Where Do We Find the Truth? This is an excellent question one which has been posed by many influential thinkers throughout history. This blog will discern how to discuss this topic with the non-Christian and the Christian.
Non-Christians is such a broad category that it really requires defining for the purpose of this article. Non-Christian will be defined here as anyone who does not espouse in some way that the man Jesus Christ has a moderate to high level of impact on their beliefs and/or morals. This paper is in no way attempting to determine which groups are "Christian" and which are not. A much simpler way to say this may be simply, anyone who by their own definition would call themselves a Christian, would not belong to the non-Christian category.
In turn then, Christians will be defined as any group who by their own definition would claim to be a follower of the human being Jesus Christ and would use the bible as an authority for at least some of their beliefs. One caveat to this definition is groups who claim to follow a human being on earth today who claims to be Jesus Christ or some type of reincarnated/reintroduced version of Jesus Christ would not be considered a Christian for the sake of this paper. The reason for this is that we are focusing on the Jesus Christ of biblical narration and not some guy from Florida who smokes two packs a day.
Definitions out of the way, how might a non-Christian answer this question? Unfortunately there would not be a standardized answer, much in the same way that not all Christians would provide the same answer either. The Mohammedan might say Mohammed the prophet, followers of Judaism might claim the Torah or the Tanak. Some eastern religions may claim that since God is apart of all things that there is truth in all things as well. At any rate, the answer at least in part comes down to this; it is a personal understanding. Most Mohammedans are not suicide bombers, yet most suicide bombers claim to follow the teaching of the Mohammed in the Koran, "properly" understood of course. Judaism had factions even in Jesus' time about where to find truth. Some claimed just the Torah was God's source of Truth such as the Sadducees, while others believed in the Septuagint and a binding oral tradition such as the Pharisees. This seems puzzling at best since most all people would agree that if they were objectively honest with themselves they'd admit to one universal fact. That they more they know, the more they realize how little they actually know. In other words, the more they learn, the more they realize how undependable they are to know what the truth is. A sixteen year old child knows everything while a 70 year old man knows and understands how little he knows. Therefore, at least on the surface, the non-Christian position appears that truth is either unattainable or at least completely subjective.
Many would argue that when faced with a difficult question of this sort, finding a statement which appears the most absurd and simple conclusion is the best place to start scrutinizing. In the course of human history, many people have claimed to know the Truth or at least to know much of the Truth. Yet only one person has claimed to be the Truth and to have a such a large following of believers as that of Jesus Christ. It is the most arrogant of all the assertions in the whole of human history, that a human being, namely Christ Jesus, can not only know the Truth, but actually himself, be the Truth. (John 14:6). Either Christ is mentally insane or what he says is true. There is no room for middle ground. It is precisely this lack of middle ground whch makes Christianity so appealing as a first choice to thoroughly scrutinize. It either true or completely absurd. Additionally, most all Christians also claim that their learning and knowledge of Christ is being guided by God himself. God is literally helping them to know the Truth.
Yet it seems very easy for the non-Christian to counter the argument that Christ is the Truth. If there is only one Truth and one God, and that one Truth is Jesus and God leads man to knowing Jesus, then God leads man to Truth. Written as a syllogism the Christian argument may appear like this.
