PDA

View Full Version : A Discussion on Religion with apothanein kerdos



KATA_LOUKAN
Aug 12th 2008, 07:09 PM
Since the other thread was locked for reasons unknown to me and because I want to continue this discussion, I have moved my post here.



Islam forces a person to go against the imago Dei. It forces us to treat our neighbors and our women in a way that simply doesn't seem right. Our gut reaction is that the subjection of women in Islam is simply wrong (such as honor killings).

As for what people believe about Christianity - you are free to point out where you think it's weak and doesn't accurate explain the world.

Aye, there's the rub.

It doesn't seem right to treat women like that, but Muslims seem to think that it is WRONG to NOT treat women like that (living in a Muslim country, I can attest to this). It is simply a matter of being born in a Western country with liberal values. As little as 100 years ago in this country, Christians would be shocked to see a woman holding a professional job.

Similarly, it SEEMS as though the resurrection destroyed death, but Jews seem to believe that Jesus was a liar, a crazy man, or both.

My proposition is that our preference for religion is shaped by what presuppositions we bring to the table.

For example, Buddhists reject Jesus because he suffered. The point of Buddhism is to eliminate suffering. When they read of Jesus's struggle with the cross, they are taken aback. Their teacher learned to reach enlightenment, where his suffering ceased. How could they learn from this man who was attached to the world?

I personally do not reject Islam for these reasons alone, although I believe that Islam treats women in a terrible manner. I believe that your theory is too subjective in how it dismisses other religions. Do you have a standard to which you hold other religions?


Name one that explains the world better than Christianity. If you can't, then create one that explains the world better than Christianity, but is also logically consistent with reality.

Name one? Well, as a Christian I believe there are none! But it could be concocted if you would allow for faith based statements to be treated as subjective.

L. Ron Hubbard tried just this, and came up with Scientology. The religion picks the comforting, easy aspects of all religions and codifies them in order to gain converts. He explains in simple English, without hermeneutical gymnastics required for other texts, what it means to be moral. He also incorporates elements of science. How else would someone explain their belief in bizarre things (such as Lord Xenu) without reference to the comfort they get by being part of that religious system? (Although there ARE huge flaws in their perception of the world, these could be corrected).


Most assuredly, but it doesn't discount the fact that there is a huge rise of evangelical Christians entering the PhD realm of philosophy. At the current rates it is expected (and this comes from a philosophical journal) that evangelicals may make up almost half of the student population in graduate programs in the next 20 years.

Is this only in the United States, or everywhere?

apothanein kerdos
Aug 12th 2008, 07:20 PM
If I you don't mind me skipping some of what you wrote to get to the main point...


My proposition is that our preference for religion is shaped by what presuppositions we bring to the table.
:pp


Exactly! That's what I was attempting to say. On the outset one's religious views might seem plausible but that's because VERY FEW religions tell us to look at our presuppositions. We are told to "accept what you are told" and move along.

I tend to follow Van Til and Schaeffer. Both of these men taught us that we challenge a person's presuppositions and show how they don't match up with the world.

If you're able to get such books in your country (I don't know how strict Syria is), I'd encourage you to get The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy by Francis Schaeffer and The Defense of the Faith by Cornelius Van Til.


But it could be concocted if you would allow for faith based statements to be treated as subjective.

Any truth statements or factual statements have to be evaluated outside of our experience.


L. Ron Hubbard tried just this, and came up with Scientology. The religion picks the comforting, easy aspects of all religions and codifies them in order to gain converts. He explains in simple English, without hermeneutical gymnastics required for other texts, what it means to be moral. He also incorporates elements of science. How else would someone explain their belief in bizarre things (such as Lord Xenu) without reference to the comfort they get by being part of that religious system? (Although there ARE huge flaws in their perception of the world, these could be corrected).

The inherent problem with Scientology is its ignorance of a metaphysic or even significantly developing an adequate epistemic system.


