think it's worthwhile to try to make conjecture about it.

I still call this a dodgeball. Rather than play sports, I'll put it this way:

1) If God can see objectively, then why can't we? If you say "omniscience" then it is epistemically a given that range of knowledge permits objective observation by us to a given extent.

2) If God only sees subjectively, then how does He know there is not a greater God than He is that He doesn't know about? Could what He sees "correspond to" what "could very well exist in actuality," but could it also be "the stimulations of his 'nerve cells' (the divine equivalent thereof) that His 'brain' processes"?

Logically I don't think it is neccesary to validate this,

I think you are dodging to say so. But consistently, since logic itself may just be the result of brain processes....

We would need and additional source outside our senses to validate their accurate responce to objects which actually exist. This is something we are incapable of as of yet.

It is indeed circular. And I do not see that you got out of the circle at all.

Here you might be picking and choosing the definitions from the dictionary that you would prefer to use.

It was all the dictionary had that was relevant. But you didn't answer my question about the correspondence, which still applies. I gather from what you said above that it is possible that Thomas' view correponded to objective reality; so wouldn't this mean we'd have to beg the question to say that it didn't? Don't we need a real reason to suggest why it didn't? John Allegro suggested mushrooms...

You did in your original post. If you remember, that specifically was what I dubbed heretical.

Only in the sense of "God" defined as a person, not as a property.

We'll see what you come up with otherwise....

[scottatiwu]

Do you think Peter, Paul, James, and even Thomas believed in and/or endorsed the view that you do?

I don't think they would have been thinking in these sorts of terms. This way of thinking has developed in reaction to modern philosophy and theology, and the NT was obviously formed in a pre-modern area. Postmodern theology, as best I understand it, is in some ways an attempt to regain what we lost by discarding the premodern mindset while not forgetting the modern mindset which we have progressed through.

why should anyone want to adopt your subjective viewpoints, when it was not believed in by those who first preached the kerygma?

Because they preached the message within a certain context, but because of the shift in context between then and now, certain aspects of that shift should be accounted for in order to allow the Gospel to have it's full effect. Ultimately they were primarily concerned with conviction under the law, forgiveness through Christ, and the hope of the ressurection.

I wasn't "brought up" with the definition of pistis found in Greco-Roman works, Scotty. All of this was entirely new to me when I read it out of the sources. It made a better fit with the contexual data than the old "just shut up and believe" model.

You're right, but the lens through which you interpret the contextual meaning of pistis is something you have grown up in. When it comes down to it, you still carry with you the modern mindset, something which developed primarily in the 17th and 18th centuries and has dominated western thinking even up until this century. Your experiences are your lens. And, just as a small note, I don't endorse a "shut up and believe" model, but the reasons for risking faith are much more personal.

What did Peter appeal to in Acts 2, Scotty? What did Paul appeal to in Acts? Repent and believe was there -- tacked on to the end, of what?

The gospel message, Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. These things he was a witness to, personally.

though even there I wonder whether God drew from His infinite energy and converted it to matter (E = mc2). That would still be "ex nihilo" in a sense.

Eww... I'd be careful with that. We can quantify energy, so in a sense it's "tangible" and thus a part of creation. I'm not trying to jump on you, but that has a certain taint of "new age" religion to it.

but the only way I see that if if you beg the question and assume that his appeal to see and touch assumed the subjective paradigm -- which, I challenge you to show specifically taught, and to explain why or how Paul, et al thought this way.

It doesn't need to be taught in order to be true. Touch and sight are specifically personal functions. I'm not saying that everyone doesn't feel and see the same thing, but that we have no verifiable way of knowing wether they do or not.

Matthew 16:16-
That's not at the time I'm referencing by the Sea of Galilee.

I'm saying that it's possible that what is seperated in Matthew as two distinct incidents may, to suit a different purpose John had in mind, be combined in John's gospel.

The Shema did not exclude hypostases; Proverbs 8 tells as much.

Very true, it would infact include Christ and the Spirit if we are to be consistent in our theology, but hear the words of the shema. "Hear oh Israel, the Lordyour God is one." If we believe it is refering to the whole of God, what do we say to the fact that it has referenced to Him personally as one being or person.

[scottatiwu]

Yesterday @ 03:49 PM post located here
jpholding:

Is this not contrary to the spirit of use of evidence?

Yes and no. My faith is based on something other than historical evidence; however, I engage in evidential debates because I think it is entertaining for one, and for two being solipsistic doesn't mean that I immediately cease to think critically, I'm just aknowledging my inability to have a complete grasp of the data. And furthermore, if I invest my faith in God who's word is in the scripture, thus making the scripture the "rule for life," then I should do my best to understand how God wills for me to apply that rule.

Which leads again to the same question: Can you really tell us why to prefer your view over theirs?

Because they do not offer what Christ offers. I'll get more into detail on this this weekend hopefully, when papers and tests are out of the way.

sol·ip·sism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy 1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.

That's the one I was mispelling.

Do you really think God would create such an existence for us?