There is only one Truth and there is only one God
That one Truth is Christ, and through Christ God has made the Truth known to man
therefore the Truth is made known by God to man in the person of Jesus Christ
For this to be true, that all Christians are being guided by God in some manner to know Truth which is Christ, then, the non-Christian would argue why don't Christians agree even remotely about who Christ is and what His teachings are? Is God confused or is He purposely guiding people into different Truths? Is He leading the Baptist to a different Truth than He is leading the Seventh Day Adventist? If the Christian answers yes, that God is leading people into different Truths, then God contradicts Himself since Christians believe so many different things and therefore God cannot be inerrant, infallible, perfect, or infinite. If the Christian answers no, that God is not leading different denominations into different truths, then the non-Christian says, how do you know with certainty that what you believe is the Truth? After all, all humans can make mistakes and believe that what they believe is true, when it is not. And, the non-Christian continues, if you can't tell me with certainty that what you believe is the Truth, then why should I believe you instead of what I believe for myself? After all, if we can both be wrong, why should I accept your beliefs and reject my own? Perhaps you might say that I should I believe you because you are smarter than me? If so, how do we judge how smart you are compared to me or how smart you are compared to the rest of the people in the world with whom you disagree with? After all, if we strictly go by intelligence value, or any other value alone, aren't the odds extremely high that we will find someone who is in turn even smarter, or have an higher amount of any other value in them than that value exists in you? Why should I believe you instead of them? Furthermore, what does it matter if we found the smartest or wisest or greatest man in the entirety of all of human history, would this guarantee us that we would know the Truth with certainty? After all, all finite creatures, which all humans are, are still capable of committing errors. Why should we believe even that person with certainty?
This is a crippling argument for the Christian. God is either contradicting Himself or not all Christians are being guided by God into the Truth. Which leads us back to our original question; where do we find the Truth?
Most Christians answer this simply, the bible is where we find Truth. It's the sole, definitive, authoritative, God-breathed, Word of God, end of discussion, end of list. I can't pretend my sample size is all that large, but in my limited experience I have never met a Christian that when they were asked this question, they didn't provide "the bible" as their answer.
For those readers who are Christians, if someone asked you right now, what is the pillar and ground of the Truth, what would your answer be? Take time to pause and really consider the question. There is no greater question than this. It may even be advantageous to you to take the time to ask your pastor or other religious/spiritual adviser what they believe the answer to this question is. It only makes sense that those individuals who choose to teach the Christian faith would be easily able to answer a question as simple as where do we find Truth? After all, if they can't correctly answer a question so simple and so foundational, why should we trust them in any matter pertaining to their teaching of our faith? More importantly, if they don't know where to find the Truth, why are we accepting their teachings?
Let's begin with the assumption that the bible is the pillar and ground of the Truth? This obviously begs the question; does the bible anywhere claim for itself to be the sole source of Truth? If the bible is the definitive source for truth, then it necessarily follows that the bible would have to make this claim for itself or it would not be true.
The bible does tell us what the pillar and ground of the Truth is, but it is not the bible. What does scripture say the pillar and ground of the Truth is? Let's find out using the KJV:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1Tim 3:15)
Paul is very clear here that the church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the Truth, not the bible. What is the function of a pillar? It supports weight. When the pillar falls, what happens to that which is supported by it? It crumbles to the ground. According to Strong's Bible Concordance, the word in Greek translated for ground can also be translated as basis or foundation. What happens to a house which is built with no foundation when the winds blow and the waters rise. It collapses. In other words, what Paul is saying here is simple, much like you can't have a house without a foundation, you can't have the Truth without the church. For the bible "only" believing Christian, this may be an earth shattering revelation. The bible clearly teaches something which wholly contradicts bible only believing denominations. At first glance it may appear as though it is not possible for the church to be the pillar and ground of the Truth. One could argue that this is because many of us forget what the church and the Truth are. The church is the Body of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) (Col 1:24) and the Truth is Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Said again in this light, The Body of Christ is the pillar and ground of Jesus Christ. Surely no Christian would disagree with that statement. How then, could any bible believing Christian disagree with the former in 1 Tim 3:15 that the church is the pillar and ground of the Truth?
This is not meant in any way to attack any particular individual who may believe the idea that the bible alone is the sole definitive source for Christian faith and morals. The purpose of this blog is simple, to encourage all peoples to discuss the differences in their faith systems so that we can be a united community striving for that which is true, good, and beautiful. If we are going to succeed in becoming more united in our faith and we currently disagree on many of our beliefs, then many of us, if not all of us, believe certain things which simply are not true. We shouldn't fear that what we believe is not the Truth, but we should fear that when we find out what we believe is not true, that we refuse to change our beliefs to conform to that which is the Truth.
