tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6747545104326440038..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Frazer Responds to Knapton:Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87319673163906522082010-07-01T22:09:06.793-06:002010-07-01T22:09:06.793-06:00"So how does one come to profess belief in th..."So how does one come to profess belief in these specific Christian doctrines? By faith-- "<br /><br />The Tibetan nomad has no idea what these doctrines are. What can he find out about God from "what is made"(Romans 1)? It says God qualities or nature. That is put into words in Exodus 34:5-7. I do not know if it is by reason or revelation? I think Tom is right when he calls it first revelation. Or Aquinas general revelation. Either way it seems to be reason un-aided by scripture(special revelation)? We need to get our definitions straight to understand what these men are saying.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67852387367688026822010-06-30T17:21:36.663-06:002010-06-30T17:21:36.663-06:00That could only mean one thing, KOI--you are a the...That could only mean one thing, KOI--you are a theistic rationalist!<br /><br />Well, maybe a Lockean Christian?<br /><br />The nature of religious belief is a far more difficult question than any discussed at AC. Because your conversion is your own private experience, I can only accept your account of it. Aquinas, however might disagree. He might argue that your reason is only valid concerning matters that are empirically evident or in some way demonstrable. Reason might lead you to infer the existence of a supreme being, but little more. Reason cannot make conclusions about God’s will in general or specific Christian doctrines such as angels/spirits, the incarnation, the atonement, and the resurrection. They come through divine revelation. And these are not propositions that can be affirmed by reason. <br /><br />So how does one come to profess belief in these specific Christian doctrines? By faith-- an act of your will in which you assent to the truth of these propositions that are not evident to reason. And where did faith come from? The grace of God, of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52394663570050418412010-06-29T15:53:19.620-06:002010-06-29T15:53:19.620-06:00"In contrast, theological rationalists used r..."In contrast, theological rationalists used reason not so much as to interpret the scriptures, but to assess whether in fact the bible IS revelation at all."<br /><br />Who does not do this? I had never read it at all until 26. I began to read it and what some people said about it, THOUGHT IT OVER, and began to realize it was true. <br /><br /><br />I have since come to realize that things like Paul's letters and other times when men gave opinions are not revelation but those men's opinions. Not to mentioned the heavy handed ways that things like the biblical canon and the trinity usually come about. It is usually more about politics than conviction. <br /><br />So because some council called by a Pope or Emperor says that something is revelation we are supposed to take that uncritically? Come on.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2428230220145598622010-06-29T15:48:43.253-06:002010-06-29T15:48:43.253-06:00"First, there is a huge difference between us..."First, there is a huge difference between using one's reason to try to figure out what the Bible says/means and using one's reason to determine that a portion of the Bible is not revelation at all because one doesn't like what it says. That's the difference between Christians and the theistic rationalists."<br /><br />"because one doesn't like what it says" is pure and unsupported conjecture Gregg. If this is the main difference and that is all you have for evidence I am not seeing it. They may not like you think it says it does not mean they reject the Bible.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12468900157761661912010-06-29T11:12:28.297-06:002010-06-29T11:12:28.297-06:00First, there is a huge difference between using on...First, there is a huge difference between using one's reason to try to figure out what the Bible says/means and using one's reason to determine that a portion of the Bible is not revelation at all because one doesn't like what it says. That's the difference between Christians and the theistic rationalists.<br /><br />As Jon said, "Secular Square" has it right.<br /><br />Second, Aquinas taught that faith and reason would usually lead to the same end/conclusion because God is the source of both. However, when the two come into conflict, it is due either to an error in reasoning or an error in interpretation of Scripture. He most certainly did NOT place reason ABOVE faith.Gregg Frazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883853316391723287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43326400435442056802010-06-28T09:24:29.887-06:002010-06-28T09:24:29.887-06:00Jon-thanks
KOI-it is a very complex subject--so c...Jon-thanks<br /><br />KOI-it is a very complex subject--so complex that I experience difficulty discerning in some exchanges what exactly are the points of disagreement among the AC team. And sometimes I wonder if the AC team knows. <br /><br />In my comment above, I guess initially “what it all comes down to” is really a question about the use of philosophy rather than a proper historical question. But it bleeds over in history. <br /><br />Aquinas used reason or philosophy to support Christianity as a preordained conclusion. Most Christian philosophers today follow in the footsteps of Aquinas. People like Frame, Plantinga, and Lane use philosophy for apologetics or evangelism. Since their subject is specifically the Christian deity, one can broadly call it theology, sacred theology, or dogmatic theology. Even so-called natural theology, which by its name suggests something free from biblical or doctrinal presuppositions, is mainly done by Christian philosophers to support their preordained conclusion: that Christianity is true. (And the more fundamentalist Christians do the same thing with the sciences.)<br /><br />Many Enlightenment philosophers (and the theistic rationalists they influenced ) sought to recapture the pre-Christian philosophical approach of ancient philosophy, unadulterated by Christian dogma. They considered themselves “enlightened” compared with the “dark ages” dominated by medieval Christian philosophy. It was/is a more open ended pursuit of truth that did not have to be kept within the boundaries of Christian dogma. (Not that the inquiries of non-Christian philosophers are free from their own personal interests and presuppositions!) Consequently, Enlightenment philosophers (their modern philosophical heirs) exhibited skepticism about claims of divine revelation and miracles. Hence the views of Hume, Paine, Adams, Jefferson etc. <br /><br />The complexity of which you spoke I believe comes in because the Enlightenment philosophers simply could not pretend that a thousand years of medieval history did not take place. The medieval age and its ideas shaped the age of the Enlightenment. I do not believe that Enlightenment philosophers could free themselves totally from the influence of the Christian societies in which they lived. And this, as can be seen from the exchanges between you, TVD, and Jon, makes it extremely difficult to disentangle Christian thought from non-Christian thought when assessing the role of ideas in the American founding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10580903225771976762010-06-27T22:39:35.938-06:002010-06-27T22:39:35.938-06:00Secular Square,