I doubt it, but understand that this is the view point which does not presuppose God. It's Cartesian taken to an extreme. Where Descartes said "God wouldn't fool me, though a demon might be," I'm not presupposing God first. I devote my life to God within the context of the this viewpoint.

Do you think this type of thinking would have been received by Paul, Peter, and James?

I don't think this would have been a concern for them.

In response to the first, I ask the same questions as before. For the second it is a given that we just don't have thorough knowledge, but I do not see that historians have thrown up their hands in despair of this,

Certainly not in relationship to their scholarly field, but they aren't exactly concerned with the same questions either. They're staking their reputations, where as we are concerned with staking your eternal soul.

It sounds like you have yet to find anything you can be "sure of" that can't be said to be "sure" for someone with an opposing viewpoint.

You are right in one sense, people can take my position and use it to justify other religious choices, and infact many do in our pluralistic society. But, as we have the charge to go and make disciples, it is up to us to display to them that they are not being honest with themselves and that their conclusions are incomplete.

1) If God can see objectively, then why can't we?

I'm not saying we don't, I'm saying we can't know whether we do or not. I'm still trying to avoid getting to close to making some statement about how God actually sees, because seeing seems to be such an inadequate expression to use when talking about God.

2) If God only sees subjectively, then how does He know there is not a greater God than He is that He doesn't know about? Could what He sees "correspond to" what "could very well exist in actuality," but could it also be "the stimulations of his 'nerve cells' (the divine equivalent thereof) that His 'brain' processes"?

A very interesting question, however, you're still dealing with a created paradigm and trying to apply it to the creator. Bigger/smaller, brain, stimulations. We have no way of knowing if these are accurate ways of describing God.

It is indeed circular. And I do not see that you got out of the circle at all.

It is circular, but the problem itself is circular. How do you validate something which could possibly be faulty using that very thing which you're calling into question without using any other sort of attainable information? Basically I'm saying that you can't pull your two eyes out and have a look at them.

It was all the dictionary had that was relevant. But you didn't answer my question about the correspondence, which still applies. I gather from what you said above that it is possible that Thomas' view correponded to objective reality; so wouldn't this mean we'd have to beg the question to say that it didn't?

I'm not saying it didn't, I'm saying it might not have, and we can't prove that either way.

Until next time,
God bless.

[jpholding]

Hmmm...

I don't think they would have been thinking in these sorts of terms. This way of thinking has developed in reaction to modern philosophy and theology, and the NT was obviously formed in a pre-modern area.

Then what does this say about it, in light of your claim that I read modern views into pistis?

Because they preached the message within a certain context, but because of the shift in context between then and now, certain aspects of that shift should be accounted for in order to allow the Gospel to have it's full effect.

Read what you said here carefully. You're saying that things "really" were as we see them now, but God let that slide so that more people in essence would be "fooled" into salvation. Is God into this sort of trickery?

Even more poignant...this plays havoc with judgment. If we can't be objectively sure of what we sense, this leaves the door open for people who reject the Gospel and can't help it, because their senses incorrectly filtered a message. You have to either hypothesize that God unjustly lets this happen, or else the Spirit ensures that we get an objective, clear view to make a decision (which I could live with as a thesis, but that also takes away your argument about Thomas, et al.).

You're right, but the lens through which you interpret the contextual meaning of pistis is something you have grown up in.

I didn't grow up in it. And the scholars who agree still hang like an albatross on your position unless you can deal with them. I honestly don't think you can. deSilva, et al are specialists in the anthropoology of the NT era. I wonder if you'd like to claim that their "experience" is their "lens" as opposed to their decades of research. I should warn you that Malina and Neyrey at least have no interest in apologetics.

The gospel message, Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. These things he was a witness to, personally.

As well as the miracles and his fulfillment of OT prophecies -- things claimed to be open to objective reception.

Eww... I'd be careful with that. We can quantify energy, so in a sense it's "tangible" and thus a part of creation. I'm not trying to jump on you, but that has a certain taint of "new age" religion to it.

Which one? The New Age religions I know would never accept such a premise which separates God from the creation.

t doesn't need to be taught in order to be true. Touch and sight are specifically personal functions.

That it is not taught nevertheless leads to problems. The appeals to the Risen Jesus, miracles, and prophecy all relied uponj a presumption that these were truths that anyone could objectively access and verify for themselves. If they believed as you did, such appeals would have been pointless.

I'm saying that it's possible that what is seperated in Matthew as two distinct incidents may, to suit a different purpose John had in mind, be combined in John's gospel.

The distance between Matt. 16 and Matt. 3-4 is rather great for that. They're also set in entirely different geographic settings. This is too great of a stretch to accept.

Very true, it would infact include Christ and the Spirit if we are to be consistent in our theology, but hear the words of the shema. "Hear oh Israel, the Lordyour God is one." If we believe it is refering to the whole of God, what do we say to the fact that it has referenced to Him personally as one being or
person.