It necessarily follows then for any Christian who claims the bible is the infallible, authoritative, inerrant, God-breathed Word of God, the question of what the church is becomes critical to knowing whether or not what he/she believes is the Truth or if it is error. So the question now is obvious. What is the church?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Is the World Losing the Desire to Reason?
Yahoo! news posted an article in which Presidential candidate Barrack Obama made the following comment; "But don't give people some sort of religious litmus test because I don't want somebody to question my faith and I'm certainly not going to question somebody else's," he said.
A president is nothing if not a decision maker and objectively good decisions are based on logic and sound reasoning. How can society improve itself if the underlying presumptions of our previous decisions are not questioned? Imagine if those opposed to the Civil Rights Movement claimed that we couldn't "question their belief system" that blacks are somehow an inferior class of citizens. This line of reasoning would be thoroughly condemned by most all people today, yet when we apply it to religion, as Barrack Obama did recently, this absurdity would be argued by some to be one of rationality and the summit of religious and human tolerance.
The hidden premise in Mr. Obama's reasoning is that his faith cannot hold up to "questioning?" After all if your religion could stand up to scrutiny, why wouldn't you welcome the questions? Even worse, is that he refuses to question another's religion. The obvious conclusion not stated here is that Mr. Obama's faith/religion provides no better alternative to any other and therefore he cannot provide a single reason why you should believe as he does as opposed to say, drinking the Kool-aid.
In other words, if your faith can't handle questioning, and you refuse to question another's, then you really provide no reason to believe your own faith or to reject any other. If no one else should believe as you do, then why should you believe as you do? Surely this is a question not posed to those who adhere this absurd school of philosophy.
By his statement Mr. Obama admits that he is not a Truth seeker. After all Truth is found through questions, reason, and dialogue. But when it comes to religion, Barrack Obama takes a strike on all three.
All Truth seekers must be willing to accept any and all scrutiny that others apply to their belief system. After all, if it can be shown that their belief system has contradictions or nonsense within it, then it can't be Truth since Truth cannot contradict itself. And if we refuse to scrutinize other faiths, we provide not a single reason to for anyone to believe as we do. If we scrutinize belief systems other than our own and we cannot find contradictions in them, then we should in turn, scrutinize our own beliefs diligently as well. This is the very duty of the Truth seeker.
Barrack Obama is not alone in this belief. Many others like him would rather live in their own ignorance, than truthfully seek that which is Truth, even if it is difficult and humbling to do so. Unfortunately for those who genuinely seek Truth, people who reason like Mr. Obama can actually become President and influential.
(This is in no way a statement of support for Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or any other opponent of Obama's campaign. It would be hard to argue that any politician in America today would have disagreed publicly with the statement made by Mr. Obama. Thus the Truth seekers election dilemma continues.)
In other words, if your faith can't handle questioning, and you refuse to question another's, then you really provide no reason to believe your own faith or to reject any other. If no one else should believe as you do, then why should you believe as you do? Surely this is a question not posed to those who adhere this absurd school of philosophy.
By his statement Mr. Obama admits that he is not a Truth seeker. After all Truth is found through questions, reason, and dialogue. But when it comes to religion, Barrack Obama takes a strike on all three.
All Truth seekers must be willing to accept any and all scrutiny that others apply to their belief system. After all, if it can be shown that their belief system has contradictions or nonsense within it, then it can't be Truth since Truth cannot contradict itself. And if we refuse to scrutinize other faiths, we provide not a single reason to for anyone to believe as we do. If we scrutinize belief systems other than our own and we cannot find contradictions in them, then we should in turn, scrutinize our own beliefs diligently as well. This is the very duty of the Truth seeker.
Barrack Obama is not alone in this belief. Many others like him would rather live in their own ignorance, than truthfully seek that which is Truth, even if it is difficult and humbling to do so. Unfortunately for those who genuinely seek Truth, people who reason like Mr. Obama can actually become President and influential.
