This very well may be the most important article I have written to date, because it touches the root of the conflict between the “Calvinist” view versus the “Arminian” view & the “Traditional” view vs the “Postmodern/Emergent” view.
It is my hope that those reading this article will follow the various links listed so that they can become more knowledgable with the terms & topics, because if you do I think you will begin to see why these little conflicts seem to continuously repeat in Christian history.
We often talk about approaching the Bible with the right “hermeneutic” (interpretative method), but there is something even BEFORE that which we should consider.
Let me demonstrate it this way. When you buy a brand new puzzle & take it home to put together there are a few things you presuppose. You presuppose the picture on the box is how the puzzle will look once you put it together. You presuppose that all the pieces are in the box. You presuppose that all the pieces have been appropriately made to fit together. This is what we call “Presuppositionalism”.
Presuppositionalism
Presuppositionalism presupposes that the only true source of Truth is found in the Word/Bible & via Christ. It presupposes that the Bible is accurate because it presupposes God is Sovereign & has made sure the essence of His message has been preserved in the Bible. It presupposes that the various accounts in the Bible happened as explained & if it is not obvious if something is metaphorical, typological, or allegorical, it presupposes we simply speak where the Bible speaks & remain silent where the Bible is silent (we don’t speculate).
Empiricism
In contrast to this, is the “Empiricist” view. Re-using our puzzle anology, an empirical view would start off with no assumption about the puzzle. They would say, we cannot be certain there are any pieces in the box. We cannot be certain the picture on the box represents the puzzle we might put together. We cannot be certain all the pieces are in the box. We cannot be certain they have been appropriately cut to fit together (we may need to re-shape them ourselves).
So, then Empiricism as applied to the Christian perspective starts with skepticism, doubting everything. Saying there could be other sources of truth outside the Bible, often using outside sources against the Bible (such as some do when they appeal to science or philosophy over the Bible). It leaves open the possibility that Christianity itself may be one big sham.
Irreconcilable views
These starting points are what is at the root of the conflicts between the various groups of Christians, especially the current dispute with the postmodernists/Emergents vs the Traditionalists.
I’m not certain how we could ever reconcile someone who has a presuppositional view with someone who has an empiricist view. The presuppositional view by its very nature may seem rude because by nature it doesn’t allow for experiential factors. In presuppositionalism, Truth Is — whether it is experienced or not. In the empiricist view, everything must be experienced to be valid, pragmatic & practical.
Calvinism vs Arminianism
Perhaps you can see how this might be true about the conflict between Traditionalism & Postmodernism/Emergent but how does this work between Calvinism & Arminianism?
Calvinism, or more appropriately “Reformed Theology” is intertwined with the presuppositional concept in that Reformed Theology’s concept of God’s Sovereignty presupposes God does whatever He wants, whether we think it is fair or not. Whereas, Arminianism, or more appropriately “Synergism” applies the empirical frame to God & claims God must be fair according to human standards — such as giving everyone the capacity to respond to the Gospel, automatically “saving” infants who die, loving every individual on the planet.
Conclusion
As long as one group, be they postmodernists, Emergents, universalists, Arminians, synergists, or any other such group continues to come at the Bible & Christ with the empirical frame there will be conflict with those who hold to the presuppositional frame. And often those who hold the empirical view will accuse those who hold the presuppositional view as being “close-minded”, “old-timers”, “modernists”, “fundamentalists”, & other such terms. Whereas those who hold to the presuppositional view will see those who hold the empirical view as “humanistic”, “liberal”, “theologically-weak”, “theologically-reckless”, & other such terms (& rightly so in my opinion).
Perhaps in an attempt to reconcile the two groups, someone will suggest that each are simply approaching God in a different yet acceptable way. This would be true IF both groups were non-believers coming to the Lord, but the very definition of FAITH is not simply “blind acceptance”, but it denotes “loyal devotion” as in fidelity. A person cannot be faithful if they are always skeptical, always douting. Imagine how that would work in a marriage if one or the other spouse doubted the faithfulness of the other all the time. Even worse & to demonstrate the empirical method, imagine if one or the other spouse doubted that they were even married at all.
Lastly, to conclude with our puzzle analogy we might see a group of empiricists working the puzzle together, each in doubt about whether the picture on the box is an accurate depiction. Each spending hour after hour doing nothing but talking about if all the pieces are even in the box (as postmodernists are apt to do, having endless “conversations” about nothing) Whereas we might see a group of presuppositionalists working the puzzle together, confident that the Sovereign God has given them all the pieces ready to fit together exactly as He intended, & when the presuppositionalists look at the picture on the box, they all see the same thing — Christ Jesus & thus they all work together toward replicating in faith, Christ in everything.
Presuppositionalism presupposes
Seems rather odd that one has to ask what presuppositions and then why these and not those?
Not all Christians share the same presuppositions or even worldviews nor do some ever wonder what their own presuppositions are.
The very fact that the modern day father of this sort of thinking couldn’t keep his own disciples in agreement about their presuppositions indicates that the reasoning for that brand of presuppositionism is quite questionable.
Within what you are calling presuppositionism and which you equate with all of Reformed theology, the existing spectrum of theologies is very broad e.g. Calvinists vs Hypercalvinists or Fundamentalism vs Evangelicalism and the problem becomes acute when considering eschatology for within the Reformed tradition you can have everything from Dispensationalism to Preterism.
Perhaps the problem is that you are trying to take what is really an approach to apologetics and turn it into an overarching theology?
Live to serve : Serve to live
overarching theology
Thanks for the interaction samlcarr,
I guess I sometimes forget that much of Christianity has gotten so far away from the basics of presuppositionalism that it may need to be clearly defined.
Your notion of presuppose is the common usage but I’m advocating a theological usage which is basically this:
Presuppose God is the God of the Bible
Presuppose God has revealed His nature in the Bible
Presuppose God has preserved the essence of His Word via the Bible
Empirical Christians will not even agree to the 3 “presupposition” above. Instead they might advocate a person can “find God in Buddhism” instead of despite Buddhism or that we can’t really know God, even from Scripture (they are like the Greeks on Mars Hill advocating their unknown & unknowable god). Lastly, you will often see empiricists doubting the validity of the Bible as it has been preserved for us. (I’m not advocating a specific translation btw)
The major lacking of empiricists is that they either contort or misunderstand the nature of God’s sovereignty. God’s sovereignty IS the overarching aspect of theology otherwise we worship a god of our own creation.
www.thekingdomcome.com
Only 3 ?
Roderick, I don’t personally have any difficulty with those 3 presuppositions and yet I don’t think that they are necessary a priori. One can also arrive at the same 3 points through an evidentiary approach and reach them as conclusions - imo, a much sounder methodology a la Romans 2.
Either could be how the Holy Spirit chooses to work and you are (forgive me) very foolish to try to tell God how He can and cannot achieve His purposes.
Live to serve : Serve to live
No need to argue process
You are now arguing process, which I was NOT arguing. For instance, I firmly believe that the Bible teaches God elects people via His own good pleasure & by no merit of their own…YET I still consider synergistic Christians (i.e. Arminians) to be Christians. Even Arminians advocate God’s Sovereignty yet they despoil that claim whenever they even add .1% co-working.
The point is, we may in retrospect look at process & think we worked our way to Christ or used an evidentiary approach to reach conclusions, but as you said the Holy Spirit was working all along. If I am foolish I am a fool for God’s Sovereignty in that He will do as He pleases.
See these related comments: Do Arminians understand they are Arminians?
www.thekingdomcome.com
defending the wisdom of paradox, as firing faith...
hi all. interesting posts all and let me say outright that we all have some of the fool in us. pointing out the possibility of it existing in another person seems redundant - a fellowship of fools i say!