The Trinity is usually described as three persons in one being, Scotty. Being and person are not taken as synonyms. The Shema says "one" but it does not say "one person"; that is a mistake Unitarians make. I am at a terminal where I cannot check a dictionary easily but if you check I think you'll find the words are not supposed to be synonyms (though they may be improperly so used in popular discourse).

I'm just aknowledging my inability to have a complete grasp of the data.

Then it is not solipsism you're dealing in but rather inability to cover the full range of objective observations. Which in turn means there is no reason objectivity cannot be the rule abd be sufficient. I wanted an answer to my question about how to answer Mormons on i.e., archaeology. Do you have one?

Because they do not offer what Christ offers.

They certainly claim to do so. Therefore...?

I doubt it, but understand that this is the view point which does not presuppose God. It's Cartesian taken to an extreme. Where Descartes said "God wouldn't fool me, though a demon might be," I'm not presupposing God first. I devote my life to God within the context of the this viewpoint.

Then let's put it this way. Suppose God does not really exist, or is unconscious like the Hindus say, and the demons do and want to fool you. How do you know that's not the case?

Certainly not in relationship to their scholarly field, but they aren't exactly concerned with the same questions either. They're staking their reputations, where as we are concerned with staking your eternal soul.

That's merely ad hominem, albeit a gentle one. I think you need to do better than that and actually answer the question.

But, as we have the charge to go and make disciples, it is up to us to display to them that they are not being honest with themselves and that their conclusions are incomplete.

In other words, we have to appeal to what they should be objectively considering. If not, then how can they help themselves out of their solipsism, which as you say, they may not even be aware they are trapped in? Your position ultimately backs itself against a wall.

close to making some statement about how God actually sees, because seeing seems to be such an inadequate expression to use when talking about God.

Why? The Bible refers to God looking and seeing using the same words for humans doing it.

A very interesting question, however, you're still dealing with a created paradigm and trying to apply it to the creator.

And you are assuming that the gulf is so vast merely based on the juxtaposition. Be careful here. Atheists use the same reasoning to claim that propositional revelation is an absurdity.

It is circular, but the problem itself is circular.

Thus, is assuming that a problem exists in the first place.

Sayonara for now.

[scottatiwu]

[QUOTE]Today @ 03:34 PM post located here
jpholding:

Read what you said here carefully. You're saying that things "really" were as we see them now,

Here I'm referring to the mindset which people used to interpret reality, I'm not making a statement about that mindset's validity.

but God let that slide so that more people in essence would be "fooled" into salvation.

I don't quite get what you mean here. I'm supposing that God intends to meet people where they are at.

this leaves the door open for people who reject the Gospel and can't help it, because their senses incorrectly filtered a message.
You have to either hypothesize that God unjustly lets this happen, or else the Spirit ensures that we get an objective, clear view to make a decision (which I could live with as a thesis, but that also takes away your argument about Thomas, et al.).

If we suppose that God created a thousand individual realities, would God not desire to reach each one within the context of that reality? I still don't believe an 'objective, clear' understanding is necessary for faith.

I didn't grow up in it.

You didn't grow up in the modern scientific era?

And the scholars who agree still hang like an albatross on your position unless you can deal with them.

Maybe, but on the one hand I'm dealing with seperate issues before I come to face them that are significant in relation to applying them. On the other hand, if I can demonstrate that the ECF's are on my side as far as the idea of faith being above reason is concerned, then I would I assume that mine would be the heavier argument.

I wonder if you'd like to claim that their "experience" is their "lens" as opposed to their decades of research.

It is, that is true of every human being.

As well as the miracles and his fulfillment of OT prophecies -- things claimed to be open to objective reception.

Things based on personal testimony and vague interpretations. That's not to mean that Christ didn't fulfill the prophecies, but I don't know if anyone can convincingly argue that the fulfillment was particularly obvious in the majority of these prophecies.

Which one? The New Age religions I know would never accept such a premise which separates God from the creation.

That's the point I was making, that you weren't thoroughly seperating the two.

That it is not taught nevertheless leads to problems. The appeals to the Risen Jesus, miracles, and prophecy all relied uponj a presumption that these were truths that anyone could objectively access and verify for themselves. If they believed as you did, such appeals would have been pointless.

I'm not convinced of the connection. Of course, appeals were made to the events which occured, but always on the basis of personal testimony. "This which we have seen and heard and now preach to you,"

The distance between Matt. 16 and Matt. 3-4 is rather great for that.

Do you mean within the literary length of the book itself? Is this a sufficent standard when the chronological order appears to vary from gospel to gospel?

They're also set in entirely different geographic settings. This is too great of a stretch to accept.

But how does that affect the intent of the passage?

The Trinity is usually described as three persons in one being, Scotty. Being and person are not taken as synonyms. The Shema says "one" but it does not say "one person"; that is a mistake Unitarians make.

But it refers to this one being personally, and we've already clarified the fact that this was how the Hebrews thought of God.

Then it is not solipsism you're dealing in but rather inability to cover the full range of objective observations.

Not here, you're right, but in the first form of doubt I mentioned, the ability to know the external, is solipsism.

Which in turn means there is no reason objectivity cannot be the rule abd be sufficient.

