Skip to main content

Religious Conversation With An Old Friend - Part 5

Upon reading the first part of this message, I recognize that I won't be able to put forth the thought & self-examination necessary to continue & thoroughly consider your challenge until at least this weekend - hope you can understand (I just don't want to do so in haste)!

One thing in response to the first part: do you believe that truth can ever be self-authenticating? I believe this is what happened to me: 


And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:3-6).


For sure there is much more, but coupled with the historical reliability of the claims of Christ's life/death/resurrection, this is where it starts for me.

I am forcing myself to not say more until I've considered what you wrote - if you want more detail regarding why I believe Christianity is true, I agree with: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/eight-reasons-why-i-believe-that-jesus-rose-from-the-dead (I hate sending a link to make arguments for me, but I thought I'd at least disclose one resource I have been helped by. I don't worship John Piper, at least not anymore, but I have been greatly aided by his scholarly & pastoral pursuits.)

For saying "I'm not going to reply back right away", I sure had alot to say... :-/ I fail.

-Stephan

Comments

The Atheist Girl Next Door said…
Ok, first and foremost, I want to give you, Stephan, mad props for even engaging in this conversation with Deric in as open minded and public a fashion as you are. You are opening yourself up for criticism and more importantly personal examination and that is very brave and commendable. Secondly, I, like Deric was once a very earnest Christian. I am currently 26 and would say I was Christian at least until I was about 22 or so. I taught Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, and volunteered in several capacities with a children’s summer camp (affiliated with the Kansas City Union Mission). I took my Christianity VERY SERIOUSLY. I believed in the inerrant, inspired word of God. I thought mentioning that I was a Christian was important, in-so –much-as to say I believe I can genuinely relate to the arguments you are making. I made similar arguments and believed similar things about God/the Bible at one time too. So, please do not take my rebuttals to come as condescending or in any way meant to demean you. I actually respect you a great deal for your pluck!
Moving on. This “self-authenticating” argument you make. You must admit, this quite literally means your proof for the existence of God/the divinely inspired and inerrant quality of the Bible is purely subjective. Its authentication is found within yourself. So, now you must explain to me how your subjective truth is more convincing than my subjective truth.

Next point. This business of quoting the Bible has got to stop. You must first prove to me that this Bible has any validity, THEN you may quote it to me with your heart’s content. But, to quote something that I do not find convincing just on its face. . .What do you hope to accomplish? I believe this is how you and Deric even began this conversation. Deric questioned the Bible’s inerrancy and you took up the Bible’s case. Ok, that’s fine. Take up the case for the Bible and your God if you wish. But, how do you ever hope to convince me of the Bible’s inerrancy/truth through quoting the Bible? Honestly, my good man, how convinced would you be of Islam if a Muslim quoted the Qur'an to you? You would be no more convinced than I am when you quote the Bible.

Be honest with yourself, you believe the Bible is true, period, with no reasoning beyond your subjective reasoning that you believe God has changed your life for the better b/c of it. This is, in fact, the “self-authenticating” argument you just made and linked to the Pastor John website about. Ok, that’s fine. But, please, appreciate your perspective. You believe in the Bible for completely subjective reasons that can neither proven nor disproven. You do not believe in the Bible b/c it is true, you believe in the Bible therefore you tell yourself it is true.

You play with reasoning and facts as long as they prove your hypothesis, that the Bible is true, divinely inspired, and inerrant. But at the end of the day, you are not gathering evidence, then reasoning towards a conclusion. You have your conclusion, collect evidence that supports it, then reason backwards to get at that conclusion.

To me, we have to ask ourselves, are we interested in arriving at an objective truth or subjective truth? Truth that can be arrived at with testable claims, evidence, and even “reasoning about historical facts” Pastor John minimizes in your link? Or are we interested in justifying what we already believe with “spiritual illumination” and “revelation.” If you are interested in justifying your personal truth that God is real b/c he has made your life better: gravy. More power to you, my man. I will never argue with YOUR personal truth. But, if you are interested at arriving at an objective truth then let’s talk about objective evidence, which excludes the Bible or what God has personally revealed to you. If you argue that you do not believe real “truth” can be arrived at through only objective facts then you are conceding that your truth is subjective.

Much Love,

Sarah
February 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Will Enter Heaven?

Check out this quote I found online: "[C]onsider this fact: fewer than 20% of people actually think they are going to hell. And yet, in answering that question, Jesus says in Matthew 7 that FEW pass through the gate that leads to eternal life. 80% doesn't sound like few to me... do some of us have the wrong idea?" There are a number of problems with this quote. First of all, you it is assuming that "few" refers to the current ratio of professing Christians to non-Christians. What's to say that Jesus isn't referring to the entire population of all the earth over all time? In that case, it's entirely plausible that 80% of people now are really Christians, as long as there are still few total Christians when all is said and done. Maybe it applies only to the people in the crowd listening to Jesus. Or, it could refer to something else entirely (as I believe). Jesus was talking to a specific people living in a specific time. We cannot decontextualize his ...
11 comments
Older Posts »

Sunny California

I'm settled into a church family's house here in Valencia, and boy is it great. I like listening to my pastor talk about theology. He is also a wonderful counselor, and has been helping me work with some of my personal problems (yes, I know it's hard to believe, but I do have problems). Here is his blog site, if anybody is interested: The Craw . Also, here is the website of my church, along with its blog: Saint Andrew's Community Church , The Chronicles of Saint Andrews . In the meantime, I have been reading The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Mathison, who also wrote Given For You . Both of these books have had an enourmous impact on me, and I strongly encourage all of you to get out and read The Shape of Sola Scriptura , particularly if you've ever struggled with the authority of the Bible, and how it squares away with church tradition. The thesis is that most evangelicals treat the issue of the Bible and tradition wrongly, particularly those in radically reformed chu...
9 comments
Older Posts »

On the Biblical Mandate to Respect Authority

The SC choir chaplain brought up a passage in 1 Peter at the beginning of this week regarding submission to authority. It led to interesting conversation, and I'd like to reiterate part of that conversation here. 1) It is important to remember that the early churches who passed around these letters had a very practical use for them. The early church could have easily been stomped out had the early Christians been too anti-government. True, the church was persecuted. True, the church did get into trouble with the government. However, remember that the persecution happened for short bursts of time (historically speaking) and only in isolated areas. It was by no means universal persecution. Additionally, when you look at other early Christian documents, you see more injunctions to work with the rulers. And why not? The early church needed all the support it could get, while not compromising, of course. If they were all outspoken government radicals, they would not have lasted long. 2)...
8 comments
Older Posts »