Is this only in the United States, or everywhere?

Yes, it is only occurring in the US. I'd like to see it occur elsewhere, but that will be difficult. I'd actually like to open a college for Muslim immigrants in Southern France someday, or teach at a Muslim university, but that'd be difficult considering I'm an American Christian Jew. ;)

Clavicula_Nox
Aug 12th 2008, 09:25 PM
The inherent problem with Scientology is its ignorance of a metaphysic or even significantly developing an adequate epistemic system.

You have got to be kidding me. Scientology has everything, from alien overlords, to galactic rebellions, to the implantation of alien souls!

Fenris
Aug 12th 2008, 09:27 PM
You have got to be kidding me. Scientology has everything, from alien overlords, to galactic rebellions, to the implantation of alien souls!
And Tom Cruise!

apothanein kerdos
Aug 12th 2008, 09:53 PM
You have got to be kidding me. Scientology has everything, from alien overlords, to galactic rebellions, to the implantation of alien souls!
:lol:

We're all just souls that were melted in Hawaiian volcanoes

Brother Mark
Aug 12th 2008, 10:11 PM
My proposition is that our preference for religion is shaped by what presuppositions we bring to the table.

This is why one must come in contact with the Living God. When God shows up, our presuppositions go out the window.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 12th 2008, 10:48 PM
This is why one must come in contact with the Living God. When God shows up, our presuppositions go out the window.

That's a presupposition. It is literally impossible to get rid of presuppositions. You'd either have to be unconscious (asleep), dead, or non-thinking to not have presuppositions. What you're saying is on the same level as, "Oh, you can still be alive without breathing."

Brother Mark
Aug 12th 2008, 11:41 PM
That's a presupposition. It is literally impossible to get rid of presuppositions. You'd either have to be unconscious (asleep), dead, or non-thinking to not have presuppositions. What you're saying is on the same level as, "Oh, you can still be alive without breathing."

Doesn't really matter though. When Paul came into contact with God, his presuppositions where changed. When Peter experienced the dream and knew it was from God, his presuppositions changed.

It's not logic or reason that changes us, it's God and his power.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 12th 2008, 11:59 PM
Doesn't really matter though. When Paul came into contact with God, his presuppositions where changed. When Peter experienced the dream and knew it was from God, his presuppositions changed.

It's not logic or reason that changes us, it's God and his power.
:B

That's what I've been saying. You said that our presuppositions don't matter. The fact is, they do. Our presuppositions are to align with God.

Do you believe He can't use reason to demolish someone's presuppositions? This is how many people have come to Christ - they realize the inadequacy of their viewpoint through reasoning it out and then realize that Christianity answers the intellectual problems they have.

Clavicula_Nox
Aug 13th 2008, 01:18 AM
All silliness aside, this (and the other) threads are great, I've really enjoyed reading through them.

KATA_LOUKAN
Aug 13th 2008, 05:40 AM
Exactly! That's what I was attempting to say. On the outset one's religious views might seem plausible but that's because VERY FEW religions tell us to look at our presuppositions. We are told to "accept what you are told" and move along.

I tend to follow Van Til and Schaeffer. Both of these men taught us that we challenge a person's presuppositions and show how they don't match up with the world.

If you're able to get such books in your country (I don't know how strict Syria is), I'd encourage you to get The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy by Francis Schaeffer and The Defense of the Faith by Cornelius Van Til.


Noted. Thanks for the recommendation! I can actually get these with no trouble. I should mention at the outset that although Syrian, I am living in Lebanon (which hasn't banned any books other than the Da Vinci Code, et al.)

I will look into this.


Any truth statements or factual statements have to be evaluated outside of our experience.

Although faith statements are really just that (faith based), my point was to invoke the law of parsimony and say that one can engineer a religious system in which we don't have to go through a book like the Bible (not simple and written in a different cultural milieu).