Roderick, there were a couple of things in your two posts that struck me. first of all, your logic often seemed to be limited to either/or, binary categories. while this serves us well in the realm of the physical, in the metaphysical it can run us into all sorts of problems. even scientists - trained in the rigours of empiricism - embrace the Uncertainty Principle, however wacky or frustrating it seems. the duality of light - either a wave or a particle depending on how you “look” at it - underlines this.
i’m not saying here that there are no absolutes or constants. i intuit YHVH/G-d as being constant and yet paradoxical to my finite/in time mind, as I AM THAT I AM ultimately exists outside the temporal/eonic realm - being eternal.
i was also curious that you reduced the clash to Calvinism vs Armenianism and only mentioned Universal Restoration in with a bunch of sub-groups. i believe the statement of faith - made by the likes of Origen, Clement of Alexandra and many many others across two millenia - stands as a third major position, even if the other two think it punches well below their weight.
time will tell if ALL will be well - but this is my hope and one that gains momentum in the wider consciousness of believers. i won’t go into the scriptural claims set out by this group, but the ground upon which they base their understanding of the scriptures has BOTH presuppositional and empirical elements.
personally i am gravitating towards a much more universal restoration understanding of G-d - due to the scriptural, intuitive, judicial, logical, practical and glorious resonance i find there. i experience it as a resolution to many paradoxes that plagued me as a believer, who wanted to have and eat my presuppositional-empirical sandwich.
our rational minds love either-or dichotomies, linearity etc. this serves us well when going about our day to day lives as scientists, parents, teachers, accountants or ordering a cup of coffee. only an idiot would deny it’s useability and validity. we would not have newtonian physics without aristotlean/binary thought, or the internet. so it’s not archaic, just limited to it’s own realm of truth and application.
but G-d ultimately defies our neat little boxes and seems to have built paradox and uncertainty into the fabric of this realm - and the Bible is FULL of it. take any major doctrine - the trinity, the incarnation, hell etc - and you will find at least some semblance of scriptural support for multiple sides of a theological debate. maybe we need to bear this in mind more often.
I AM THAT I AM - an absolute statement of Self if ever there was one but oh how unfathomable!?
as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
Binary Logic
Hello liquidlight,
Thanks for the interaction. I may seem binary but I think I am getting that from the binary logic of the Bible itself, of God’s methodology. That is, the Bible is not a collection vague metaphysical paradoxes, but rather it is an ever unfolding system of type & antitype (binary logic). In essence, God has worked through typological means — first the natural then the spiritual. (1 Cor 15:46) God has a pattern wherein He laid out the physical universe (which mankind thinks is reality) but it is merely a shadow & copy (Hebrews 9:23-24) of the “real reality” which is the heavenly realm. All of history, all of the biblical story is supposed to culminate at the final revelation, of the fulfillment of what came before. Christ Himself said all of the Bible (The Law, Prophets, & Psalms) speak of Him. Christ is supposed to be that revelation, no more new after everything is “become new” & “all in all” in Him.
When Christ came & set up the Church, the former age/”world” was about to finally pass away & in its place, on the foundation of the apostles teaching would come the eternal age that will have no end.
Yet some Christian teachers still teach a blinded teaching (through a glass darkly/or through the veil of Moses) that the physical manifestation is still to be sought after — they teach a physical “holy people”, a phyiscal “holy land”, a physical (al be it to be rebuilt in the future) “temple”, & a physical end of the world, which the Bible NEVER declares, for also it would mean an end to the Church, and there shall never be an end to the Church against which even the gates of hell shall not prevail. (Ephesians 3:21) For the Bible never speaks of a temporal “church age” that will be replaced by a final age. The Bible only speaks of two kinds of people — those still in Adam & those in Christ. The Bible only speaks of two ages — that which was about to pass away & that which was coming at the time of Christ (there is no long Jew nor Gentile in Christ & trusting on one’s fleshly association with Abraham will not be accepted — for God could make stones to be the sons of Abraham, true sons of Abraham have always been those by faith, thus though not all of Israel was of Israel nonetheless all of “Israel” shall be saved, God desires none shall perish). We must press so-called teachers to define which type of people we are talking about (not all are “in Christ” some are still in Adam) & what age we are talking about. (Christians are living in the age that was to come)
Without understanding the methodology of the Bible, which is typological, we open up the door for such outrageous concepts as the Kaballistic Occult numerology to the modern “bible code” computer programs nonsense.
See further comments on this topic:
Interpretive Principles: Biblical Hermeneutics
Biblical Ternary Typology
www.thekingdomcome.com
No thanks for my interaction below?
I looked and verified that Clark and Robbins are indeed the main proponents of a teaching I find wholly repugnant and which seem to be parroted in the essay at the head of this topic.
But that aside, I read your “testimony,” Roderick, and indentify with it, in part. My introduction to Christianity, apart from a very devout Methodist grandmother whom I seldom saw, was the Orthodox Presbyterian schism of Machen, VanTil and a few others, who sought not so much the blessing of Orthodoxy, and the merits of the same. Seeking merit in one’s orthodoxy is the real subject of Paul’s rebuke in Romans 3. Far more repugnant to God than seeking to live with the blessing of prescribed prayer and ritual conduct. Though, the effect of such conduct is in transforming us, not in appeasing a wrathful God. And, as James teaches in his epistle, using the metaphor of a ship’s rudder, our striving toward orthodoxy brings us the benifits through better understanding of how things are, but may not intuitively appear to be. Orthodoxy is a blessing — not a merit. As you suggests, Armenians are saved, though wrong. Because being right is not our salvation. Christ crucified and risen and reigning is our salvation.
I once was quite anxious about all the pieces fitting together. Now I believe it’s the devils work if they seem to. I may be wrong in this article of faith — that the world works according to God’s benevolent plan, apart my its incomprensibility to me. I tend toward a universalist soteriology in this. I Tim 4:10 is my proof text of choice. But I would not grant universal validity to all forms of religious expression. Not all paths lead to God. Not any, in fact. My feet can’t get me there. And my tongue (Jame’s rudder, my confessed and operative beliefs) can’t guide me there. I’m a Calvinist as far as my understanding that I can only get there by God’s hand, not my feet. Not my words. Not my will to believe things which defy my senses and intuition. Just God’s hand. No path, not even straight and narrow.
So why have a keel and rudder on my little dinghie, if the waters in which I’m sailing aren’t navagable to paradice? Because God is present in this world of illusion — this shadow we call “reality” and experience as reality — through me (actually through His Spirit moving me, like the wind moves the amber waves of grain) and through others who have come to participate in His work — which is that salvation of the World, according to I Tim 4:10. And faith makes me and you and others a participant, and a recipient of special blessing, all by His grace.
A puff away from 3 packs a day
Fishers of Men
Just a little aside on the rudder metaphor. Fishers of men need a working boat. Our faith is for the task, not the reward.
A puff away from 3 packs a day
I have certain
I have certain presuppositions.
YHWH, alone, is God.
YHWH fashioned our physical milieu.
YHWH made us capable of knowing something of Him by knowing something of us (in His image), a trait intact since the fall, since Christ relied upon it so heavily in his homilies, parables, and retorts.
YHWH may think it possible for us to reach Him, though He confounds such efforts. (story of Babel, eating the Fruit) He does compensate for His jealousy toward man, by reaching toward us, most significantly through the humiliation of the incarnation.
The Bible speaks of encounters which YHWH initiated, and people spoke to one another, and posterity about. We know more of YHWH by means of the bible, through the instrument of our shared humanity with the authors. Not through any divinity of the Bible. Especially in translation from corrupt manuscripts diverging significantly from one another and the autographs.
So — the very doctrines of creation and incarnation speak in rebuke to presuppositionalism, by invalidating sense experience of the natural world, and by denying the willingness and capacity and historicity of God entering our context to make a transformative encounter.