Not for matters of science and history because both accept this problem, but for matters of eternal life, objective examination can't cover all the bases that it would need to.

I wanted an answer to my question about how to answer Mormons on i.e., archaeology. Do you have one?

No, I'm not a historian, but I also don't need an answer from archaeology, because I assume ahead of time that the answer can not be proven fully one way or the other. I'm not concerned in engaging them in a discussion of history, but a discussion of theology. They desire to attach themselves to the apostolic church, but I know that they are incapable of doing so.

They certainly claim to do so. Therefore...?

That's a level I can engage them on, but is beyond the scope of this thread.

Then let's put it this way. Suppose God does not really exist, or is unconscious like the Hindus say, and the demons do and want to fool you. How do you know that's not the case?

Objectively, I don't, but by faith I do. Furthermore, the real question is, would I still continue to live this way, even if that appeared to be the most likely answer?

That's merely ad hominem, albeit a gentle one. I think you need to do better than that and actually answer the question.

I'm sorry, I did not intend for it to be so, but it is the difference between two fields of study. They are concerned with the realm of history, where as the issues I raise belong to the realm of human choice. And, like I said, I'll post something on the ECF's sometime tommorow hopefully.

In other words, we have to appeal to what they should be objectively considering.

Not objectively, but subjectively.

If not, then how can they help themselves out of their solipsism, which as you say, they may not even be aware they are trapped in? Your position ultimately backs itself against a wall.

By asking the question, ok, you can know nothing, what do you do now? That is where the real debate, and ultimately the use of the law and the work of the Holy Spirit intervene.

Why? The Bible refers to God looking and seeing using the same words for humans doing it.

But is the Bible speaking literaly or metaphorically here?

And you are assuming that the gulf is so vast merely based on the juxtaposition.

I'm assuming that because the gulf exists, then we are unable to get a definative idea of what is on the other side if we are not there.

Thus, is assuming that a problem exists in the first place.

Sayonara for now.

The problem is the question. How can I know that I can trust my senses for certain?

[jpholding]

Hmmm. Deeper and deeper into the morass, it seems...

I don't quite get what you mean here. I'm supposing that God intends to meet people where they are at. If we suppose that God created a thousand individual realities, would God not desire to reach each one within the context of that reality?

And in the process, bring forth what would of necessity be contradictory views of Himself, or unreal ones? Thus meaning He has to lie about what is objectively true? Note that this is not the same as Paul's being all things to all men. That involves not changes in reality, but accomodations to behavior -- eating waht your host eats, dressing as your host dresses, observing your host's rules. It does not involve pretending you are Frank Sinatra if your host wants to meet Frank Sinatra.

Moreover I still see no answer to the point that 500+ people saw a Risen Jesus as the same reality, which seems a remarkable coincidence if they each had an individual reality.

I still don't believe an 'objective, clear' understanding is necessary for faith.

It isn't. But it is necessary to maintaining a belief system that is consistent and defensible. Some people survive cognitive dissonance well, Scotty. You are one; Clark Pinnock is another. But you and Clark are a danger -- yes, I affirm this -- to those who cannot.

You didn't grow up in the modern scientific era?

I didn'y grow up having its precepts put into me.

On the other hand, if I can demonstrate that the ECF's are on my side as far as the idea of faith being above reason is concerned, then I would I assume that mine would be the heavier argument.

I will want to check context carefully here; remember the issue is more whether faith (pistis) is grounded to begin in evidence. They may say it is "above reason" in the sense that an outside observer would consider their loyalty to YHWH "unreasonable" in light of i.e., persecution (and with an assumption that their Christian religion is false).

It is, that is true of every human being.

You merely say so; this does not make it so at all...and we have been down that road.

Things based on personal testimony and vague interpretations.

The former, which you merely declare subjective. The latter, not vague at all, and very obvious (just not as "swpectaculr" as popular lit claims), by the exegetical principles of the day...surely you do not stand with Paine on this issue.

That's the point I was making, that you weren't thoroughly seperating the two.

I would see the energy as completely separated from God in terms of ontology.

I'm not convinced of the connection. Of course, appeals were made to the events which occured, but always on the basis of personal testimony. "This which we have seen and heard and now preach to you,"

And which they always took to be objective. Doesn't their very act of appeal in this fashion suggest that they had no conception of "individual realities" that would place their testimony in doubt?

Do you mean within the literary length of the book itself?

Not just length but context. I don't see that the order ever varies that greatly.

But how does that affect the intent of the passage?

No such intent as found in Matt 16 is present in the earlier passage.

But it refers to this one being personally, and we've already clarified the fact that this was how the Hebrews thought of God.

Once again you simply mix the two terms as though synonymous. You need to check the dictionary on this. Using the two words as synonyms is a recent innovation.

Not for matters of science and history because both accept this problem, but for matters of eternal life, objective examination can't cover all the bases that it would need to.

I don't see why not, and this merely begs the question of the problem existing, yet again. This thesis is suspiciously unfalsifiable.