Yes, it is only occurring in the US. I'd like to see it occur elsewhere, but that will be difficult. I'd actually like to open a college for Muslim immigrants in Southern France someday, or teach at a Muslim university, but that'd be difficult considering I'm an American Christian Jew. ;)

I was actually surprised to find that we have more Buddhist Universities in the US than Islamic universities. But good luck with that teaching. I still have a few more years until I will get into that.


If I you don't mind me skipping some of what you wrote to get to the main point...

Well, I was hoping you would offer me your criteria for rejecting other religions, but it seems to me to be a little more complicated and not as airtight as we would like.

Fenris
Aug 13th 2008, 02:29 PM
Name one that explains the world better than Christianity. If you can't, then create one that explains the world better than Christianity, but is also logically consistent with reality.Actually, every religion explains reality to it's believers...

apothanein kerdos
Aug 13th 2008, 02:31 PM
Noted. Thanks for the recommendation! I can actually get these with no trouble. I should mention at the outset that although Syrian, I am living in Lebanon (which hasn't banned any books other than the Da Vinci Code, et al.)

Must be nice to get real humus....



Although faith statements are really just that (faith based), my point was to invoke the law of parsimony and say that one can engineer a religious system in which we don't have to go through a book like the Bible (not simple and written in a different cultural milieu).

Right, one can invent a religious system, but it won't stand up to actual scrutiny. That's the point I was trying to make. Only Christianity can ultimately stand up to scrutiny if we evaluate the presuppositions of a person.


I was actually surprised to find that we have more Buddhist Universities in the US than Islamic universities.

The cultural trend in the US is toward Nihilism. In Nietzsche's book The Antichrist, he speaks of how Buddhism is far more preferable to Christianity because Buddhism teaches that, ultimately, there is nothing. Given America's religious background it is harder for America to switch over to atheism. Thus, Buddhism is the natural (and unfortunate) step in our acceptance of nihilistic thinking. One of the biggest struggles in America right now - that too few Christians even realize is occurring - is Buddhist philosophy seeping into Christian theology.



Well, I was hoping you would offer me your criteria for rejecting other religions, but it seems to me to be a little more complicated and not as airtight as we would like.

Thats part of the reason I offered the books. It's a huge process. Ultimately, however, it comes down to a few things:

* Does the philosophy/religion self-refute itself (e.g. naturalism says the only truthful statements are ones with empirical evidence behind them...but the above truthful statement has no empirical evidence behind it)

* Does it accurately describe the human experience

* Does it offer an adequate solution for fixing the human experience

* Is it logically consistent

A lot of religions come close (Judaism and Islam in particular), but ultimately even these fall short in my opinion. The criteria is much more complex than the above, which is why Schaeffer and Van Til are important reads.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 13th 2008, 02:33 PM
Actually, every religion explains reality to it's believers...

But this, again, is due to the presuppositions one assumes. I am speaking of looking at a person's presuppositions and seeing if they function properly.

Admittedly this is harder for a Christian to do with a Jew or a Muslim than say, a naturalist. The reason is the Jew and Muslim are close to the Christian in belief, thus their presuppositions are going to be extremely similar (e.g. all will believe that one God created the universe). I would argue that for these three it comes down to a matter of evidence - which side has the most convincing evidence. The slight variations in our presuppositions will most likely dictate who we believe has the most evidence. :)

Fenris
Aug 13th 2008, 02:38 PM
But this, again, is due to the presuppositions one assumes. I am speaking of looking at a person's presuppositions and seeing if they function properly.And every person of faith will find something incorrect in other religions.


I would argue that for these three it comes down to a matter of evidence - which side has the most convincing evidence. The slight variations in our presuppositions will most likely dictate who we believe has the most evidence. :)
That's true. This means that the answer is subjective and not objective.

Brother Mark
Aug 13th 2008, 03:15 PM
:B

That's what I've been saying. You said that our presuppositions don't matter. The fact is, they do. Our presuppositions are to align with God.