Evidentialism isn’t much better, since it strains the imagination at times, and invalidates truth by trying to postulate the truth of things extreneous.
Better the way Paul put it. (and Origen in the 2nd century quite effectively) It’s a friggin’ preposterous notion, some guy raised from the dead. Evidentialism tried to show that it’s not so preposterous, after all. But Paul and Origen were aware of just how silly a declaration it was. But they stuck by it. And so, I will.
BTW, God’s speech to Job declared the puzzle analogy fallacious. The God who spoke to Job would not give a puzzle that fit neatly together. And those (the name Clark comes to mind, and Robbins) who insist that the puzzle is complete and coherent obviously didn’t hear that from the God of the Bible. More like — could it be………
SATAN????
A puff away from 3 packs a day
uncomfortable questions
Uncomfortable answers to uncomfortable questions seem to me to characterize much of the supposed theology of the ‘all is certainty and I have the propositions to prove it’ camp. When things get really difficult, typology comes from somewhere to save the day - I presuppose so!
Thankfully, in part at least due to the internet and emerging movement, uncomfortable souls are finding that they have not compounded their sin of disbelieving the presupposed logic when the level of discomfort forces them to move on.
The shocking reality is that there are other (perhaps more) faithful ways to read the bible and God has much more to say to us than any ‘set of propositions’ would ever indicate. For in spite of traditional theology’s lack, and indeed the lack in any of our abilities to read properly and to understand our Creator properly, by God’s grace alone He works with us to save us and to make us more like His Son.
Indeed, my spiritual parents are of a very conservative disposition and are very much my models for how one can and should follow Jesus. if they can forgive me and continue to disciple me, how much more could we say that of God - the ultimate ‘proof’ that right doctrine has no salvific value at all and that God is Lord regardless of our weaknesses!
If our Lord is leading us to emerge from anything, in large part it has to be just such a “take it or leave it” attitude, which is so distinctly unbiblical and antigospel.
I wonder how anyone who has really read the gospels, met Jesus there and then follows the story of the work of the Spirit in spreading the gospel of Jesus (incarnation, life, death and resurrection for mankind) can turn around and argue for stuff like: “confident that the Sovereign God has given them all the pieces ready to fit together exactly as He intended”. I wonder which presupposition that is and where in the bible it could possibly have come from?
p.s. bobcmu76 I, for one, really appreciate your comments.
Live to serve : Serve to live
Mutual appreciation society
Sam’l — at least I read your handle as a contraction of Samuel. Maybe its the prophetic bearing — I really made that comment to Roderick — whose “thanks for the interaction” has a grandiose, dismissive feel to it — as a kind of furtherance of a taunt. I don’t know what spirit to attribute my hostility to Clark/Robbins idolatry (and it is idolatry, to place the divine within our grasp, like a little fertility fetish (which ultimately contains nothing of divinity)). I’m glad to see you above speak not only of its shortcomings, but of its blasphemy, without stooping to the hostility which grabs me when I encounter the same. I loved the line “I presuppose so”.
Still, it’s gratifying to hear words of apprecitation. Thank you. And thank you for the many times your words have illuminated the discussions here. At times, showing more clearly things from which I’ve strayed, at others giving more confidence to continue groping in the direction I’m headed.
I appreciate especially in this topic two simple phrases offered by stacy. There is a God - I am not it. God is Love. So much contemporary spirituality seems to assail against the “I am not it”. We seem to want to look inside ourselves for the divine. Eve did. Or she wanted to put it there by eating the fruit. “I am not it” seems to be the conclusion experience teaches us to draw. But our heart desires otherwise. Apotheosis — the Devil’s lie? I think so.
That “God is Love” is an article of faith, makes me consider my own realization that the character of divinity need not be Love. In fact, in the abstract, divinity can be quite the opposite, fitting our native anxiety to appease it. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God”. We only know that “God is Love”, I believe, because we’ve been pesuasively told that such is so. We can’t know it by speculating on the character of God. Only by hearing it told. That, in my mind, is the kerygma of Revelation and of the Gospel. And what is, ultimately unique to the Christian message against all other religious traditions that have endured — all ultimately based on appeasement, rather than enjoyment. All lacking “consider the sparrows.”
A puff away from 3 packs a day (an Nicotine Anon slogan — 10 days from now will be 6 months smoke free)
insecurities
Funny, but I took Roderick’s “Thanks for the interaction”s quite literally as a sigh of relief at his “most important article” being deemed worthy of some response after all. Perhaps Roderick would tell us which is which? Presuppositions can be dangerous…
I’m not being facetious, it is truly wonderful to have people around the world willing to share thoughts experiences and wisdom since I am still feeling very much ‘at sea’ after having discovered that I had floated towards pomo types of thinking. It was a shock and in my case has been followed by my being branded sometimes as heretical or at the very least quite eccentric. Almost all those with whom fruitful conversations have been had over so many years suddenly fell silent and one is left with a distinct feeling that old friends fear that whatever has infected my thinking may just be infectious!
sam’l is fine. Actually you are right, the sam is for samuel, but at the same time the reason for the ‘l’ is that it’s my initial. if a contracted name can cause confusion, hermeneutics really is in trouble.
I’ve said it before - thanks Andrew and thanks to all of you “out there”.
Live to serve : Serve to live
Whew! pomo, not porno
I was wondering just what it was you were confessing to, Sam. But, po mo premises like the need to examine the motive of the narrator, the inadequacy of reason, and the self-referencial character of knowledge seem so central to Christ’s explicit teaching, that I’ve come to the conclusion that man’s thinking is catching up to what the Bible declared long ago, but we weren’t ready to accept until now. And some still aren’t ready to accept.
I mostly know pomo as the straw man which has been erected by presuppositional apologists (who love to point out the paradox of the certainty with which agnosticism refutes the possibility of certainty) who do less to characterize it as buffoon it. They tell me I’m a post modernist, though I don’t really have any formal grounding in it. Just something, I’m told, that I’ve learned by osmosis through liberal clergy and prevailing attitudes. I need to immerse myself in VanTil, they say, to innoculate myself from this cultural debasement. And yet…..
My own straw man of pomo concentrates on what I’ve heard referred to as “mediated culture” in articles such as this review of a book by Thomas De Zengotita
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2005/03/04/de_zengotita/index.html
Despairing of truth, people turn toward art. Toward identity politics. Toward what I call an “I shop, therefore I am” path to finding validation (which in a sermon I once heard from a Presby Synod President, is the modern word most resembling in meaning the Greek word translated Justification, and understood mostly forensically(but not rightly so) by Prostestant Christendom).
Harold Kushner’s “When All You Ever Wanted Isn’t Enough” exegitical treatice on Ecclesiastes addresses this very phenomenon, and the futility (vanity of vanities) of this cultural imperative toward individuation or the fashion-driven illusion of the same.
I think what this might mean to the emerging church, is that it errs in seeking validation through aesthetic individuation (what I see as a big flaw in modern evangelicalism), but need point toward ethical individuation….
What I mean by that is my premise, born mostly of Wesleyan influence, that our ideal Self (that which faith tells us we will be, incorruptably and eternally so, in the end days) is not toward some homogeneous anti-type, but uniquely Me, as God created me to be. That Me is defined most faithfully in ethical terms; of affections which are Spirit-driven, of capacities (competencies) valuable to our role in the community of saints. Sanctification is not driven toward uniformity, but toward individuation, defined by how we serve, not how we shop. That’s Christian pomo.
As for your inferrence from Roderick’s phrase — I know the feeling of validation I get when someone at least takes the time to tell me I’m full of stool. Silence is harder to bear. But that’s more a craving for vain validation than “justification by faith, through grace” — the validation which endures trends of fashion and fancy. What can I say? I’m just a miserable sinner.
A puff away from 3 packs a day
what i meant was....