I'm not concerned in engaging them in a discussion of history, but a discussion of theology. They desire to attach themselves to the apostolic church, but I know that they are incapable of doing so.

And this is turn merely contrives an explanation. It also ranges into TULIP, so as before...but in turn, it still is not an actual answer to my question. What your "concerns" are does not comprise an answer.

Objectively, I don't, but by faith I do. Furthermore, the real question is, would I still continue to live this way, even if that appeared to be the most likely answer?

In short, would you continue to prefer to live under a false illusion? Yes, this is epistemic disaster in the making.

I'm sorry, I did not intend for it to be so, but it is the difference between two fields of study. They are concerned with the realm of history, where as the issues I raise belong to the realm of human choice.

Once again, assuming (not proving) the chasm between the two...

By asking the question, ok, you can know nothing, what do you do now? That is where the real debate, and ultimately the use of the law and the work of the Holy Spirit intervene.

If you can know nothing, then you can also not know the law or the work of the Holy Spirit. The position remains against the wall in a room that is 1 foot by 1 foot with no doors.

But is the Bible speaking literaly or metaphorically here?

What would "I see/hear" be a metaphor FOR?

The problem is the question. How can I know that I can trust my senses for certain?

And in close -- the problem is merely assumed. Since the position is on a circlular track with no exit, it goes no further and cannot be falsified.

[scottatiwu]

Today @ 04:39 PM post located here
jpholding:

And in the process, bring forth what would of necessity be contradictory views of Himself, or unreal ones?

The law of non-contradiction wouldn't apply if you are dealing with seperate realities. What we know of God here is what He has chosen to reveal of Himself, but we know from Church tradition that God is "incomprehensible."

Moreover I still see no answer to the point that 500+ people saw a Risen Jesus as the same reality, which seems a remarkable coincidence if they each had an individual reality.

Like Doc in Back to the Future said, "Your not thinking fourth-demensionally," Though I believe as you do, that He did appear, if you take this sort of solipsistic philisophical thinking to it's end, then "...those Indians won't even be there." Or, in other words, those 500 people could have been simply a product of that reality, and furthemore we're recieving this statement from the mouth of one man who is claiming the existence of 500 others. Though the early church could have, we cannot go interview these 500 people. Thus, the argument doesn't carry the same weight now that it did then.

It isn't. But it is necessary to maintaining a belief system that is consistent and defensible.

Is it neccesary or is it just helpful? If we did not come to faith based on these evidences, why are they neccesary to maintain it? Wouldn't the daily exercise of faith be enough, resulting in certain events which could be used in a personal testimony? People saw the risen Jesus, yes, but how is there experience an less subject to the delima which you propose mine is subject to, namely, what if it was a devil of some sort?

I didn'y grow up having its precepts put into me.

How did you avoid this?

I will want to check context carefully here; remember the issue is more whether faith (pistis) is grounded to begin in evidence. They may say it is "above reason" in the sense that an outside observer would consider their loyalty to YHWH "unreasonable" in light of i.e., persecution (and with an assumption that their Christian religion is false).

I see your point, but don't worry, that's not the direction I'm going.

You merely say so; this does not make it so at all...and we have been down that road.

Unless you hold an entirely rationalistic model of learning over and against an empirical model, then this is the conclusion that I think must be drawn.

The former, which you merely declare subjective. The latter, not vague at all, and very obvious (just not as "swpectaculr" as popular lit claims), by the exegetical principles of the day...

Obviously it was a common practice in that day. Like I stated on another thread, you don't have to look any farther than the Essenes to see this, but that does not make the practice a step by step systematic interpretation process. Interpretations were still vague, wether it was common for them to be so or not.

surely you do not stand with Paine on this issue.

That's the point I was making, that you weren't thoroughly seperating the two.

I would see the energy as completely separated from God in terms of ontology.

And which they always took to be objective.

You assume so anyway, but this is never explicity stated.

Doesn't their very act of appeal in this fashion suggest that they had no conception of "individual realities" that would place their testimony in doubt?

I'm still not stating that they would have had too. My statement about individual realities was presented more to make a point than to demonstrate what I actually believe occurs.

This thesis is suspiciously unfalsifiable.

You know, I never quite understood why unfalsifiablity was a logical fallacy. Sure it can't be argued against, but does that make it untrue?

Once again, assuming (not proving) the chasm between the two...

They're two seperate issues.

If you can know nothing, then you can also not know the law or the work of the Holy Spirit.

You can interact with your experience of it. Here the Spirit intervenes.

What would "I see/hear" be a metaphor FOR?

His "experience" of reality. A better word would have been anthropomorphically perhaps.

And in close -- the problem is merely assumed. Since the position is on a circlular track with no exit, it goes no further and cannot be falsified.

Which is exactly why it has to be accounted for and not discarded.

[scottatiwu]

As it turns out, this will only be a short post until I have time to devote to further study. Rather than developing a paper, I'll put out a few quotes which I believe to fit the context of our discussion which are in favor of the idea that faith is above reason and make a few brief comments.