(This is in no way a statement of support for Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or any other opponent of Obama's campaign. It would be hard to argue that any politician in America today would have disagreed publicly with the statement made by Mr. Obama. Thus the Truth seekers election dilemma continues.)
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Can Christians in Good Conscience Vote for Democrats Who Support Abortion?
Both parties create a "platform" which in essence is the mission and goals of the party, even in a generic sense. Anyone claiming affiliation with a particular political party in some sense, accepts this "lowest common denominator" of beliefs being attributed to them. Unless a candidate expressly states their disagreement with a particular portion of the party platform, the platform should be considered to be apart of their mission and goals as an elective representative of that political party. To disagree with this statement would demonstrate that platforms are useless exercises, since we can't attribute a platform to a particular party representative. If this were true then what exactly is the purpose of the platform to the voter? If it means nothing to the voter, why would the organization interested only in the voter care to take the time to draft it?
Back to the original question, can a Christian vote for Democrats in good conscience? The question, more simply put is this, can it be a sin to vote for certain candidates? In order for a vote to be an immoral choice and thereby a violation of God's will, aka, a sin, we must define a few key terms.
Principle - Something which is entrenched into a particular persons belief system which in most cases should appeal to the natural law and promote the common good of all people. For example a principle of Catholic social teaching is that all persons have a right to food, shelter, basic health care, and work, among other things. Principles should be agreed upon by all candidates. I believe this is true in every case in the current presidential election with one grave exception, which I will get into later in a moment. For now, it can be said that all candidates should work towards the goals of meeting sound principles.
Policy - Policy is the way in which individual people believe it is best to attain or secure a particular principle. For the principle that all individuals have a right to basic health care, one candidate may believe that the best way to ensure this principle is satisified is to socialize medicine. Yet another candidate may believe that the best way to ensure this principle is satisfied is to make health insurance illegal and force doctors to compete with one another in a capitalistic manner which provides the highest quality product at the lowest price to all consumers.
Now that these definitions are established we can say that we can disagree on policies quite readily and often. A Christian in good conscience may believe that universal health care proposed by Dems are the only way to ensure that all people have some access to basic health care. Another Christian voter in good conscience can completely disagree with that policy and vote for another candidate. But even though there is disagreement in policy, the basic principle which is attempted to be attained and ensured by both candidates, does not change, which in this case, is the principle that all people have a right to basic health care. In sum, we can disagree on policy, not on principle.
Which leads us to the one central disagreement between Democrats and Christians who decide to use moral issues to guide their voting decisions. The policy of abortion is simple, either you support the policy of the premature termination of a fetus from the womb or you do not. But the principle which applies to the policy of abortion for the Christian is that all life is sacred and therefore should not be intentionally terminated. Here the policy, that abortion is acceptable, in and of itself violates the principle that all life is sacred. This is why abortion must play a more critical role in our voting disernment than say, the economy or education. Why? Because the disagreement is not one of policy, but of principle.
The question in essence comes down to this, what is the level, if any, of our cooperation with evil when we vote for certain pro-abortion candidates. (Of course this presupposes that abortion is evil which is not the purpose of this post) There are several levels of cooperation in evil, but suffice it to say that any support, be it money or votes or any other form of support or acceptance of pro-abortion candidates, at a minimum, runs the risk of causing scandal, and therefore should be avoided even on the most basic of levels.
This is not to say that we cannot use our vote to minimize the evil done. Say one candidate offers free government paid abortions on demand and another supports restricted and privately funded abortions. In this example voting for the lesser of two evils can be accepted provided that a determined effort is made to make available a candidate who would not violate the principle that every life is sacred for the following election. Note that this says nothing about having to be successful in electing that candidate. God is not so concerned with our successes and failures as he is with our attempts.
Now apply this to the current political climate. Any democrat candidate at any level of government which has not made their position on abortion clear and in opposition to the defined party platform as it pertains to abortion, cannot be voted for in good, well-formed conscience by any Christian.