Roderick, i either didn’t explain myself clearly enough - i did write my last post on the fly - or you projected your presuppositions onto it. either way….
i wasn’t demonising binary or denying it’s value or existence in scripture. your post was about calvinism vs Arminianim in relation to empiricism v presuppositionalism.
in short, i was saying that i think your “X vs Y is due to A vs B” analysis is based on a faulty application of binary logic. in orther words, i feel it is mis-applied within this context and that the result, while giving you a feeling of certainty & intellectual congruence, does not seem from my perpective, to be based on a reality “out there” but rather internal to you.
binary logic is vital in this realm - i just don’t think you’re doing it justice with this argument.
also, i never suggested that “the Bible is a collection vague metaphysical paradoxes”. what i DID say is that the bible contains some very deep paradoxical statements - big difference. but just because our finite & often too binary orientated minds cannot grasp them, doesn’t make them vague.
all of these conversations are framed by the truth that we are all part of this mystical, trans-temporal yet manifesting Body. if iron sharpens iron by contact and friction, let us enjoy it but let us do it in the right spirit. i can be as binary or dogmatic as anyone on the planet at times, which is invariably a sign of an underlying fear or uncertainty.
thanks bobcmu76 & samlcarr for your posts.
“Our faith is for the task, not the reward”. - i love that 3 packs!
my two cents
my presupposition is not much of one because i have - in part - discovered it through experience. however, i continue to come back to it when dogma or confusion frightens me: there is a god; i am not it.
my second, that requires faith (so is therefore not a presupposition?), is this: he is love
two plus two...
Stacy. i figure that if humanity had grasped your two cents thru the millenia, then the source of most wars and other manifestations of insanity and fear would have been alleviated.
Certainty in Christ
Since there have been so many replies, for easier reading I will make a combined response here.
What annoys me most about the “pomo” (postmodern/emergent) concept is that is eshews the concept of certainty. It revels in doubts. This is not the first time I have seen people express the pomo/emergent “conversation” as people being adrift at “sea” all trying to figure out where the oars & rudders are & then lauding the common bond that everyone is drowning together.
In the original article I gave the analogy of a puzzle, some people portrayed me as advocating that the presuppositionalists have actually completed the puzzle. THAT is not what I said, but rather that all the pieces are there & the “picture on the box” will be the outcome. Someone said that the Job account invalidates the analogy, implying that Job’s impression of how things should be was not how they were. This only shows that Job wasn’t looking at God but rather himself — the “oh woe is me” syndrome got the best of Job & Elihu & God set him straight. Job, its not about you & what you think it fair, but its all about God.
Oddly enough, many of us are agreeing more than we disagree, for just as was the point the Job account & as has been contained in many of the responses — “God is God & we are not” — however, this does NOT mean God wants to be some unfathomable “unknown god” like that of the Mars Hills Greeks. Again, Jesus said the whole Bible was pointing to Him. He wanted to be known. That is the whole purpose of “God becoming man”. That is the whole purpose of Jesus asking the question: “Who do you say I am?”
Postmodernism wants to deconstruct everything that went before. It wants to start with doubt & never reach certainty (at least not until we have a long, long, long conversation that not only looks at the “puzzle pieces” of the Bible but all other pieces even outside the Bible, & as Brian McLaren & crowd are fond of saying, “reshape” or “reimage” everything into a “new kind” — hence empiricism over presuppositionalism). Postmodernism’s answer to Jesus’ question is to question the question. That is, postmodernism will not even accept the question, “Who do you say I am?” without first asking if the question is even valid or even presented by Jesus. It is an endless circle of confusion disguised as discussion.
If we (as Christians) are ever to really have a “conversation” it MUST start with certainty in Christ. Otherwise such conversations become nothing but muddled messes of relativism where every claim of divinity (by other religions) is considered on equal footing. We must realize the playing field is NOT level because as many of you have said “God is God & we are not”.
Lastly, someone stated something very profound about the nature of the phrase “God is love”. They implied we could not know this via experience but must be told it. It is a declaration by God that no one can muster up from within as if it were some “inner-light” experience. In a world full of hate & false & selfishly motivated philanthropic actions, real love — God-love is not something that can simply be acted out but is a “presuppositional” declaration by God Himself, revealed in His Word, in the beginning. It is His very nature.
So, rather than try to discern the sincerety of my phrase “thanks for the interaction”, let us instead focus on the real isse asked by our Lord & King — “Who do you say He is?”
www.thekingdomcome.com
Eucharistic Conversation
Think about what’s done at a memorial, say for 9/11 victims, or the centernary of the birth of a notable figure or notable deed. We remember. I agree with Roderick, that we are most throughly acting as Christians when we discuss among ourselves “Who do you say He is?” And most Christian when we answer by what we’ve observed, not by what we surmise. Though, there is something self-referential about the question. And the question was in response to a shopping list of survey responses. At least Christ declares that aggregate public opinion does not say who He is. He is Who He is, regardless of who or how many know it. What Christ is saying, in a sense, may be that knowledge and truth are distinct.
Why does Christ even ask the question, then? Why not simply declare? How does one deal with blasphemous declaration? Jesus knew the difference between truth and certainty, and to what extent certainty is the enemy of Truth. Were he to go to Caiphas and announce Himself as the Messiah, and demand annointment as King — Caiphas would accept no evidence of Truth, but hold to his presuppositions that invalidate the claims made by Truth, in Truth. So Truth was silent. Truth sought to make itself, Himself, known through letting people conclude, based on reflection of what they remember, that their old certainties were indeed lies. That happened on the Road to Emmaus. That happened to Peter when he answered Christ’s direct question, in lieu of a direct declaration. That happened to the thief on the cross. That happened to 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost. That happens each and every day, as our accumulated encounters with despair, alienation, false hope, betrayal, and futility lead us to respond to the message that is probably, like when given by Jesus, no so much about confrontation with grand declaration, as the whittling away of our certainties that such just can’t be.
I find myself in those last few phrases restating much of the premise of Walker Percy’s “Cosmos”, only his declaration was given on the Donahue show by aliens from another planet.
Certainty calls the Truth “blasphemy”. The self-referential declaration that Jesus is the Son of the living God, indeed God, Himself, in a mysterious way that defies easy articulation. That declaration, not by Him, but in response to Him — is a pomo declaration.
A puff away from 3 packs a day
Revealed not experienced
I was driving at that Peter’s answer, (as would be our answer when correct) was NOT arrived at via a consensus, nor do we arrive at it after engaging in a “conversation” with others in a community, nor do we arrive at it from the counsel of friends (just as Job could not arrive at the answer from his friends’ counsel until God stepped in), nor do we arrive at it via experiential or empirical process.
All the people before said: “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” (Mt 16:14) Thus they concluded wrongly after conferring with one another or with experience.
But we see Jesus telling Peter, “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven”
No amount of experiential, empirical, or conversational, missional, postmodern, emergent, opensourced hub-bub will bring this conclusion. This is presuppositionalism — God IS because God IS, or as He Himself stated “I AM THE I AM”
In retrospect a Christian should be able to look back & see they did not figure this out on their own via any process, but just as Jesus said to Peter, “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” — THIS is what is meant by presuppositional certainty.
www.thekingdomcome.com
confession
Roderick, you seem to be going backwards rather than forwards here. We wouldn’t be having this wonderful conversation unless we already are believers in Jesus. If you want to talk about how each of us came to believe then we are back at apologetics, and we are not discussing theology. Faith does not result except God reveals Himself (that’s my personal conviction - presupposition, if you will). You also have to distinguish between knowledge and faith, I am talking about faith.
To your list ( experiential, empirical…) you may consider adding presuppositionalism for that too belongs there. We are not saved by our presuppositions and praise God we are not condemned by them either. God’s grace, love, righteousness, justice, mercy … our poor words, concepts and presuppositions just don’t come close!