They do matter in that we need to conform to his image and his thinking.


Do you believe He can't use reason to demolish someone's presuppositions? This is how many people have come to Christ - they realize the inadequacy of their viewpoint through reasoning it out and then realize that Christianity answers the intellectual problems they have.

He can use reason. But he never uses reason apart from experience. How does a blind man know he's blind? You can describe the color red to a man who has never seen until you are blue in the face. He will only understand when his eyes are opened.

When witnessing to people, their presuppositions keep them blind. It takes a miracle of God to move them out from it. As KL has said, Muslims often throw out our logic because they disagree with the very foundations of our thoughts (i.e. our presuppositions). When God shows up, men quickly realize there way of thinking is wrong.

Reason apart from the power of God is useless. But with the power of God, reason can be used along with many other things to reach the lost. What I have been saying is that reason is one small tool but the necessary thing is not reason, but power from God.

KATA_LOUKAN
Aug 13th 2008, 07:45 PM
They do matter in that we need to conform to his image and his thinking.

But if our presuppositions are shaped by our culture, how guilty are people who reject Christianity based on suppositions they cannot control?

Brother Mark
Aug 13th 2008, 07:47 PM
But if our presuppositions are shaped by our culture, how guilty are people who reject Christianity based on suppositions they cannot control?

Romans 1 answers that. God had to break through my culture too. He broke through Paul's culture, Peter's, etc.

The thing is, the natural man skews himself away from God. All lost people's presuppositions are against God until he starts drawing them.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 13th 2008, 07:49 PM
Romans 1 answers that. God had to break through my culture too. He broke through Paul's culture, Peter's, etc.

The thing is, the natural man skews himself away from God. All lost people's presuppositions are against God until he starts drawing them.

This is the view I hold to and this works as my response to the question.

KATA_LOUKAN
Aug 14th 2008, 03:48 AM
This is the view I hold to and this works as my response to the question.

Thanks for the reference, but I was wondering of the fate of those who have not heard the gospel.

Although this is a different topic, I would like to address it because it would deal with an interesting question in my mind- general revelation.

Do you hold to this concept of general revelation?

apothanein kerdos
Aug 14th 2008, 09:46 PM
Thanks for the reference, but I was wondering of the fate of those who have not heard the gospel.

Although this is a different topic, I would like to address it because it would deal with an interesting question in my mind- general revelation.

Do you hold to this concept of general revelation?


I do hold to the concept of general revelation, but I don't think this revelation is salvific. At most, this revelation makes us aware that there is a God out there, but it is not enough to save us. In this instance, we would need special revelation in order to be saved. The mind can only take one so far due to its reprobate nature - it must be sanctified, just as every other aspect of our lives.

Teke
Aug 14th 2008, 11:37 PM
.. I was wondering of the fate of those who have not heard the gospel.

God protects them. General revelation can be salvific as anything is possible with God. Which is also why He uses the foolishness of preaching (1 Cor. 1:21)

AK has put forth presuppositional apologetics of Monergism in this thread. I wouldn't agree with such apologetics because I see Synergism rather than Monergism. AK is using Van Til's presuppositional apologetics in relation to the transcendental argument of the "one and the many".

The early Christian fathers used the model of Israel at Mt Sinai to express their view. To quote one, "God commands me to enter within the cloud and hold converse with Him; if any be an Aaron, let him go up with me, and let him stand near, being ready, if it must be so, to remain outside the cloud. But if any be a Nadad or an Abihu, or of the order of the elders, let him go up indeed, but let him stand afar off...But if any be of the multitude, who are unworthy of this height of contemplation, if he be altogether impure let him not approach at all, for it would be dangerous to him; but if he be at least temporarily purified, let him remain below and listen to the voice alone, and the trumpet, the bare words of piety, and let him see the mount smoking and lightening...But if any be an evil and savage beast, and altogether incapable of taking in the matter of contemplation and theology, let him not hurtfully and malignantly lurk in his den amongst the woods, to catch hold of some dogma or saying by a sudden spring..but let him stand afar off and withdraw from the mount, or he shall be stoned." St Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio XXVIII

