Is the Christian Epistemology Circular?

[psalms 91]

I agree there is the walk of the Christian, but it's not without God being a part of our lives. I rely on Him to not only save me but to Guide me in all my ways as well. The Christian is NOT alone.

agreed

 

[Josiah]

And of course what CHRISTIANS do as CHRISTIANS is not what causes us to become CHRISTIANS.

I was born on January 23, 1988. Now I DO lots of things .... but all of those things are done BECAUSE I'm alive, I was given the gift of life. NONE of them is what caused me to live, to be born, to be human, to be alive. It may seem obvious, but this distinction is EXACTLY what is 'lost' on so many Christians as we discuss BECOMING justified, saved, a child of God on the one hand, and LIVING the CHRISTIAN life we are called to live; the distinction between justification and sanctification.




- Josiah


.

 

[Pedrito]

I suggest that there is only one way to test if God really exists. Personal “experience” is subjective. As is personal belief. Dedicated Muslims for instance, are convinced that their god is the true god. In English speaking countries at least, some Muslim broadcasts contain “choruses” (a la charismatic/pentecostal Christian churches, with the same arousal of emotion, etc.) dedicated to the worship of their god.

If it is our belief that God exists, it is fallacious to simply proclaim it so (although that is encouraged in many circles). I have heard it said, “faith without reason is superstition”.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, how can we know if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob really exists? I submit that the only way is by analysing the document of two parts that is stated by Christians to be God's inspired revelation to us.

If the Bible shows itself to be fully internally consistent – if there is evidence that God has planted information in the “Old Testament” that makes sense to, or is consistent with, modern science, but could not be understood before – if there are prophetic statements and models that had fulfilment in New Testament times or which clarify future events and current doctrines about which there is debate – then that would lend credence to the idea of divine authorship, would it not? And would that not in turn establish the existence of a divine Author who has an interest in us?

Without going into detail at this stage, I can categorically state that all the above are true.

That is not an emotional decision. It is not wishful thinking. It is not based on a biassed approach. It is based on a cool, clear analysis of the Book that Christian churches pay lip service to, at least.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God has proven His existence, and His interest in mankind, by means of incredibly strong internal evidence within the book we know as the Bible.

He has presented a wonderful message to us – totally consistent, nothing to be explained away – devastatingly simple – that takes away fear.


But there is another side to the coin.


Continued ...

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Christian epistemology, as I see it, is this: the Holy Spirit convinces the believer that the Bible is true.

The Holy Spirit convinces the faithful that they are children of God. (Romans 8:16) A consequence of the Spirit's gift is that the faithful come to believe that the holy scriptures are inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:14-17) But the exact extent of "holy scripture" is taught by the Church. For me and all the Catholic faithful that means a canon of 73 inspired and holy books of scripture. Is that what you're basing your theology upon?

Now, the Bible is true regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. It is objectively true.

Would you be willing to unpack what you mean by "it is objectively true"? It appears to be a difficult concept. There are many types of literature in the holy scriptures and statements attributed to demons as well as to angels, men, and God so what is and what is not covered by "objectively true". Is it the reportage that is true or the statements that are true or something else?

But no one ever thinks that unless the Holy Spirit convinces him.

So I'm saying here that, when it comes to the question of "How do we know anything to be true?" - the question of epistemology - that everything must start with God. He reveals Himself to us. I'm not convinced, despite some presuppositional apologists, that the Christian epistemology is circular. Some apologists argue from the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. Now, I do agree that the Holy Scriptures are self-authenticating. However, we need not rely wholly on that: if the Holy Spirit is working with the Word, as He always seems to do, then I see nothing circular about it.

Your thoughts?

For one who does not believe the gospel the claim that the holy scriptures are both objectively true and self authenticating will present a serious difficulty. If one's epistemology is intended to serve one's evangelism then how exactly is this claim of objective self authenticating truth going to help?

 

[psalms 91]

The Holy Spirit convinces the faithful that they are children of God. (Romans 8:16) A consequence of the Spirit's gift is that the faithful come to believe that the holy scriptures are inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:14-17) But the exactly extent of "holy scripture" is taught by the Church. For me and all the Catholic faithful that means a canon of 73 inspired and holy books of scripture. Is that what you're basing your theology upon?