Your puzzle is incomplete for it relies on man’s ability to presuppose, I thank God that in Christ He has overcome all my limitations and saved me despite my sinfulness and rebellion.
Live to serve : Serve to live
Means of Grace
In one of those Biblical paradoxes (paradi?) that people like to treat as syllogisms, some indicate that awareness of God is a magical thing, born not from the senses, but some extra-sensory “revelation”. But others, like I paraphrased above “Faith is by hearing and hearing the word of God” indicate that awareness of God is sensual. And I argue, gradual.
Certainly, God, by decree, can turn rocks into sons of Abraham, and by similar decree, harden the heart and scale over the eyes to hide the obvious. I don’t dispute the possibility of magic. Acts chapter 10 is one place in the Bible that makes one consider both the magical and tangible aspects of Grace — and also the necessity and efficacy of Baptism. I don’t much try to resolve the tension. Most such tensions aren’t an either/or proposition, or even a dialectical proposition, but more likely a synergistic one.
But, in all my pondering how God called me from the sewer of Self, into union with Himself, I hear voices — language — declaration — not Abracadabra. Not what Roderick implies in Jesus’ identity having been revealed by the Father.
I forget the exact context of the question — before or after the Transfiguration — or the sequence being different from one Gospel account to the next. Certainly seeing the Transfiguration is a “revelation”. But it is also a sense experience.
And as far as conversation — to me, the Bible is a conversation. The liturgy is a conversation. The Sacraments are a declaration and a venue for conversation. Faith is by hearing, and to hear, someone’s gotta be talking. Maybe some groups of Christians talk about the wrong things…. but it’s not wrong to talk. It’s necessary.
A puff away from 3 packs a day
I need to add — something which disturbs me about Clark/Robbins presuppositionalism, but strains for the right words.
I think Roderick argues, and I’m not sure about Clark/Robbins or VanTil — that being blessed with a correct set of presuppositions is something imparted by God, complete and intact. And so, when groups compare their various presuppositions, they cannot allow that anyone who’s deviate from theirs has encountered the One true God. Pride demands that one’s own propositions be of divine origin. One seldom tests one’s own certainty against the claims of certainty made by others. Schism is the result — the only and inevitable result — from the blasphemy of divinely-imparted presuppositionalism.
Pride & postmodernism
Ah yes, I knew it would eventually show up, the typical postmodern tactic. Somehow everyone else but the postmoderns are considered “prideful know-it-alls”, simply trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else in their meanie, judgmental, close-minded way.
How dare anyone claim the Bible contains certainty that God INTENDED Christians to understand. Let’s hug & make up — kumbyah!
www.thekingdomcome.com
Analogy of a puzzle?
My wife and I like to put puzzles together when we are on holiday. Recently we have found that the picture on the box is sometimes not the end result of the project—it’s as if the camera were shifted to the left or right and the picture is a smaller or sometimes larger version of the actual puzzle. At other times we have found new puzzles to have missing peices. True, maybe they were lost after we opened the box (although that is hard to conceive, with how thouroughly we searched for the missing peices). We no longer presuppose that we have all the peices or that the picture is accurate to what we are aiming for. But we do not engage in endless debates (or however you put it) about the peices and the puzzle. We merely proceed with the project, because, frankly, it is just as easy to proceed without those presuppositions as with them.
Defective Deity?
So, because you point out defects in your “experience” with puzzles you now imply that there could be defects in God? — not just how we view God but God Himself. I mean your post against the analogy didn’t say you thought the picture was different or that you thought pieces were missing, but that these were defects in what should have otherwise been an accurate, intact puzzle. So, the problem ISN’T in the fact that you should have presupposed, but that there were defects in manufacture. God is not defective. Your “anti-analogy” fails. And instead of having what you assume would be “endless debates” you will, by embracing postmodern relativism, engage in endless “conversations” about nothing. At least a debate pits claim against claim & allows the bystanders to determine what is accurate. Conversations of the sort advocated by the postmoderns are like a U.N. diplomatic session — pointless, toothless, & hopeless. Perhaps if we had more head-to-head debates where people didn’t run off into corners crying “big meanie!”, then we wouldn’t have 34,000 denominations today.
www.thekingdomcome.com
Analogy, or character of god?
Forgive me for not taking the time to make my meaning more explicit. You most certainly have misunderstood my meaning.
1. My (true) story was more of an attempt to question the validity of your analogy than it was to impugn the deity. It was not an attempt at an ‘anti-analogy,’ so it could not ‘fail.’ I merely meant to indicate that the presuppositions you begin with when approaching a puzzle are not necessarily everyone’s presuppositions, nor are they above investigation as to their truthfulness. Others (myself) have good *reason* not presuppose those things. If you want an analogy that somehow exempts the Bible from historical criticism, you will have to find another one.
2. I thought you were discussing the Bible as a source of truth and a foundation for a systematic theology, not the character of the deity.
3. You have assumed too much when you assume that I have embraced ‘pomo relativism’, or that I question the character of the god revealed in Jesus and the Spirit.
4. I apologize for not quoting you more accurately (endless conversations vs. debates). But the point remains. The puzzle analogy does not work the way you intend as demonstrated by my wife and I. We do not accept your presuppositions and are still able to put the puzzle together without endless conversations about nothing.
I hope this does not sound antagonistic—that is not my intent. What I would like to prevent is that you would place the people and responses within this post and on this site into categories that are too easily dismissable just because they differ from your own category. I, personally, did not like the feeling of being inappropriately tried and judged (although, I admit that I could have probably prevented that by being more explicit). Frankly, it isn’t in reality always as polarized as you presume (e.g., Calvin vs. Armenius—what about those of us who don’t fit either of those answers because we think they were asking the wrong question in the first place).
Peace
Applied Analogy
Hmm… somewhere there was a disconnect. Let’s try this again using your example instead.
The elements of the analogy are still the same God, Bible, Truth compared with Picture, Piceces, Complete Puzzle. I will use your original posting to show you what I mean by its failing.
So, are you saying the picture on the box might be of puppies but once you & your wife complete the puzzle it turns out to be sea gulls? A minor divation in perception is not the same as a completely different outcome. This would be comparable to us PRESUPPOSITIONALLY declaring the the God of the Bible is the one & only true God, & then saying but the picture on the box may not be accurate so there may be other gods.
Again, this is comparable to saying, the Bible may not be a faith accounting of God & His will. There may be pieces missing. We may have to open up the door for such outrageous concepts as the Kaballistic Occult numerology to the modern “bible code” computer programs nonsense. Maybe God is defective or His ability to relate is defective & didn’t give us all the pieces in Scriptures. We may need to seek out truth in vain philosophies. See how your objections are breaking down when applied?
So, mankind caused the conveyance of God’s Word to be lost? Somehow maybe we (via scribes through the centuries) has so muffed things up that we can’t rely that God has accurately revealed Himself via Scripture. Uh-oh!
How does this work in the real world? When someone says to you there are other ways to the Father (if there is even such a thing) besides Jesus, do you then respond & say they might be right because you presuppose nothing, not even statements by Christ Himself?
Ahhh — how safe & comfortable it must be to say there is nothing right therefore there is nothing wrong. This way no debate ever breaks out & people can dwell in the nether-world of ambiguity. How can two people “proceed with the project” when one says Christ is Lord & the other says no he isn’t (his is merely a prophet or a wiseman, or perhaps doesn’t exist at all) . I don’t know what pretend world you are inhabiting but presuppositions come into play even moreso when we discuss God.
See again how your anti-analogy when applied breaks down & is shown to be defective or makes God & His Word out to be defective?