And finally to the concept that it is acceptable to vote for individuals who are personally against abortion, but find no problem supporting its continued practice is akin to me saying I'm personally against stealing, but if my wife and kids steal your stuff, I'm not going to return it. Again, the issue is not a disagreement over policy, but one of principle. I can best demonstrate my personal opposition to stealing by ensuring that those who steal are required to make restitution for their actions, not by keeping that which is not mine regardless of whether or not I personally am the thief.
Nearly all people believe that the Halocaust was immoral. Which is why when it comes to defending the idea that every life is sacred, I like to quote Martin Luther King Jr who one said, "Never forget that nothing Hitler did in Nazi Germany was illegal."
Back to the original question, can a Christian vote for Democrats in good conscience? The question, more simply put is this, can it be a sin to vote for certain candidates? In order for a vote to be an immoral choice and thereby a violation of God's will, aka, a sin, we must define a few key terms.
Principle - Something which is entrenched into a particular persons belief system which in most cases should appeal to the natural law and promote the common good of all people. For example a principle of Catholic social teaching is that all persons have a right to food, shelter, basic health care, and work, among other things. Principles should be agreed upon by all candidates. I believe this is true in every case in the current presidential election with one grave exception, which I will get into later in a moment. For now, it can be said that all candidates should work towards the goals of meeting sound principles.
Policy - Policy is the way in which individual people believe it is best to attain or secure a particular principle. For the principle that all individuals have a right to basic health care, one candidate may believe that the best way to ensure this principle is satisified is to socialize medicine. Yet another candidate may believe that the best way to ensure this principle is satisfied is to make health insurance illegal and force doctors to compete with one another in a capitalistic manner which provides the highest quality product at the lowest price to all consumers.
Now that these definitions are established we can say that we can disagree on policies quite readily and often. A Christian in good conscience may believe that universal health care proposed by Dems are the only way to ensure that all people have some access to basic health care. Another Christian voter in good conscience can completely disagree with that policy and vote for another candidate. But even though there is disagreement in policy, the basic principle which is attempted to be attained and ensured by both candidates, does not change, which in this case, is the principle that all people have a right to basic health care. In sum, we can disagree on policy, not on principle.
Which leads us to the one central disagreement between Democrats and Christians who decide to use moral issues to guide their voting decisions. The policy of abortion is simple, either you support the policy of the premature termination of a fetus from the womb or you do not. But the principle which applies to the policy of abortion for the Christian is that all life is sacred and therefore should not be intentionally terminated. Here the policy, that abortion is acceptable, in and of itself violates the principle that all life is sacred. This is why abortion must play a more critical role in our voting disernment than say, the economy or education. Why? Because the disagreement is not one of policy, but of principle.
The question in essence comes down to this, what is the level, if any, of our cooperation with evil when we vote for certain pro-abortion candidates. (Of course this presupposes that abortion is evil which is not the purpose of this post) There are several levels of cooperation in evil, but suffice it to say that any support, be it money or votes or any other form of support or acceptance of pro-abortion candidates, at a minimum, runs the risk of causing scandal, and therefore should be avoided even on the most basic of levels.
This is not to say that we cannot use our vote to minimize the evil done. Say one candidate offers free government paid abortions on demand and another supports restricted and privately funded abortions. In this example voting for the lesser of two evils can be accepted provided that a determined effort is made to make available a candidate who would not violate the principle that every life is sacred for the following election. Note that this says nothing about having to be successful in electing that candidate. God is not so concerned with our successes and failures as he is with our attempts.
Now apply this to the current political climate. Any democrat candidate at any level of government which has not made their position on abortion clear and in opposition to the defined party platform as it pertains to abortion, cannot be voted for in good, well-formed conscience by any Christian.
And finally to the concept that it is acceptable to vote for individuals who are personally against abortion, but find no problem supporting its continued practice is akin to me saying I'm personally against stealing, but if my wife and kids steal your stuff, I'm not going to return it. Again, the issue is not a disagreement over policy, but one of principle. I can best demonstrate my personal opposition to stealing by ensuring that those who steal are required to make restitution for their actions, not by keeping that which is not mine regardless of whether or not I personally am the thief.