I am still not sure what the defi...Secular Square,<br /><br />I am still not sure what the definition of revelation is in this discussion. With that said, you bring up some good points. So this all comes down to whether reason unadided by God allows us to determine what is revelation in the Bible? That is a complex subject for sure. Most Evangelicals would say it is the Holy Spirit but reason to has a part in that too. I have always wondered how Calvinists think a totally depraved person can respond to what it written in the Bible. I guess this is why they teach irresistable grace?King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67586047100771559052010-06-27T10:37:26.297-06:002010-06-27T10:37:26.297-06:00Secular Square:
Outstanding response.Secular Square:<br /><br />Outstanding response.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89930627782795111492010-06-27T09:00:45.874-06:002010-06-27T09:00:45.874-06:00KOI
If I understand Frazer, he argues that theisti...KOI<br />If I understand Frazer, he argues that theistic rationalists used reason for different ends than determining what God allegedly says in the bible. Your recognition of the need for reason in interpreting the bible is true, but it is also closer to Aquinas than theistic rationalists. I understand that Aquinas accepted the bible as divine revelation on faith. According to Aquinas, theological science takes “its principles, not from other sciences, but immediately from God, by revelation.” But then it borrows “from the philosophical sciences [reason?], not as though it stood in need of them, but only in order to makes its [theological science?] teaching clearer.” Of course, most orthodox Christians would add that teaching ministry of the holy spirit (I John 2.27) and a regenerate mind (I Cor. 2.14) are also needed. <br /><br />In contrast, theological rationalists used reason not so much as to interpret the scriptures, but to assess whether in fact the bible IS revelation at all. As Locke put it, “Even original revelation cannot be admitted against the clear evidence of reason.” He argued that “reason vouches the truth of [revelations], by the testimony and proofs it gives that they come from God.” If we take his words at face value, it appears that Locke, using reason alone, concluded that the bible is revelation. But as Frazer’s quotes demonstrate, Adams and Jefferson came to the opposite conclusion. Again, most orthodox Christians would add that reason alone is not enough even to determine if the bible is divine revelation and that the holy spirit and, at least in the eyes of Calvinists, a regenerate mind are also required. And maybe a few signs and wonders (Heb. 2.3-4.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34555560795414442482010-06-26T19:45:17.999-06:002010-06-26T19:45:17.999-06:00Jon and Robert,
What does this have to do with an...Jon and Robert,<br /><br />What does this have to do with anything in the post?King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62081890599473690552010-06-26T12:50:06.875-06:002010-06-26T12:50:06.875-06:00Robert,
That's a good one. Since they didn&#...Robert,<br /><br />That's a good one. Since they didn't have condoms back then, maybe original sin was Adam pulling out before finishing.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76995869467210772042010-06-26T12:07:11.167-06:002010-06-26T12:07:11.167-06:00The Fall of man was when Adam and Eve had anal int...The Fall of man was when Adam and Eve had anal intercourse instead of being fruitful and multiplying. Who's smart enough to figure out what's wrong with this very offensive exegesis? Google "Robert Hagedorn's Blogs"Robert Hagedornhttp://www.TheFirstScandal.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15778508058558390002010-06-25T14:02:56.894-06:002010-06-25T14:02:56.894-06:00As always, Avery Cardinal Dulles helps sort things...As always, Avery Cardinal Dulles helps sort things out:<br /><br />http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1981/v38-3-article6.htm<br /><br /><i>On the question of the priorities between faith and reason, Rogers and McKim hold that whereas Augustine made faith prior to reason, Thomas Aquinas and the medieval scholastics inverted the order, making reason primary. This contrast strikes me as overly sharp, since both Augustine and Aquinas recognized that the priorities are mutual. In his Commentary on the Psalms, for instance, Augustine wrote: "There are some things that we do not believe unless we understand them, and there are other things that we do not understand unless we believe them." How could we believe the preaching of the gospel, he then asked, unless we understood what was being proclaimed?</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56979060515226690362010-06-25T11:38:10.880-06:002010-06-25T11:38:10.880-06:00"indeed, reason determines what counts as leg..."indeed, reason determines what counts as legitimate revelation from God."<br /><br /><br /><br />Hooker wrote on the problems with this kind of reasoning. How else do we come to conclusions as to what God is saying and what he is not in the Bible. We apply our reason.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20107975537959040272010-06-25T11:31:38.423-06:002010-06-25T11:31:38.423-06:00" and otherwise did not exalt reason over rev..." and otherwise did not exalt reason over revelation."<br /><br />I think we need a clear understanding of what this means. Some would say Locke did it. I disagree. Taking a reasoned approach to interpretation of the Bible and throwing out dogma like the Trinity that was bullied into existense as church doctrine is far different than saying that unaided reason trumps revelation from God. That is the French Revolution not the American one.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.com