Augustine-

Obviously, the vast majority of Reformation theology centered on the works Augustine and his interpretations of scripture. Luther was an Augustinian monk, and Calvin's formulations of predestination (not high-calvinism, which was really a later development) were an extension of Augustines' conclusions. In Augustines treatise on Faith and the Creeds, he states this in his opening chapter:

"Unless ye believe, ye shall not understand."

Though this statement is not made in direct relation to connection between faith and reason, it is made in relation to the fact that the core tenets of Christianity are incomprehensible unless one already believes them. Thus they can not be proved prior to the existence of faith. Augustine develops his conception of the relation between reason and faith based on his understanding of the fall and total depravity. Because of the fall, the image of God in man is obliterated, and reason is a part of that image. Not that man no longer has the capacity to reason, but that his reason is marred. Because of this, man's reason is unable to reach knowledge of God, so knowledge of God can only come from revelation. Revelation thus being higher than reason, does not seek it's justification in reason, and of course, all revelation is most fully expressed in Christ. It is by Christ that we know the Father, this being why Christ is The Word.

Anselm-

Anselm was most famous for his version of the ontological argument, but, contrary to what many might believe, this argument was not intended as a basis for faith, but an assistant to faith. In comes down to the fact that in the early church, faith was not brought about through reason but through the "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit." After faith had been accepted, reality could be percieved as being in reasonable congruence with Christianity, but this only assisted the believer in seeing God in their life, not in providing a substitute basis for faith apart from the inner testimony. So, in his Proslogion, the book in which he outlines the ontological argument, Anselm states:

"I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this I also believe- that unless I believed, I should not understand."

Tertullian-

Oftenly mistaken as a complete irrationalist and fidest, Tertullian actually may have been appealing to Aristotle's maxim that some stories are so unlikely that they must be held as true.(www.tertullian.org/articles/sider_credo.htm) This is where Kierkegaard most likely wanted to take us when he stated that Abraham believed on the strength of the absurd. Tertullian did however oppose the invasion of philisopical explanations of Christian core beliefes.

"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"
from "De Praescrptone Haereticorum"

"The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed--because it is shameful.
The Son of God died: it is immediately credible--because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain--because it is impossible. "
(often quoted as- "I believe because it is absurd.")
from "De Carne Christi"

Aquinas- (obviously not an early church father, but yet he is pre-reformation and I thought this particular statement was worth noting considering his extensive work invovling metaphysics and arguments for the existence of God.)

And finally... though most would hail him as the champion of reason in this debate, Aquinas actually addresses the subject in his writings on Ephesians. Though Aquinas believed that certain issues of general revelation could be understood through the use of human reason, he claifies the issue by stating that objective reason is insufficient for faith. He states that faith involves the will and reason does not persuade the will. Thus here he states:

"...the contents of faith are above reason."

Following the example of those who came before him, Aquinas presents his arguments for the existence of God as things which can assist in defending the faith against attack, but are not of themselves able to establish faith, and ultimately are for the benefit of the Christian.

A few last notes:
Though the testimony of these few saints and fathers are relevant to our issue, I don't consider the arguments for the existence of God by and large very useful for apologetics. They are useful in helping a Christian to coherently understand some of the implications of faith, but otherwise can be inconclusive and even circular at times.
Also, this will be my last post on here for a while. I've taken more time than I would have liked away from my studies and time with my fiance' on here. So, if you'd like JP, we could continue the discussion by email where it isn't so imperative that we answer each other quickly. Let me know if you'd like too. My email address is: scott-smith@wildcat.indwes.edu.

[Dee Dee Warren]

FYI - it is not imperative that anyone answer each other quickly here Scott. I take sometimes huge amounts of times to respond to things, I just state that upfront .

[scottatiwu]

I know, I just feel as if I have to answer otherwise it'll look like I'm stuck.

[jpholding]

Hmmm,

What we know of God here is what He has chosen to reveal of Himself, but we know from Church tradition that God is "incomprehensible."

It seems to be that this "tradition" was just an excuse for those who found an issue personally incomprehensible, but wanted to continue believing. I see nothing in Jewish thought that regards God as "incomprehensible" if by that it is meant, there are things about God we cannot understand.

Or, in other words, those 500 people could have been simply a product of that reality,

That seems remarkably convenient for the solipsistic thesis! All 500 just happen to conform to the same reality?

and furthemore we're recieving this statement from the mouth of one man who is claiming the existence of 500 others

And why is this a problem?

Though the early church could have, we cannot go interview these 500 people. Thus, the argument doesn't carry the same weight now that it did then.

I cannot agree. It is only the presupposition of change (which is unevidenced) that claims this. The effect of Christian growth in its environment is such that the 500 witnesses are necessary to explain the movement's survival.

Is it neccesary or is it just helpful? If we did not come to faith based on these evidences, why are they neccesary to maintain it?

For many it may not be -- but for the same person, what they have as "faith" is weak, watered-down, and does not engage them in the richness of life and understanding that those in the first century gloried in. It is not necessary for us to exercise to live, but you'll be a lot happier, healthier, and more efficient.

