Hidden Dismissals and Thoughts on Fostering More Honest Theological Dialogue

I think James White has a perfectly rational position. I mean, if the Catholic Church isn’t the Church that Jesus founded and promised would endure and be victorious against the world (and if you’re not a Catholic then you don’t think that), then a rational conclusion would be that it is in fact the “Whore of Babylon.” I think it helps to understand the RCC to set up that dichotomy, in analogy to C.S. Lewis’ famous trichotomy regarding Jesus being “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.” (Which he actually got from Chesterton, evidently, but didn’t credit him, tsk tsk…) And it helps me to understand what the Church represents when I see how much of a “sign of contradiction” it represents against the world and rival sects – just like Jesus was.

Of course, I’m sure Dr. White would be more than happy if we took his word for it on every theological issue, not just about the RCC. But, as consistent with his own ecclesiology, everyone must ultimately figure it out for themselves.

Lisa,

I think this a bit speculative. And since I said this to Frank in our last discussion, let me explain what most people mean by it.

First, some of us have considered these positions a lot longer than you’ve been aware of them. We already have considered, still consider, but find the views wanting, or just realize that it boils down to faith.

Second, based on the first basis, “God bless” is meant to acknowledge that although we engage in an argument over what is truth, and conclude that one is wrong, we do not seek the destruction of the person. “God bless,” therefore, means to many of us, “We don’t agree, but I wish for God to grant good to you and not evil.” In other words, it is like saying, “But I still love you.”

I think this is important because ultimately people think theological engagement is about being better than the other person, and is self seeking rather than God-seeking and other-seeking.

Ultimately, I don’t think it is true that the phrase, “God bless” is mostly used the way you describe. Now, “I’ll pray for you” in these discussions often is, but even that may have godly intentions. Ultimately, then, it is in the intention, not the words, and one should not therefore disparage the words used in these contexts.

“Yet how do we know if we are unwilling to accept what another might say in refutation, dismiss them since somehow we’ve determined we have the absolute corner on truth, and then disingenuously brush them off with spiritual speak. Not only is this arrogant, but it can create confusion for that believer that is none the wiser and I dare say disrespectful.”

Would you say this if the prophets, Jesus, apostles, Fathers, etc. were to have put their words and dialogues online? I can’t help but feel that this is not your Christianity speaking, but your (religious)culturally conditioned relativism. Dr White has spent a lot more time studying and debating these issues than you have, Lisa. Maybe you should take your own advice and consider what he says rather than dropping an online rant about it. Maybe your wrong? Are you willing to consider and dialogue about your assumptions here and in the previous post?

Hodge says “I can’t help but feel that this is not your Christianity speaking, but your (religious)culturally conditioned relativism.”

!! Whoa Nelly !!

That’s quite an accusation (and a pretty darn good example of exactly what she is complaining about!). Has anything Lisa said implied relativism in the least bit? I really cannot see how. Rather, what she stresses is a willingness keep thinking “I may be wrong, but…” Or, at the very least, talking that way is far more constructive in a dialogue setting, if only so you can have some hope of winning people over to your point of view. (Good advice for me, too!)

Hodge,

I’m afraid you have read way too much into this post and have misconstrued my statements. First, this post has nothing to do with Dr. White’s refutation of my last article. The catalyst for this post was interactions with others regarding other topics. Second, if you read the 6th paragraph carefully, you will see that I am willing to concede to my own error upon further examination. I hardly consider this post a rant but a plea for us all, including myself, to be reflective enough for examination and humble enough to admit when we are wrong, which I am more than willing to do. The fact that I said “be a life-long student and never fail to admit you may be wrong” I think is a pretty strong indication that I was not railing on Dr. White.

So much for listening 🙁

This is worth highlighting

Yet I welcome the challenges and appreciate the feedback so I can revisit and re-examine my assertions. That is not to say that the outcome would be different but at least there is a willingness for examination that perhaps something was missed, misinterpreted, miscommunicated or just plain wrong.

Notice it says, I am willing to revisit my position. How this can be construed as a rant against White is beyond me.

Don’t worry Lisa, I didn’t construe it like that, God bless! 🙂

Nick, thanks for that. If anything I thought was pointing a pretty hefty finger at myself. Oh well, guess it goes with the territory.