Nearly all people believe that the Halocaust was immoral. Which is why when it comes to defending the idea that every life is sacred, I like to quote Martin Luther King Jr who one said, "Never forget that nothing Hitler did in Nazi Germany was illegal."
Letter to Joe Mizzi
I'm a subscriber to John Martinogni's newsletter and have taken the time to look at your website. In logic the principle of non-contradiction states that what is "A" cannot both be "A" and not be "A" at the same time. When Christians disagree on doctrine we face the certainty that one of us is necessarily believes that which is not truth, aka error. Of course there is no guarantee that one of us believes that which is true. Therefore, we could both be in error when we disagree. Looking in the yellow pages under church should be a very humbling experience for all of us who claim to be disciples of Christ.
I won't bore you at length with details, I'm sure you are a busy person, but my family is very confused religiously. I have a non-trinitarian Christian brother (www.theway.org) a Catholic mother, and no one else in my immediate family believes anything which would even remotely hint at Christian unity. Myself, I left the church after being convinced by my non-trinitarian brother to believe Sola Scriptura. I rejected much of the church's teaching. I have requested the insight of many believers of Christianity and even some of other faiths. They have helped shaped my beliefs to this day. But nothing has shaped my own beliefs more than the bible itself. The bible is why I'm a Roman Catholic completely loyal to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The fact that Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the bible is primarily why?
The earliest Christians, those who witnessed Christ's teachings in Galilee, or who witnessed the teaching of the eleven apostles didn't have a single New Testament writing. Most bible scholars today say the first NT letter written was 1 Thes in about 51 AD, most likely about 18 years after Christ's Ascension into heaven. If Sola Scriptura is true then the earliest Christians had no way to know truth since there wasn't a NT. The only Scriptura was the OT. Doesn't Sola Scriptura presuppose that Christ abandoned his earliest followers without providing them with a way to know the truth with certainty? If Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, isn't His teaching consistent to all Christians at all times and all places, whether its Judea in AD 48 or AD 2008? Why would I be expected to be taught differently than the earliest Christians?
Even more important is the question what is the Scripture in the first place? Why should I believe that Philemon is God-breathed yet the Acts of Peter is not? The bible doesn't tell me, it's silent on the issue. So why is it wrong for me as a Christian to believe that Philemon is not God-breathed, but say, the Acts of Peter is? What authority would the Christian appeal to answer this question. For the believer of Sola Scriptura, the Scripture is silent on the issue,.
I am going to claim to you that this email I am writing to you is God-breath, inspired, inerrant, and the infallible Holy Word of God. Would you believe it? Why not? The bible doesn't claim that Philemon is God-breathed and it does not refute that the Acts of Peter is God-breathed yet you believe that Philemon is God-breathed and the Acts of Peter is not? Why? There is no Scriptural foundation for this belief. The book of Philemon makes no claim of itself to be God-breathed and no other book in the bible claims that Philemon is or is not God-breathed either. Yet my email makes that claim and I'm sure you'd reject that notion entirely. Why? Isn't that an inherent contradiction? You claim the Philemon is God-breathed but it makes no claim for itself to be God-breath, yet you believe it is. My email does make such a claim for itself yet I'm sure that you believe my email is not God-breathed. What authority would you appeal to in order to refute the claim that my email makes?
Here's the point of the question. Even if each individual book in the bible claimed to be God-breathed (self authenticating) or each book in the bible claimed divine inspiration for other books in the bible (Romans authenticated 1st John which authenticated Genesis, etc) it still wouldn't be enough to stand on its own authority. You would still require an extra-biblical authority to testify to the God-breathed nature of the individual texts, and their compilation in their entirety. Much in the same why that I would need an authority outside of my email to substantiate it's claim to divine origin. All analogies aside, what is that authority which testifies to the God-breathed nature of the bible and identifies for us which books are in the bible and which are not? You claim that the bible should include 66 books and 66 books only, while I claim that the bible should include 73 books and 73 books only. Using the Scriptures alone, let's find out which one of our beliefs subsists in Truth? And how do we know that we aren't both wrong, that there should be 69.5 books, or 84 books or 96 books in the bible? As a side note the canon of the Scriptures was unchallenged from approximately AD 400 until the Protestant Reformation.