People saw the risen Jesus, yes, but how is there experience an less subject to the delima which you propose mine is subject to, namely, what if it was a devil of some sort?

Because the ministry of Jesus was a much longer process with much more data, requiring an unwieldy thesis of an elaborate, counter-productive effort by Satan. Whereas, all you have is a single-dimensional aspect of subjective experience.

How did you avoid this?

People at my house had better things to do, I suppose.

ssenes to see this, but that does not make the practice a step by step systematic interpretation process. Interpretations were still vague,

I fail to see how. The system looks very systematic to me. There were rules in place. I see no vagueness to speak of.

You know, I never quite understood why unfalsifiablity was a logical fallacy. Sure it can't be argued against, but does that make it untrue?

It is not so much that it is a fallacy, I am saying, as much as that it is worthless. It is like the New Ager who claims that the NT texts were tampered with, and when asked for evidence of this, claims that as part of the tampering process, all evidence of the change was also destroyed. A theory that requires constant explanations, that modifies the theory to fit the data, is one that is too convenient. Why should we accept a completely untestable hypothesis that does this? Would you accept the New Ager's reasoning?

You can interact with your experience of it. Here the Spirit intervenes.

That still does not explain how you know you are interacting with the "Real Thing" to begin with.

His "experience" of reality.

But what IS that experience and why should we think it is not the sort of seeing and hearing we know?

Now as to these quotes. I won't accept Anselm and Aquanas here....no offense, but they are much too late to tell us anything about the meaning of pistis in the Greco-Roman world.

Augustine is almost too far, but I'll interact with that anyway. It does not, as you note, mention faith at all, so I also question its relevance.

"Unless ye believe, ye shall not understand."

The interesting thing here is that this is a quote of Is. 7:9, which is itself an appeal to Ahaz to remain loyal to YHWH in the face of oppression, which is followed upon by an offering of a sign (7:14) so that Ahaz WILL act. So Is. 7:9 fits in with what I have shown pistis to mean, a trust or loyalty based on performance-evidence.

Though this statement is not made in direct relation to connection between faith and reason, it is made in relation to the fact that the core tenets of Christianity are incomprehensible unless one already believes them.

The core tenets? The only issue he mentions in relation to this is, "But if all things were made by Him, understand that He was not Himself made."

Because of the fall, the image of God in man is obliterated, and reason is a part of that image.

This is manifestly incorrect. The language of the "image" means we are God's representatives and stewards on earth and has nothing to do with ability to reason. If this is Augustine's foundation then he is wrong from the beginning.


Tertullian-

He's close enough to take seriously here, but he says not a word about pistis. However, I wonder if his statement might not reflect a form of argument of the sort I made in the article I gave you a link to (The Impossible Faith).

Also, this will be my last post on here for a while. I've taken more time than I would have liked away from my studies and time with my fiance' on here. So, if you'd like JP, we could continue the discussion by email where it isn't so imperative that we answer each other quickly

No worries. Reply here anytime. I have plenty of other threads to deal with and I do have the unfair advantage of doing this full time. But given the time I do have, I'd rather not do it by email; other people can learn as well.

[scottatiwu]

I couldn't resist a quick responce

Today @ 07:02 PM post located here
jpholding:

That seems remarkably convenient for the solipsistic thesis! All 500 just happen to conform to the same reality?

It is convienent, but it also consistent. All 500 are a part of the reality which you correspond with, thus, you cannot be sure they exist in the same way you do. (In other words, we could all be schizo and not know it. *Obviously this isn't what I really mean, but it gives you an understanding of the direction I'm going.)

And why is this a problem?

Because we have all 500 singled into and through the mouth of one man, thus we only have one testimony in our present age because we cannot go interact with these other people.

I cannot agree. It is only the presupposition of change (which is unevidenced) that claims this.

The change is this, they're dead now and left nothing behind for us to engage with, and even if they had it would lack the impact today that it had then because of this seperation of time and death.

The effect of Christian growth in its environment is such that the 500 witnesses are necessary to explain the movement's survival.

There is no reason to believe than any historic event is exactly one to one cause and effect.

For many it may not be -- but for the same person, what they have as "faith" is weak, watered-down, and does not engage them in the richness of life and understanding that those in the first century gloried in.

My personal faith has grown tremendously sense I began to understand it in this light, when I really asked myself why I believed.

It is not necessary for us to exercise to live, but you'll be a lot happier, healthier, and more efficient.

I don't mean this to be an attack, so forgive it's rough sound, but do you then propose that a simple man who has no comprehension of these things but relies on God and trusts in Him fully, enough to put anyone else to shame, somehow has a less satisfing spiritual life than someone who's taken the half-hour neccesary to read through one of Lee Strobel's books?

Because the ministry of Jesus was a much longer process with much more data, requiring an unwieldy thesis of an elaborate, counter-productive effort by Satan. Whereas, all you have is a single-dimensional aspect of subjective experience.