Lastly, you say you don’t fit either category or being “monergistic” or “synergistic” (the terms I used, not simply Calvinistic or Arminian) — It might sound so refreshing to claim you are a 3rd way/middle-way but there really is no such thing. A synergist is still a even if he/she only attributes .1% to self & the rest to God. You are either a synergist or a monergist when it comes to God’s sovereignty.
P.S. I’m not angry or upset. I don’t even know you personally, nor will I do as others on here have tried to do with me & question your motivation, your maturity, your experience, your guidance or non-guidance by the Holy Spirit, but I do question how your concepts work when applied.
www.thekingdomcome.com
I will keep this short in an
I will keep this short in an effort to make it very clear: I am NOT trying to make an analogy between puzzle building and God/theology. My point is that the analogy doesn’t work. I have not attempted in anyway to comment on your presuppositions. Please stop putting words into my mouth and accusing me of positions and thoughts that I never admitted to.
And, BTW, I described the picture on the box as being shifted from the end result of the picture, NOT of peicing sea gulls together when the picture was of puppies. Let me highlight that I never tried to relate this operation to God anyway, BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT MY POINT. I told a story about puzzles that should make you rethink using a puzzle analogy to say what you want to say. THAT IS ALL. *I* am not the one trying to maintain the analogy. It is NOT an ‘anti-analogy.’
Anti-Analogy
Eric,
I too will keep this short. The problem with the analogy didn’t come from the analogy itself, but it came when you introduced the defect. You took an exception & tried to make it a rule.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that when you & your wife purchase puzzles you have no expectations about them? Surely, you expect them to be what is represented on the box. You expect them to have all the pieces contained & properly cut so that when you go to try to fit them together they will indeed. (If not, then might I suggest you get another hobby or purchase your puzzle from another store.) Otherwise the puzzle is defective.
I was not trying to put words into your mouth, I was merely applying your “anti-analogy” & showing you how it would work when applied to what we were really talking about — God, the Bible, & Truth. (& yes it is an anti-analogy because it was a defective version of the one I presented).
I don’t think we disagree as much as it would appear. If you are a Christian then you presuppose that the God of the Bible is the only God, as revealed through Scripture, & manifested most completely through Christ. — right?
www.thekingdomcome.com
what should have otherwise been...
Roderick, welcome back! You seem to forget (conveniently?) that the defective analogy is yours. It’s hardly fair to blame ericboehmer for your wanting to go from faulty presuppositions to a faulty god.
I happen to think that bobcmu76 hit the nail right on it’s head and, if you do do any church history you should acknowledge that your plethora of denominations is a result of reformation-enlightenment-modernism and cannot be blamed (after the fact) on the emerging movement.
In any case, no mature postmodern christian thinker will dispute your right to believe that you can completely understand everything based on your perfect presuppositions. It’s just that if I were to say something similar, I would not blame those around me for thinking that I was a very immature believer who still has a lot to learn about the God of the bible. That isn’t pride, it’s experience and maturity, taught the hard way, by the Holy Spirit, in the Lord. It is not a belief in a less than perfect God, but rather it is an acknowledgement of my own imperfection, smallness of mind and continuing tendency to be a sinner.
Just because you believe in your presuppositions and I may or may not does not preclude the possibility of meaningful conversation, or fellowship, or doing together the work of God’s kingdom. I think that you are still willing to converse with Arminians, even though you feel that they are mistakenly synergistic, well, please do the same for poor and somewhat deluded PoMo christians like myself too!
Live to serve : Serve to live
Notice the difference
I hope some observers will notice the difference. My original posting was about the theological perspective that drives the conclusions of people. Whereas most of the responses have been attempts to impugn my personal motivations & operation — Roderick is “prideful”, Roderick thinks he knows it all, Roderick is immature, Roderick hasn’t been taught by the Holy Spirit.
Interesting how someone can say that & at the same time themselves not be prideful, know-it-alls, & immature — for thinking they can assess motivation.
I don’t know why people adopt bad theological practices, I could speculate but I try not to get into that. My point all along has been that ONCE a person is a Christian, our standpoint should be:
If another Christian somehow thinks those points are prideful, being a know-it-all, or an immature inexperienced way of having faith (loyal devotion), then I’m not sure I want anything to do with those kind of Christians, since the kind of “faith” that doubts those basic presuppositions is hardly loyally devoted, but rather constantly doubting.
www.thekingdomcome.com
a doubting faith
roderick, i am not a theologian, and i am not certain i understand all of what you are concerned with in this thread, but i do think that there is both agreement and disagreement occuring simultaneously. as for me, i have less of a problem with your three points in your latest post than i have with this statement:
“I’m not sure I want anything to do with those kind of Christians, since the kind of “faith” that doubts those basic presuppositions is hardly loyally devoted, but rather constantly doubting.”
i dont know if i think you are “prideful” or not, to be honest i havent spent much time on what i think about you. i do know this: i struggle with doubt. for me to continue to learn how to believe in god anyway IS my loyal devotion. that IS my faith. faith for me is believing in things unseen in the face of terrible doubt. why else would it be called faith?
i was raised to believe that the fruit of true salvation was certainty. this has been a debilitating lie that i continue to trust god to set right. he loves me. i am growing to believe that the fruit of true salvation is my willingness to press on in spite of my human limitations and what i cannot comprehend.
i think you are correct in this statement: “My original posting was about the theological perspective that drives the conclusions of people.” certainly this is true; our perspectives drive our conclusions. in this way i think you bring a valuable concept to the table. but why debate what the perspectives are since they will always be varied? perhaps instead you can challenge us to learn how to recognize and test our perspectives against our continued learning and experiences? i would find that helpful.
no offense
Roderick, your three presuppositions are good ones and as i said right in the beginning, I don’t have a problem with them per se. In fact I wholeheartedly agree with all three. I am also encouraged by the rephrasing of your original 3. Just goes to show the value of conversation.
What i do have a problem with is your apparent belief in presupposing. That belief is misplaced for having these (or other) presuppositions (or not) is not what the bible talks to us about. God saves, presuppositions are incidental. The truth is the truth, God is God regardless of our presuppositions or abilities/inabilities to comprehend.
Of course God speaks to us in His word. Of course He wants us to know, but as Paul points out, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”
Don’t judge based on presuppositions. Judge the tree by its ability to bear good fruit and trust the Lord to decide who is a true disciple and who is not.
i am sorry and personally apologise if anything that i said has hurt you. Believe me, it was your expression of your idea/analogy and not you personally or the quality of your faith that is at issue.
i do sincerely hope that you will keep challenging me and contributing your insights for my edification and I am sure that all who have responded to your post will agree. You may recall that I was chastened by liquidlight right in the beginning! I look forward to even more important contributions from you.
What is an issue for me is that you seem to be saying “this is what I think and if you don’t agree then you are missing the boat”. Furthermore, you seem to have some very fixed ideas about what makes a PoMo oriented christian - to which I don’t take offense, but I do disagree and I hope that you are not saying “God doesn’t do this sort of thing, it’s inconsistent with my presuppositions”.
Certainly within the emerging church there are all sorts of believers and the diversity is quite remarkable but no more so than Jesus’s twelve apostles were diverse or than we see in the NT church. The very diversity of belief is to me a wondrous thing whereas for you it smacks of heresy. There are areas that require correction but we know that we are imperfect and long to be perfected and we can be sure that God will keep teaching us and correcting us if we remain obedient.
In my interactions on this site alone I have learned a tremendous amount. I have learned from so many people who do not share my presuppositions. I hope that someday you will also feel that joy, for God is greater than our little differences of temperament or theology and He loves each one of us and speaks to us in the body and fellowship of believers as He works to make us more like our Lord, Jesus the Christ.
Live to serve : Serve to live
No level playing field
Hello sam,
Please forgive me as well if I offended, but I think the dispute is coming from a misunderstanding of terminology. Presuppositionalism in how it is being used in this article is not synonymous with judging. Except perhaps that as Christians we have “judged” that God is God, that He has revealed Himself primarily through the Scriptures, & that He does want to be known by His people (Christians).