Finally, 1 Timothy 3:15 claims that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Jesus also claims that He is the truth in John 14:6. Therefore the church is the pillar and ground or foundation of Jesus Christ? At first glance that seems absurd. How can a human organization be the basis (Strong's KJV bible concordance uses basis as another word for ground) of Jesus Christ? Yet if the church is the body of Christ as thought clearly in the Scriptures (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:24). Can Christ's body be the basis of Christ? Absolutely. In this context it's easy to see how the church can be the pillar and ground of truth.
This also implies that the Church, being God's body, has a divine dimension to it's existence. That's very scary as we are all sinners and fall short of the Grace of God, Bishops of Rome too, yet through being born again we become members of Christ's body, despite our sinfullness. If God's Church has a divine dimension to it, then wouldn't it have to be infallible in it's teachings, after all, error or imperfection cannot exist in an infinite God's body. Also, God can neither deceive nor be deceived. If God can't deceive us then He must provide a way for all Christians at all times to know with certainty what the truth is. If he didn't, He would indeed be deceiving us since we could never know with certainty that what we believe was not error and therefore opposed to God. Jesus is even so bold as to tells us we will know the Truth and the Truth will set us free. How can we know with certainty that we know the Truth if we don't know with certainty that we know the truth? The logic doesn't follow. If we can't identify the bible with certainty how can we know that some of what we believe is error.
If we don't need any authority outside of Scripture, then why didn't Christ ensure that the NT scripture existed before he Ascended into Heaven? If we don't need any authority outside of Scripture, then where does Scripture teach this? Chapter and verse please. If we don't need any authority outside of Scripture then where does Scripture tell us what Scripture is?
Dr Joe, as I mentioned before whenever two Christians disagree on doctrine one must necessarily believe error, it's very possible and highly likely that both do. That said I'm very open to your thoughts on the issue of Sola Scriptura. However, I must know if you believe that your teachings are protected from error. If you can believe error and I can believe error, then why should I believe your interpretations of Scripture over my own? What assurance can you give me that your interpretations subsist in Truth while mine subsist in error?
I won't bore you at length with details, I'm sure you are a busy person, but my family is very confused religiously. I have a non-trinitarian Christian brother (www.theway.org) a Catholic mother, and no one else in my immediate family believes anything which would even remotely hint at Christian unity. Myself, I left the church after being convinced by my non-trinitarian brother to believe Sola Scriptura. I rejected much of the church's teaching. I have requested the insight of many believers of Christianity and even some of other faiths. They have helped shaped my beliefs to this day. But nothing has shaped my own beliefs more than the bible itself. The bible is why I'm a Roman Catholic completely loyal to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The fact that Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the bible is primarily why?
The earliest Christians, those who witnessed Christ's teachings in Galilee, or who witnessed the teaching of the eleven apostles didn't have a single New Testament writing. Most bible scholars today say the first NT letter written was 1 Thes in about 51 AD, most likely about 18 years after Christ's Ascension into heaven. If Sola Scriptura is true then the earliest Christians had no way to know truth since there wasn't a NT. The only Scriptura was the OT. Doesn't Sola Scriptura presuppose that Christ abandoned his earliest followers without providing them with a way to know the truth with certainty? If Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, isn't His teaching consistent to all Christians at all times and all places, whether its Judea in AD 48 or AD 2008? Why would I be expected to be taught differently than the earliest Christians?
Even more important is the question what is the Scripture in the first place? Why should I believe that Philemon is God-breathed yet the Acts of Peter is not? The bible doesn't tell me, it's silent on the issue. So why is it wrong for me as a Christian to believe that Philemon is not God-breathed, but say, the Acts of Peter is? What authority would the Christian appeal to answer this question. For the believer of Sola Scriptura, the Scripture is silent on the issue,.