Would you be willing to unpack what you mean by "it is objectively true"? It appears to be a difficult concept. There are many types of literature in the holy scriptures and statements attributed to demons as well as to angels, men, and God so what is and what is not covered by "objectively true". Is it the reportage that is true or the statements that are true or something else?



For one who does not believe the gospel the claim that the holy scriptures are both objectively true and self authenticating will present a serious difficulty. If one's epistemology is intended to serve one's evangelism then how exactly is this claim of objective self authenticating truth going to help?

It is easy either you have the faith to believe or you dont

 

[Pedrito]

… Continued


God has proven His existence, and His interest in mankind, by means of incredibly strong internal evidence within the book we know as the Bible.

He has presented a wonderful message to us – totally consistent, nothing to be explained away – devastatingly simple – that takes away fear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, looking at it from another angle, consider the way many churches have to ignore statements and passages in Scripture (Old and New), or try to explain them away, because they do fit into their sets of beliefs. That would seem to indicate that the Bible is not internally consistent after all. There are clear, undeniable examples of those actions in this forum. (Check the questions I have asked in various threads, that no-one has been willing or able to answer directly.) But in reality, doesn’t that simply identify lip service to God’s Holy Revelation?

(Consider: If Bible statements and passages do not fit into existing belief structures, is it the Bible that is at fault, or the beliefs?

Is that not a fair question?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Circular reasoning is highly prevalent in Christian circles. The assignment of required meanings to words, verses and passages, so that they appear to support an idea, then using those assigned meanings to support the idea, is a common example.

True respect for God's internally consistent Holy Revelation to us, does not allow that.

If the Bible truly has a total internal consistency, in which all statements (especially those of Jesus) mesh perfectly, and do not need to be ignored or explained away, should not that consistent view be the basis upon which all beliefs are based?

I suggest it would behoove us to become aware of what that internally consistent message actually is.

Might it not be dangerous to mock God by denying in practice the beautiful consistency that His wonderful revelation to us actually has?

 

[Pedrito]

An example follows of what happens when groups of Christians (churches) ignore the wonderful message God has presented to us – the message embedded in the Bible – totally consistent, nothing to be explained away – devastatingly simple – that takes away fear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Post #2 on Page 1, psalms 91 stated:

The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth

I have to ask what Jesus meant by the word "all".

1. Did Jesus mean "some (truth) from every category" within the whole (truth) (as we are commonly taught is the meaning of the second "all" used by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:22)?

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

2. Or did Jesus mean the whole truth – the sum total of spiritual truth – as revealed in the God-inspired "Old Testament" and the writings comprised in the God-inspired "New Testament"?

I suggest that the former meaning ("some truth") would lead to confusion – the type of confusion we see today, with the multiple denominations and their contradictory teachings and practices – and we know that God is not the author of confusion. psalms 91 pointed that out to us in Post #9 on Page 1. (1 Corinthians 14:33) Therefore I suggest that that is not what Jesus meant.

However, if they haven't thought of it before, I have now given precious ammunition to those people who would love to find some kind of Scriptural support for the current perplexing hotchpotch of ideas.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But what if Jesus really meant the whole truth? Wouldn't that mean that only one of the existing denominations was teaching God's truth? Or maybe none? Would it not indeed mean that the concept of "concentrate on the things that unite us, and not on the things that divide us", is in fact unscriptural? Is that concept not at odds with, in fact in direct opposition to, what Jesus Himself taught?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it not plain to see that the existing divisions are the result of the doctrines of men taking precedence over God's Holy Revelation?

The only question that remains is: how many people are willing to step away from their religious organisations and belief sets, and study the Bible honestly and carefully to find out what the original teachings of Jesus and the apostles really were – teachings that meshed together seamlessly with each other, and with God's revelation in the "Old Testament"? (And still do.)

Just what is the specific, unequivocal "all truth" that the Holy Spirit would guide truly receptive followers into? (John 16:13)

 

[Lamb]

We are given the entire truth we need to know in order for us to have salvation because of Christ Jesus' death, forgiveness and resurrection and it is given to us by His word and we find it in the Holy Bible. God hasn't neglected us. The Holy Spirit uses the word to guide us and this is for our salvation.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #28 on Page 3, Lämmchen said:

We are given the entire truth we need to know in order for us to have salvation because of Christ Jesus' death, forgiveness and resurrection and it is given to us by His word and we find it in the Holy Bible. God hasn't neglected us. The Holy Spirit uses the word to guide us and this is for our salvation.