I have no desire to judge who is a true disciple or not, but rather as originally stated, I want to see what a person answers when Jesus asks, “Who do you say I am?” If the answer is ambiguous then what are we to think by those “fruits”?
In effect I am saying that in so far as when I am having a conversation about Christianity I expect that the people I’m interacting with have answered Jesus’ question aright. If they have not, then indeed, they are missing more than just the boat, just as we know what happened to those who missed the salvific boat in Noah’s day. Do I say this because I think I’m better or figured it out? Certainly not, since from my original statements, I said God both asks the question AND it is God who gives the answer.
Well, postmodernism by its very definition is built on uncertainty & doubt, just like the vain philosophies & how the people of Mars Hill had only a notion of an “unknown” (& unknowable) god. From Brian McLaren & postmodernists I personally know, it always comes back to being on a “journey” of uncertainty, where EVERYTHING is opensourced to questioning & doubting. (reference) Jesus talked about how in Him there is REST (not just when we physically die), not endless, wandering journies.
I have NOTHING against us all having a discussion/conversation but let’s have a fixed starting point, & since we are Christians, let it be around Christ & not simply around religions — We are NOT “religionists”. I often hear postmodernists talk about Buddha, or Gandhi as if these were on the same playing field as Christ & Christianity, yet as Christians we should see these things are weak & beggardly compared to Christ. They have no more to offer in way of truth than did the Athenians on Mars Hill or did the prophets of Ba’al on Mt. Carmel.
I just want to see Christians once against BOLDLY declaring Christ instead of trying to sneak Him into the postmodern movie along with everything else that is accepted as “truth” — amen???
I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me but I do have a problem with Christians disagreeing with the basic presuppositions (like the ones I keep mentioning). You talk about how diverse people are, even referencing the diversity of the disciples. Notice the common bond is they all presupposed (via God revealing it to them) that indeed Jesus is the Christ. I’m just asking that THAT be our starting point. That we don’t become like many postmodernists that seem to advocate one religion is as valid as the next, that all people be they Buddhists or Aardvark worshippers are all following the same God but in just different ways.
Let us instead, even if it is offensive (for the Gospel is indeed an offense to those perishing, but a sweet savor to those receiving life) boldly proclaim the KNOWN God to the world. amen???
www.thekingdomcome.com
Loyal Devotion
Stacy,
SEE!!! You do have a presupposition, that there is even a God to trust in & that He will set things right! :-) All I am trying to get fellow Christians to do is start with the “presupposition” that their TRUST IN GOD is well founded. That the God revealed in the Scriptures is indeed THE God, & in THAT you most certainly can be “certain”.
Stacy, when you pray do you pray some vague prayer conjuring up a vague unknown god (like those on Mars Hill)? — I don’t think you do. You have a very CERTAIN God in mind & focus when you pray.
This is all I have been saying from the beginning. As you said “there is both agreement and disagreement occuring simultaneously” & I think much of it has to do with misunderstanding terminology. When I use the word “presuppositionalism” it does NOT mean “knowing it all” or completely, but merely that we as Christians have a starting point, which is to presuppose there is only ONE GOD as revealed via Scripture & via Christ Jesus.
Let us not pretend there are many ways to the “Father” when the Bible says there is only one way…of THAT we can be CERTAIN — amen?
www.thekingdomcome.com
i dont know
i dont know the answer to many of your questions. i do not know that the being i pray to is only reachable through knowledge of the christ. i do not know what others in other lands understand as god or if the being who loves me loves them too inspite of what they may or may not know. i do not know what god does with my brother who was so injured by the church that he will not speak of god. i do not know.
i do believe that the christ has made the way, but i believe that simply as it is said - he is the way. there is no clause that says he is the way only if recognozed as such. therefore i believe he is the way for my injured broken brother, for me, for the woman in china who chants buddhist prayers.
i stated the pressupositions i comprehend. 1) there is a god, it isnt me, and 2) this god is love. after that i dont know, and i am not sure i care. but i suppose i must or i wouldnt hunt and peck around this site as much as i do!
why is this so important to you?
a bit of Pascal?
Roderick, going back to your original post “simply approaching God” is I think at the heart of your problem with other believers. Your starting point is “how do I think of God?” whereas my starting point is “God has saved me, what can I know about my saviour”. So, you wish to begin with your thinking about God and presuppositions that you suppose God has given you wheras I am more concerned with what God thinks of me and would rather go to the bible with my imperfect thoughts and presuppositions and say “teach me, correct me” without an assumption that I have to start at a predetermined point x in order to figure out what His alphabet is.
Man certainly uses logic in language and we also use other types of reasoning too. Your assumption is that our logic alone is sufficient and that those other types of reasoning that we use (and find in the bible) are not normative. If you dig into liguistics a bit you may find out a bit more of why PoMo thinks the way it does.
For me, as far as studying the bible is concerned hermeneutics is something like a spiral. I trust the word to keep challenging me and to keep teaching me as i keep studying. My assumption is that when I read today, I will not get the same message that I got yesterday precisely because God is working on and changing me (including my presuppositions).
Of course I have presuppositions and preconceptions but I cannot uncritically accept these as my ending point or as being somehow pure imago dei, untouched by the corruption of my sinful, alien nature. Neither am I at liberty to accept the preconceptions or presuppositions of another any more uncritically than my own.
I have to always be open to God to correct or change or modify anything in my thinking/self that He feels needs changing and in my case He does this both through teaching me from His word and through interaction with other believers (He has a long way to go). I don’t have to agree with those believers’ preconceptions in order to learn from them. Very often, I find that the most disagreeable portions of scripture are those that He uses on me the most.
Getting to your ‘fear’ of other religions, I believe that the scope of God’s saving activity is much larger than the present church. I believe that the Holy Spirit has been active throughout human history with all human beings in all cultures to bring us back to God (the ministry of reconciliation). Other believers amongst emerging circles take a more radical view and look for Jesus in what may seem to you to be very odd places and is based on the promise of John 1:9 f as an absolute. Jesus is Lord!!!
As a case in point let’s take philosophical Hinduism (advaita), proponents of whom include Vivekananda and Gandhi. Both of these men loved Jesus’s teaching and in particular the Sermon on the Mount. I wondered why and went to their sources such as the Bhagavad Gita and the writings of Adi Shankara and found - to my surprise - that in many places there are previews there of Jesus’s teachings. There is no question of then elevating these writings to an equal status with the bible but if I ignore what i believe the Holy Spirit has been doing, my witness will certainly be compromised. When He has given me tools with which to build bridges via which the gospel can be better preached I am a fool not to seek and use these tools.
You quote Acts 17:22 f quite a lot and it is similarly instructive to note that Paul does not begin with his own presuppositions but with the audience’s (see the explicitly anti presuppositional statement v 27) and freely quotes from pagan poetic sources to drive home his point as he leads them to the gospel. Along the way making a point incidentally that the organised church (Arminian and Calvinist) studiously and very obviously ignores “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man”.
I’m sure that my positions on many of these issues are not “typical” of other believers within the emerging church, but for what it’s worth…
Live to serve : Serve to live
You found me out
I was going to do a line for line interaction with what you wrote but after reading this line by you, I’m just too disgusted with the constant erudite assumption of my motivations.
Yep, you done did found me out. I’m just a dumb ole’ shotgun totin’ KJV bible quotin’ fundamental hick that lives in the back of my pickup truck in the church parking lot. I’m glad thares people like youins’ who are sooo much smarter than stupid ole me since I just am so a “fear-ed” of them thare “foreen” religions.