I am going to claim to you that this email I am writing to you is God-breath, inspired, inerrant, and the infallible Holy Word of God. Would you believe it? Why not? The bible doesn't claim that Philemon is God-breathed and it does not refute that the Acts of Peter is God-breathed yet you believe that Philemon is God-breathed and the Acts of Peter is not? Why? There is no Scriptural foundation for this belief. The book of Philemon makes no claim of itself to be God-breathed and no other book in the bible claims that Philemon is or is not God-breathed either. Yet my email makes that claim and I'm sure you'd reject that notion entirely. Why? Isn't that an inherent contradiction? You claim the Philemon is God-breathed but it makes no claim for itself to be God-breath, yet you believe it is. My email does make such a claim for itself yet I'm sure that you believe my email is not God-breathed. What authority would you appeal to in order to refute the claim that my email makes?
Here's the point of the question. Even if each individual book in the bible claimed to be God-breathed (self authenticating) or each book in the bible claimed divine inspiration for other books in the bible (Romans authenticated 1st John which authenticated Genesis, etc) it still wouldn't be enough to stand on its own authority. You would still require an extra-biblical authority to testify to the God-breathed nature of the individual texts, and their compilation in their entirety. Much in the same why that I would need an authority outside of my email to substantiate it's claim to divine origin. All analogies aside, what is that authority which testifies to the God-breathed nature of the bible and identifies for us which books are in the bible and which are not? You claim that the bible should include 66 books and 66 books only, while I claim that the bible should include 73 books and 73 books only. Using the Scriptures alone, let's find out which one of our beliefs subsists in Truth? And how do we know that we aren't both wrong, that there should be 69.5 books, or 84 books or 96 books in the bible? As a side note the canon of the Scriptures was unchallenged from approximately AD 400 until the Protestant Reformation.
Finally, 1 Timothy 3:15 claims that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Jesus also claims that He is the truth in John 14:6. Therefore the church is the pillar and ground or foundation of Jesus Christ? At first glance that seems absurd. How can a human organization be the basis (Strong's KJV bible concordance uses basis as another word for ground) of Jesus Christ? Yet if the church is the body of Christ as thought clearly in the Scriptures (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:24). Can Christ's body be the basis of Christ? Absolutely. In this context it's easy to see how the church can be the pillar and ground of truth.
This also implies that the Church, being God's body, has a divine dimension to it's existence. That's very scary as we are all sinners and fall short of the Grace of God, Bishops of Rome too, yet through being born again we become members of Christ's body, despite our sinfullness. If God's Church has a divine dimension to it, then wouldn't it have to be infallible in it's teachings, after all, error or imperfection cannot exist in an infinite God's body. Also, God can neither deceive nor be deceived. If God can't deceive us then He must provide a way for all Christians at all times to know with certainty what the truth is. If he didn't, He would indeed be deceiving us since we could never know with certainty that what we believe was not error and therefore opposed to God. Jesus is even so bold as to tells us we will know the Truth and the Truth will set us free. How can we know with certainty that we know the Truth if we don't know with certainty that we know the truth? The logic doesn't follow. If we can't identify the bible with certainty how can we know that some of what we believe is error.
If we don't need any authority outside of Scripture, then why didn't Christ ensure that the NT scripture existed before he Ascended into Heaven? If we don't need any authority outside of Scripture, then where does Scripture teach this? Chapter and verse please. If we don't need any authority outside of Scripture then where does Scripture tell us what Scripture is?
Dr Joe, as I mentioned before whenever two Christians disagree on doctrine one must necessarily believe error, it's very possible and highly likely that both do. That said I'm very open to your thoughts on the issue of Sola Scriptura. However, I must know if you believe that your teachings are protected from error. If you can believe error and I can believe error, then why should I believe your interpretations of Scripture over my own? What assurance can you give me that your interpretations subsist in Truth while mine subsist in error?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)