If that is indeed true, then why do different churches hold conflicting views on what is actually required “for our salvation”?

That is not a trivial question. A person’s salvation is the most important issue they can ever face.

I therefore invite Lämmchen to nominate which church (denomination or segment within) actually shows itself to be the one most conforming to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and to provide definitive proof of why that nomination is accurate.

 

[Lamb]

In Post #28 on Page 3, Lämmchen said:


If that is indeed true, then why do different churches hold conflicting views on what is actually required “for our salvation”?

That is not a trivial question. A person’s salvation is the most important issue they can ever face.

I therefore invite Lämmchen to nominate which church (denomination or segment within) actually shows itself to be the one most conforming to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and to provide definitive proof of why that nomination is accurate.

I know why some denominations turn from scripture and hold conflicting doctrines for salvation.

Look and see who points to the Savior. Then look to see which denominations have man playing a role. Does that make the Savior still the Savior? No. It makes man a savior.

Since the fall, Satan has swayed man into being his own god and being in charge of his own destiny. Man thinks he can help save himself. That's not relying on the Christ, now is it?

So, look at their doctrine and see who is relying on the Savior and which denoms add man to the equation (that isn't biblical). God is able to save us 100%. He doesn't need our help yet Satan has convinced man that God isn't capable. Isn't that a shame?

 

[Ackbach]

I would definitely say (of course) that the Reformed church has the best Trinitarian understanding of salvation. Salvation is a Trinitarian thing: the Father ordains what is to happen, as well as sends the Son and the Spirit. The Son made the perfect sacrifice of a perfect life, death, resurrection, and ascension, as well as sending the Spirit (you can see this is a Western church idea). The Holy Spirit applies salvation to the individual by first regenerating that person's heart, then giving grace and faith, and then continuing to help that believer become more sanctified throughout his life. The Holy Spirit also works seamlessly with the Word: the Spirit illuminates the Word in the believer.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Presuppositional epistemology is circular.

 

[Ackbach]

Presuppositional epistemology is circular.

Can you please elaborate? If it's circular, then there must be some chain of reasoning that goes like this: A implies B, B implies C, and C implies A. It might be a longer chain, or a smaller one. But what are the steps in the circular chain?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Can you please elaborate? If it's circular, then there must be some chain of reasoning that goes like this: A implies B, B implies C, and C implies A. It might be a longer chain, or a smaller one. But what are the steps in the circular chain?

Okay, It starts presupposing Christianity and seeks to prove that Christianity is true. It's directly circular.

 

[Ackbach]

Okay, It starts presupposing Christianity and seeks to prove that Christianity is true. It's directly circular.

So, how would you compare your (clearly) circular chain with this reasoning:

1. God the Holy Spirit convinces believers that the Bible is true.
2. Therefore, the believer, by definition, believes Christianity is true.
3. Because the believer believes Christianity is true, he must believe all other religions are false (Christianity is exclusive).
4. Therefore, part of apologetics, including presuppositional apologetics, is for the believer to point out the inconsistencies in other religions/worldviews, and show how the Christian worldview does not suffer from that inconsistency. But he does so from his assumptions, like all people do, and he recognizes that without the Holy Spirit working in the heart of the unbeliever, they will never agree or believe. The Holy Spirit is merely using the apologist as an instrument to accomplish # 1.

Because this chain starts with God initiating, I don't see how this is circular. But this is what a presuppositionalist would (in the main) assert. How is this circular? I'm not trying to prove, from any of steps 2 through 4, that God the Holy Spirit convinces believers that the Bible is true.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think it's a lovely rubric for believers who want to debate other believers.

 

[Ackbach]

I think it's a lovely rubric for believers who want to debate other believers.

So you would say it's not circular? Or do you think it is? If you think it is circular, where is the circularity?

Iron sharpens iron, so believers debating other believers can be a healthy thing. When it comes to evangelism, the Holy Spirit is the primary mover. He works, typically, through the spoken Word, and people sharing the gospel. So we are to present the gospel, understanding that the details of our presentation are far less important than whether the Spirit works or not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It is circular.

 

[Ackbach]

It is circular.

Ok, where is the circularity? What's the chain?

 

[MoreCoffee]

It starts presupposing Christianity and seeks to prove that Christianity is true. It's directly circular.

Ok, where is the circularity? What's the chain?