This is apophatic theology, which doesn't follow natural ways of thought and doesn't form concepts to replace spiritual realities. IOW we're not talking about a philosophical school in Christinaity which looks at abstract concepts. Christianity is above all else, communion with a living God.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 14th 2008, 11:47 PM
God protects them. General revelation can be salvific as anything is possible with God. Which is also why He uses the foolishness of preaching (1 Cor. 1:21)

AK has put forth presuppositional apologetics of Monergism in this thread. I wouldn't agree with such apologetics because I see Synergism rather than Monergism. AK is using Van Til's presuppositional apologetics in relation to the transcendental argument of the "one and the many".

The early Christian fathers used the model of Israel at Mt Sinai to express their view. To quote one, "God commands me to enter within the cloud and hold converse with Him; if any be an Aaron, let him go up with me, and let him stand near, being ready, if it must be so, to remain outside the cloud. But if any be a Nadad or an Abihu, or of the order of the elders, let him go up indeed, but let him stand afar off...But if any be of the multitude, who are unworthy of this height of contemplation, if he be altogether impure let him not approach at all, for it would be dangerous to him; but if he be at least temporarily purified, let him remain below and listen to the voice alone, and the trumpet, the bare words of piety, and let him see the mount smoking and lightening...But if any be an evil and savage beast, and altogether incapable of taking in the matter of contemplation and theology, let him not hurtfully and malignantly lurk in his den amongst the woods, to catch hold of some dogma or saying by a sudden spring..but let him stand afar off and withdraw from the mount, or he shall be stoned." St Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio XXVIII

This is apophatic theology, which doesn't follow natural ways of thought and doesn't form concepts to replace spiritual realities. IOW we're not talking about a philosophical school in Christinaity which looks at abstract concepts. Christianity is above all else, communion with a living God.

And I'd rather rely on what Paul had to say than what a mystic had to say.

Teke
Aug 15th 2008, 03:30 PM
And I'd rather rely on what Paul had to say than what a mystic had to say.

Ever hear, "God don't like ugly" or "don't be hating".
Exemplifying Christianity as an elite group doesn't show the love of God toward mankind.

And myself, I'd rather listen and read those, as you put it "mystic"s (desert fathers and church fathers), who actually lived what Christ taught (leaving all behind for God), than someone who can only speculate philosophically what that would mean or be like.

IMHO Francis and son Frank Schaefer, as well as Van Til, just don't have that experience that makes Christ's teachings a reality for Christians.
Comparing with scripture, that would be like Israel rejecting and killing the prophets and finally The Prophet. It's a road I'm not inclined to travel. :cool:

apothanein kerdos
Aug 15th 2008, 05:14 PM
Ever hear, "God don't like ugly" or "don't be hating".
Exemplifying Christianity as an elite group doesn't show the love of God toward mankind.

And myself, I'd rather listen and read those, as you put it "mystic"s (desert fathers and church fathers), who actually lived what Christ taught (leaving all behind for God), than someone who can only speculate philosophically what that would mean or be like.

IMHO Francis and son Frank Schaefer, as well as Van Til, just don't have that experience that makes Christ's teachings a reality for Christians.
Comparing with scripture, that would be like Israel rejecting and killing the prophets and finally The Prophet. It's a road I'm not inclined to travel. :cool:


Cool. Feel free to follow the quasi-Gnostic mystics and I'll follow Paul, Peter and Christ.

There's no getting around the fact that Peter told us to use rational evidence and logic in our defense of Christianity. There's no getting around the fact that Paul demonstrated this.