When will this stop? I have no more “fear” of other religions than did Paul when he interacted with the Athenians or Elijah when he interacted with the prophets of Ba’al — I’ve read & studied the Qur’an almost as intensely as I have the Bible (see this link) We Christians are MORE than conquerors in Christ. This “fear” stuff is the same kind of malarky we hear from the social-engineers of society that label people as “homophobic” — phobia denotes being afraid. We are not afraid but repulsed, just as we would be repulsed by adultery or bestiality.
You talk about how Gandhi loved Jesus’ teaching, really??? Have you ever heard THIS quote by Gandhi?
I’m not certain I want to be taking my cues from a guy like Gandhi who denies the atoning power of the Cross. Isn’t there another article on this site questioning the atonement? (source) Are you beginning to see a pattern with the postmodernists?
I’m sure there are a lot of good Christians lurking around in the emergent/postmodern movement/conversation but they need to speak out a little more forcefully about the basics, about the presuppositionalism that makes us Christians, otherwise this becomes a conversation about religion among religionists where there playing field is level & Buddha, Allah, & pink-polka-dotted Aarvark-idols are considered equal with Christ.
www.thekingdomcome.com
perfect love casts out...
There I go again, and again I apologise for an offense not intended but which seems to have stung you nonetheless.
But, before getting to the substance of your response, let me first congratulate you on having successfully reduced your presuppositions to just one: “they all presupposed (via God revealing it to them) that indeed Jesus is the Christ. I’m just asking that THAT be our starting point.” A worthier starting point one could not hope for.
Now, to the substance of your complaint. I substituted the word ‘fear’ in quotes for this statement as an accurate summary:
“That we don’t become like many postmodernists that seem to advocate one religion is as valid as the next, that all people be they Buddhists or Aardvark worshippers are all following the same God but in just different ways.” (my emphasis) i would still call that a fear…
You really do have to read a bit more carefully. I do not advocate “taking my cues from a guy like Gandhi” any more than I advocate that all christians should read the Gita.
Just as Paul was able to find points of contact between what avowedly pagan authors had penned and what Paul wanted to preach, so too should we do. What I did say is that one would be wise to see the work of the Holy Spirit wherever it may be found as an aid to preaching the gospel of Jesus. I do hope that your presuppositions don’t preclude the Spirit working wherever and however He may will.
Gandhi certainly did not believe in Jesus as anything more than a remarkably good teacher. You may find that that is what I did say in the first place and your quote from Gandhi only confirms the accuracy of my statement.
Gandhi died in 1948 (i think) so I am not out to preach to Gandhi, rather, he was an ‘erudite’ Hindu, and if I do want to talk to today’s Hindus about Jesus, it’s a great help that a teacher that they respect also respected Jesus as a teacher. That’s a good place to start.
I do argue from Acts 22 that your understanding of Paul’s apologetic method is faulty. I stand by that.
I’m not sure whom you are inviting to help you to find “a pattern with the postmodernists”. As far as i am aware no one at OST is attempting to hide any patterns that may exist. Given the diversity of views openly expressed, it’s nice to meet someone that is able to discover a consistent pattern! In fact the existence of a genuine pattern may be a great relief to some…
You claim to have studied the Koran and perhaps you have (though I would be offended if anyone pulled similar prooftexts out of the bible and told me that that was the essence of my belief) but you certainly are unaware of how christianity has spread in this world. I invite you to study that (outside of Europe and America where you are willing to admit to just few overenthusuastic foibles) and I won’t go into it here as there seems to be a small speck in my eye right now.
What I would like to ask you is just one question. If the Holy Spirit were to lead you to reject any one of your precious presuppositions (1st or 2nd tranche) would that make your faith vain or decrease in any way the effectiveness of Christ’s death on the cross for both you and me?
Live to serve : Serve to live
Calvin as empiricist
The original post constrasts the presuppositionalism of traditional Christianity with the empiricism of postmodern Christianity. I don’t have a problem with the presuppositional-empirical distinction; I disagree with the way they’re assigned to historical eras.
Pre-modern Christianity was highly presuppositional, resting not just on Scriptural integrity as the divine revelation but also on the traditions of the community, the authority of the Church fathers, and a Greek tendency to see incarnational and historical evidence as an imperfect representation of eternal truths. In ancient and medieval exegesis every text could be interpreted both literally and spiritually. Egexetes relied on the sensus divinitus to grasp the spiritual meaning of texts. Only the spiritual elite could claim a really deep spiritual intuition – a hierarchical understanding of virtue attributable at least as much to Plato and Aristotle as to the Judeo-Christian narrative tradition. Not surprisingly, the most “inspired” exegetes were also figures of authority in the Church who expanded on historical presuppositions. Their recorded and compiled insights – the “tradition” – came to dominate the Church’s understanding of Scripture (and, in the Talmud, the Jewish understanding as well).
When the Reformers proclaimed sola Scriptura, they weren’t just rejecting the authority of tradition (which they were, of course, in what would come to be regarded as a modern sort of way). Calvin and Luther didn’t reject sensus divinitis, But the Reformers did assert that insight was available to everyone of faith who read the Book. And, crucially for the present discussion, they also treated Scripture not just as an iconic, mystical channel of personal communication between Spirit and spirit but as external evidence to be evaluated.
The Reformers’ exegetical distinctive was to dismiss the spiritual readings of texts, concentrating solely on the literal reading. Of course they acknowledged the importance of inspiration in both the Bible and the reader. Still, Luther and (especially) Calvin treated the Biblical texts as data to be understood, not stimuli for flights of spiritual fancy. In this regard the Reformers could be regarded as the first Biblical empiricists.
Here’s Calvin the empiricist weighing in on transubstantiation:
“Let us never suffer ourselves to be driven from these two exceptions; that nothing be maintained derogatory to Christ’s celestial glory; which is the case when he is represented as brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or fastened to any earthly objects; and that nothing be attributed to his body incompatible with the human nature; which is the case when it is represented as infinite, or is said to be in more places than one at the same time.”
Calvin was no materialist. As a doctrinally orthodox Christian, he believed that Jesus was both God and man, bodily raised from the dead and seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, but also spiritually present in the lives of all believers. What distinguishes Calvin from his predecessors is his insistence on keeping spiritual “stuff” separate from physical “stuff,” then trying to understand each on its own terms. Many historians think that it’s no coincidence that modern empirical science came into its own especially in Protestant countries, where the anti-authoritarian empirical trajectory launched by the Reformers came to permeate the whole culture.
As I see it, the postmodern hermeneutic seems to be retreating from the Reformers’ empirical treatment of Scripture, replacing or augmenting it with a kind of neo-medieval reliance on traditional presuppositions of the Church in order to understand texts. So, for example, rather than trying to arrive at an acceptable literal understanding of the Creation narratives, there’s a tendency to regard the text as a primitive allegorical or poetic expression of the community’s new understanding of the monotheistic creator-God. The Scriptural data are subsumed under the traditional presuppositions, to be interpreted according to the spiritual intuition emerging within the present Church community.
In sum, then, I see the postmodern Church not as embracing empiricism but as retreating from it.
thanks john doyle
clearly (and beautifully) written. as a lay person, i followed you quite well. thank you.
i read an interesting article recently called “why evangelicals cant write fiction” that spoke to some of the same - dealing with the literary fall out in a culture that separates the physical and the spiritual. (flannery o’conner was delightfully quoted).
Agree with Doyle
I would agree with Doyle.
It is overreaching to apply a Presuppositionalism/Empiralism distinction to the Calvinism/Arminian debate as well as to the Postmodern/Modern debate.
I think I understand the point of the post, and I don’t want to take away from the positive insights in it. However, the philosophy behind Presuppositionalism and Empiricism as they are used historically would not apply in this post.
Empiricism was born out of the Enlightenment debate about epistemology. Simply stated they debated whether we gain knowledge via our rational intuitions (sometimes