So I've been thinking lately about some really weird stuff and this is a post about it, if you have any input like how wrong I am or whatnot post im more or less curious but this seems right to me based on my only source of ultimate authority - the Bible
Is there any common ground with the natural man (or technically un natural but ill use natural as to not be confusing)? If natural man bases everything on reason and that there is no ultimate authority how is it even possible to appeal to them, that is how is it possible to explain to them truth when our authority to them is un reliable because it cant be proved within reason(Bible). That is not to say it is not reasonable but the bias of the natural man is skewered toward his sin nature. There is no possibility to think anyway else because they are slaves to sin (rom 6:6), dead in sin (eph 2:1). The only way to understand is to be saved because of the supernatural regeneration of our mind.
" For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (I cor 1:21)". Truth to the un believer is foolishness, so there is no common ground. To even assume a neutral position and to start there would be to move you and the unbeliever in the wrong direction all together. It would be to assume that you and un regenerate man have anything in common at all, He perceives reality pre supposing mans wisdom is ultimate and that this wisdom is uniquely different in everyman. The contrast to us is that EVERYTHING stems from the bible if some system of thinking doesn’t stem from the bible though it may seemingly agree it may be wrong!
If we say discuss the beginning of the world and talk about how rational it would be if perhaps there was a God and He made everything and our friend agrees, well now what? We just solidified the idea that wisdom about everything comes from man that is if one small bit of insight can come from man then he will assume that everything can. So what’s the answer, how should we appeal to the un natural man? Hmm, well I think I'll see what kind of responses I get first before I make some assertion...
5 comments:
Hey Wyatt - Just a few thoughts for you on first blush:
What you seem to be arguing for is that "it (Christianity) only makes sense from the inside". If that is true, then we are no different than any other cult or religious system. To my way of thinking, if our faith is only understandable in that manner, then it is suspect.
So what is the place for the rational mind in Christianity? You wrote...
"If we say discuss the beginning of the world and talk about how rational it would be if perhaps there was a God and He made everything and our friend agrees, well now what? We just solidified the idea that wisdom about everything comes from man..."
I don't think this necessarily must be true. If we recognize that God made everything, that includes us and the capacity to reason. God chose to make us rational beings, and the efficacy of reason is evidenced every day - when we get into a car, flip a light switch, turn on a computer etc. Nature works in ways which is predictable to the rational mind - that is to say that the rational mind can order nature in a manner which is consistent with the operation of nature.
The source of our capacity to reason - the wisdom of man - is God. I firmly believe that the capacity to reason can point us to evidences in nature which make a belief in God a reasonable inference. But the fact remains is that God granted us the capacity to reason, which no other species enjoys to the extent which we do.
Likewise, there is a reasonable basis to believe in the truth of Christ's life, death and resurrection. While it is not the foundation of our faith - it is necessary to establish that our faith is not one which is merely a contrived tale of man's design.
Maybe I'm off base here, but can't reason provide the basis for pointing to the rationality of faith - though the Spirit ultimately convicts the soul?
Hey Wyatt,
I linked to your blog through Clint's - he and Christel are close friends.
You pose an excellent question, one that I've thought much about myself. You are right to say that there is a stark antithesis between the natural man's worldview that does not assume the authority of Scripture and the Christian's worldview that does.
Thankfully, at this point, the antithesis is not absolute. Epistemologically it is, the way we think is at odds with the way they do. But ontologically we have common ground, primarily by virtue of the imago Dei that every human is. Because of this stamp of the image of God upon us all, every person has innate knowledge of God, that Paul said is repressed by the unbeliever (Rom. 1:18ff). What that means is that unbelievers in effect know God, so when we appeal to them with the gospel, we're telling them something that they innately are aware of, although they suppress that knowledge.
As well, by virtue of common grace, the depravity in their lives and thinking allows them to borrow from the Christian worldview so that they can, to a degree, reason correctly. The rain falls on the just and unjust alike.
I would highly recommend to you Cornelius Van Til and Abraham Kuyper on common grace and Greg Bahnsen on the antithesis between Christians and non-Christians. I would also recommend reading John Frame.
I hope that is of some help in getting you redirected!
Clint would be good to speak to about filling it all in I'm sure.
Jason, you said "Maybe I'm off base here, but can't reason provide the basis for pointing to the rationality of faith - though the Spirit ultimately convicts the soul?"
I agree I just never finished the post to see what replies I would get. I believe that everyone knows that they are immortal, Greeks placed coins in their deads eyes, Indians would bury themselves with their horses, in I cor 15:29 talks about pagan religions baptizing the dead during the early church. Everyone longs for eternal life and knows that they are immortal.
God put a Moral law on everyones hearts if you where to ask someone if it was right to go shoot up a school they say NO! Paul tells us this in Romans "in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (rom 2:15).
In romans when it talks about Gods' invisible attributes being shown through creation I believe it proves that everyone must know there is a creator and from that they know that they are the creature. So all know that they owe something to the creator, though they need some special revelation from God to know exactly what that is (the bible).
My point of the original post would be that if we are talking to someone we should pre suppose the bible is the true innerrent(sp?) word of God and that they know the truth they just suppress it. If you prove it evidentially like in the case of creation then you just show them that there system of truth is equal to ours, the bible.
If we start and say the universe was created by God because his word says so and because you already know this (because of the above reasons) you will believe. Though I agree in that we should provide evidence for it afterwards because there is an abundance of evidence to give assurance.
I may be wrong but if God is sovereign in all things even that of salvation He will be doing all the work not us. I think all we need to do is faithfully proclaim the word of God, He will do the rest. Ehhh I sound like im downplaying using our minds which i dont mean to imply just that "the gospel is the power unto salvation".
Anyways I still may be wrong I am pretty new at the whole bible/God thing.
Ian, I think i explained most of my reasoning in the post to Jason. Hopefully answered your concerns.
By the way Van Til is my favoritist ever! He is in fact part of the reason why I am thinking about all this right now. The main reason I wrote the original post was because of galations 3:22 "But the Scripture hasshut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
It would seem that Paul says that faith will be given to those who already believe. I think what hes getting at though is that He is so sure that the elect will believe that he uses the past tense. That its already assumed to happen like in Romans 8:30 when he says "Those whom He justified He also Glorified". Its assumed that if you are saved you will be glorified though it has not already happened its used in the past tense because it so assuredly will.
In the same way if you are evangelizing you dont need to prove to someone God exists through some non biblical means or do some sort of tricksy game evangelism (press the right button to win a million dollars!!! ugh).
I appreciate your thoughts brother, keep blogging!
Glad to hear you're a Van Tillian. I'll be you don't have a Van Til t-shirt though. :)
Post a Comment