Oh, and like it or not, there is a group of Christians that are simply called to know more (intellectually) about Christianity than others. Just as there is a group that is called to serve the poor and oppressed more than other Christians. They're called spiritual gifts and it does divide the Body into specialties.

quiet dove
Aug 15th 2008, 07:00 PM
Be careful guys/gals, play nice.

Teke
Aug 15th 2008, 08:59 PM
... quasi-Gnostic mystics....

.... use rational evidence and logic in our defense...

You made the call, where's the evidence of the claim "Gnostic".

apothanein kerdos
Aug 15th 2008, 09:12 PM
The emphasis on the spirit over the flesh is the cornerstone of Gnostic thought. Though there are mystical elements to Christianity, it isn't because our 'spirit' can partake in them while our 'flesh' is left out in the wind. It's mystical because it deals with the nature of God - it's something only God can understand. Our spirit and flesh have no bearing upon it - both are equally ignorant.

Secondly, the emphasis upon having a spiritual experience and the de-emphasis upon the intellect are akin to Gnosticism as well. Gnosticism taught that the intellect was bad because it was part of the flesh, thus one had to transcend it (this came from their Sophist influences).

There are other connecting points, but those are the two biggest. Now, you can easily turn around and say, "yeah, and?" because it would first have to be proven that these beliefs within Gnosticism are unbiblical or wrong. There are elements of Gnosticism that are right. Thus, my equivocation isn't necessarily a condemnation. In fact, my point was merely to show that apophatic theology has its roots in Gnosticism and not in the Bible.

There are many other problems with negation theology, such as its logical inconsistency and trend toward subjectivity, but that is for another thread.

Finally, as I stated, Peter commands us to use logic and evidence in the defense of the faith. This runs contrary to everything you have been teaching. This doesn't mean our defense is sola ratio or sola evidentia, but that they can be and often are a part of our defense. This simply isn't allowed in apophatic theology.

Teke
Aug 16th 2008, 01:09 AM
Apophatic theology is the theology of the Trinity dogma, which all Christians can use to prove any doctrine to be true or false.
It has nothing to do with Gnosticism.

AK you haven't proven I follow any "quasi-Gnostic mystics". Didn't even address info from the post. :dunno:


Finally, as I stated, Peter commands us to use logic and evidence in the defense of the faith. This runs contrary to everything you have been teaching.

Peter literally followed Christ to his own cross. How much logic and evidence does one need besides living Christians, living alone in caves and deserts as John the Baptist did, that literally follow Christ and are evidence that what Jesus taught is the truth.
Please give the scripture your defining your meaning of Peter from

apothanein kerdos
Aug 16th 2008, 01:16 AM
Apophatic theology is the theology of the Trinity dogma, which a Christian can use to prove any doctrine to be true or false.

Right and it's contradictory to the Scripture. If we say, "God is one" we have made an affirmation and not a negation. All we can say is that God is divinely simple, not that God is one (or even Triune). The reason for this is to say "God is one" is to say something about the nature of God, which requires cataphatic thinking.

This, of course, causes problems for us when we realize that Deuteronomy teaches us that Hashem elokainu, Hashem echad (the Lord is our God, the Lord is one). This is one of many problems with apophatic theology when taken as the sole source of theology.

I think the other examples and answers I gave in my previous post also still suffice as an explanation of why apophatic theology doesn't work.


AK you haven't proven I follow any "quasi-Gnostic mystics". Didn't even address info from the post.

That's simply an unsatisfactory response. I posted the following:

The emphasis on the spirit over the flesh is the cornerstone of Gnostic thought. Though there are mystical elements to Christianity, it isn't because our 'spirit' can partake in them while our 'flesh' is left out in the wind. It's mystical because it deals with the nature of God - it's something only God can understand. Our spirit and flesh have no bearing upon it - both are equally ignorant.