Not that I would ever suggest that the works of Christ were of the devil, but if both paths call us to trust more fully in God through Christ, how is mine more subject to this possiblity? Does the angel of darkness not appear as an angel of light? All human beings by neccesity work through a single-dimensional aspect on which all other dimensional interaction is dependant.

How did you avoid this?

People at my house had better things to do, I suppose.

I fail to see how. The system looks very systematic to me. There were rules in place. I see no vagueness to speak of.

And yet there were any number of different interpretations provided on a single passage dependant on a specific point in time in which the passage was being read, not on it's original meaning. Not to "poison the well," but if you accept this, how can you enforce a literal interpretation of the meaning of the word pistis?

It is not so much that it is a fallacy, I am saying, as much as that it is worthless. It is like the New Ager who claims that the NT texts were tampered with, and when asked for evidence of this, claims that as part of the tampering process, all evidence of the change was also destroyed.

It is silly if they claim it, and it would be silly if I asserted that our senses by default are fooling us. But that's not what I am saying. I'm suggesting that they could be fooling us, and that by neccesity unless you believe all knowledge is imparted to a human being at conception or birth, then all you know is known in direct relation to these senses. I'm not making any leap, and I'm not attempting to change the argument to adjust to criticism, I'm simply doubting everything and finding that there is no immovable rock within my capacity to reason.

Would you accept the New Ager's reasoning?

How would you refute their attack upon your evidence? I would circumvent the issue by making it a non-issue.

That still does not explain how you know you are interacting with the "Real Thing" to begin with.

You are interacting with what you experience regardless of it's external actuality. For a contemporary spin on the issue, could a person live a valid human life in The Matrix without being unplugged?

But what IS that experience and why should we think it is not the sort of seeing and hearing we know?

I know I've gotten into the bad habit of answering questions with questions, but clarify this for me; what do we know about seeing and hearing?

Now as to these quotes. I won't accept Anselm and Aquanas here....no offense, but they are much too late to tell us anything about the meaning of pistis in the Greco-Roman world.

But if I remember correctly, your challenge was to find evidence of it prior to the reformation. Furthermore, they believed themselves to be carrying on a historic tradition, something which was very important in the pre-reformation, and some post-reformation church(es). But, my reason for quoting them was due primarily to their significance to the field of apologetics. Use of them demonstrates the fact that the arguments for the existence of God were never meant to convince a person prior to conversion (though I admit that Aquinas was a little inconsistent on this issue.)

Augustine is almost too far, but I'll interact with that anyway.

I'm glad you chose to do so, considering his influence on the church. Prior to this period in the church, theology is a lot less distinct in nature (primarily because there wasn't a need for it to be; though heresies were rejected by the church, there wasn't a call for a consistent body of doctrine until Constantine came about.)

It does not, as you note, mention faith at all, so I also question its relevance.

Just for clarification, I did not propose this, but that it did not relate to the connection between faith and reason as we discuss it here, that was not the context of discussion, but there is a close correlation.

The interesting thing here is that this is a quote of Is. 7:9, which is itself an appeal to Ahaz to remain loyal to YHWH in the face of oppression, which is followed upon by an offering of a sign (7:14) so that Ahaz WILL act. So Is. 7:9 fits in with what I have shown pistis to mean, a trust or loyalty based on performance-evidence.

But this is not how Augustine uses the quote. Instead, he is instructing that unless a person believes in the creed on faith, he will not be stable enough to resist heretics.

The core tenets? The only issue he mentions in relation to this is, "But if all things were made by Him, understand that He was not Himself made."

But Augustine is addressing the use of the creed in general, and the creed speaks to all (I'm uneasy about using that word) of Christology, which is the core of Christianity.

This is manifestly incorrect. The language of the "image" means we are God's representatives and stewards on earth and has nothing to do with ability to reason.

The functional view of the image is the end of all discussion on the matter? This view was hardly in favor, if not hardly even known prior to the emergence of fellows like Norman Snaith and Leonard Verduin. As you are a preterist I understand your appeal to them, but let's be honest, in some of the earliest examples we have, when they talk about the image of God they talk about it Christologically, that it seems our human bodies were shaped after the body which Christ had chosen to take prior to the begining of the world. One could also easily support a view that the image of God is dependant upon relationship to God and man. Though this sort of thinking was championed more by Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, it is affirmed by scriptures as well. Though I believe the functional understanding of the image is part of the issue, it is not the issue as a whole.
If this is Augustine's foundation then he is wrong from the beginning.

He's close enough to take seriously here, but he says not a word about pistis. However, I wonder if his statement might not reflect a form of argument of the sort I made in the article I gave you a link to (The Impossible Faith).

It is very similar to the first argument you propose there, namely that crucifixion was definately NOT how God was supposed to save his people in the NT era mindset, but it is different in that this is the very reason Tertullian believes it, because that's absurd. Not because it's absurd but yet it continues, but it is much like Lewis said (though Lewis would probably like what you have to say more than what I have to say, though I have a great admiration for him) that Christianity is "just the sort of thing you wouldn't guess." For him, this is a testament to it's validty of being from God and not from man.

Well, I went back on my word, next time I promise to take more than a day to respond