Secondly, the emphasis upon having a spiritual experience and the de-emphasis upon the intellect are akin to Gnosticism as well. Gnosticism taught that the intellect was bad because it was part of the flesh, thus one had to transcend it (this came from their Sophist influences).

There are other connecting points, but those are the two biggest. Now, you can easily turn around and say, "yeah, and?" because it would first have to be proven that these beliefs within Gnosticism are unbiblical or wrong. There are elements of Gnosticism that are right. Thus, my equivocation isn't necessarily a condemnation. In fact, my point was merely to show that apophatic theology has its roots in Gnosticism and not in the Bible.


Simply saying, "Eh, that's not enough" doesn't suffice for explaining why my explanation wasn't enough. In all honesty, the best apophatic theology can hope for when compared to Gnosticism is that it won't go further than Neo-Platonism (if memory serves me correctly, it was Plotinus that began apophatic theology). The problem, of course, is that the line between Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism is extremely thin.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 16th 2008, 01:40 AM
Peter literally followed Christ to his own cross. How much logic and evidence does one need besides living Christians, living alone in caves and deserts as John the Baptist did, that literally follow Christ and are evidence that what Jesus taught is the truth.
Please give the scripture your defining your meaning of Peter from

Once again we see this false "either/or" placed within the debate. I'm not saying it's either experience or reasoning. It's both experience and reasoning: It is both/and. One must have an experience in Christianity AND a reasonable understanding of it.

As for my defense of this, 1 Peter 3:15 is easily the best defense. The two key words are apologia and logos. The apologia was used in koine Greek as a legal term that referred to a defendant offering an evidential and logical defense to prove his innocence. In essence, Peter uses this word to explain that we are to give a rational reply to anyone who asks why we believe what we believe. This isn't so we can convince the person to be a Christian, but merely to provide a rational defense of Christianity.

The use of logos in this passage is particularly interesting. Its use in this passage gives off the idea that Peter is referring to the "reason" in what we are saying. It refers to the mental faculty of how we evaluate the truth of something.

There are other passages, but this one shall suffice for the discussion.

As an additional note, I do hold and advantage from the get-go. Since I'm not promoting sola ratio and I'm speaking out against sola experientia. In other words, I'm saying that experience and reason hold equal worth in the Christian life (though their usage will vary in every situation). You, on the other hand, have to supply Scripture that speaks out against reasoning period, not just against sola ratio.

KATA_LOUKAN
Aug 16th 2008, 07:37 AM
I do hold to the concept of general revelation, but I don't think this revelation is salvific. At most, this revelation makes us aware that there is a God out there, but it is not enough to save us. In this instance, we would need special revelation in order to be saved. The mind can only take one so far due to its reprobate nature - it must be sanctified, just as every other aspect of our lives.

So would you classify yourself as a hyper-Calvinist in terms of soteriology?

apothanein kerdos
Aug 16th 2008, 08:05 PM
So would you classify yourself as a hyper-Calvinist in terms of soteriology?

Not at all. In fact, my view would put me at odds with all hyper-Calvinists. The reason for this is that I teach a proper Calvinistic view of knowledge; there is a natural knowledge that man can exercise of his own will, but salvific knowledge can only come through illumination by the Holy Spirit. Though this is a typically Reformed view of salvation, it certainly isn't hyper-Calvinistic because it doesn't negate man's responsibility in using his mind.

KATA_LOUKAN
Aug 16th 2008, 09:26 PM
Not at all. In fact, my view would put me at odds with all hyper-Calvinists. The reason for this is that I teach a proper Calvinistic view of knowledge; there is a natural knowledge that man can exercise of his own will, but salvific knowledge can only come through illumination by the Holy Spirit. Though this is a typically Reformed view of salvation, it certainly isn't hyper-Calvinistic because it doesn't negate man's responsibility in using his mind.

Hmmmm sounds interesting. I'm actually going to start a new thread on this very topic, since this seems to be leading me in that direction.