Sorry about that, Lisa. I thought your post read differently the first time I read it. I read “challenged” as something else. I still don’t agree with the “secret” definition of the phrase “God bless,” but realize now that you were saying the opposite of what I thought you were saying. So I apologize for that.

Hodge,

No problem. Something you should know about me is that I very much take this advice and live by it daily. It’s why I have a difficult time with people who aren’t willing to be challenged or examine their own assertions. Unfortunately, it seems like I have been encountering it more, which prompted me to write about it.

I do hear what you’re saying regarding the ‘secret’ definition. I would qualify that by saying after a discussion has been had and there is no consensus, then perhaps agreeing as such should be stated. Then, perhaps a conclusion with ‘God bless you’. Unfortunately, the observations that prompted this post were absent of any type of examination or dialogue but rather a position asserted, followed by the ‘God bless’. That does come off as being dismissive, IMHO.

I think I need to add a paragraph to clarify.

[…] Parchment and Pen – Hidden Dismissals and Thoughts on Fostering More Honest Theological Dialog… If you have stumbled onto this blog please do take a few moments to read the following piece:- Echoes of God […]

Lisa,

This is a lesson that you all are teaching me over at Theologica lately. Although I rarely post there, reading the discussions have caused me to rethink many of the positions that I hold. There certainly is value in stepping outside the cloistered walls and listening to what other brothers and sisters have to say.

Thanks for your insights and wisdom!

Thanks Lisa. Great post – I resonate with your post very much. The dismissive attitude is unfortunately one that seems to run the gamut. I tend to term it violence and find it a cause for much weeping. If we cannot engage in dialogue, over time, as opposed to debate, we will find ourselves stagnant and insularity will prevail. I agree when the response is I’ll pray for you as dismissive, but for the God Bless I would look more to the non-verbal for the clues to determine the meaning. God’s Blessings – that you continue to step out and ask us to look at ourselves and where we are heading.

“That’s quite an accusation (and a pretty darn good example of exactly what she is complaining about!). Has anything Lisa said implied relativism in the least bit? I really cannot see how.”

Micah,

Maybe you should listen first and not be an example yourself. My relativism comment is about thinking people are arrogant for holding dogmatically to a position and not considering other people’s positions. That’s not the approach of the biblical prophets, Jesus, the apostles, the Fathers, etc. Of course, everyone listens to what people have to say, but not in order to rethink their positions. That’s the level of uncertainty that stems from our culture, not Christianity. There is a point when all must come to the knowledge of the truth rather than always learning and never doing so. Once a person does come to a firm faith, it should be a matter of dogma, not rethinking everything. If you don’t think it hints of relativism to say that we should always be rethinking our positions and considering others, what is your definition of relativism? I guarantee you have a pop view and not the actual definition of relativism that most in the Western world currently hold.
I do agree with Lisa that one who is in a learning stage of something should remain in an “asking” phase of their maturity, but if saying that we need to do this for the rest of our lives, especially on major issues, is not something that stems from Christian teaching.

Hodge,

I really don’t understand where all this bile is coming from. You accused Lisa of relativism, did you not? That charge is indefensible, and it needed to be pointed out.

In any case, I’m afraid you’re confused. (Although if you’ve come to a firm belief in what “relativism” means, and do not have “willingness on [your] part for examination that perhaps something was missed, misinterpreted, miscommunicated or just plain wrong” (Lisa’s words), then it’s very unlikely you’ll listen to me.) For the sake of dialogue, one at at least needs to consider criticism of one’s views and be able to defend them, otherwise all we’ve got is “I’m right, you’re wrong,” “Your [sic] going to hell,” etc. Nobody gets edified. Considering criticism of one’s views and being willing to defend it has got nothing, but nothing, to do with relativism.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “relativism”; it’s possible you mean something different from what the term actually means. Relativism means that truth is relative to the perceiver. For a proposition p, p might be true from my perspective, and false from your perspective, end of story. If anyone, it’s the relativist who has no reason to dialogue or be willing to ever defend or reconsider any of their beliefs. (Of course, one can very well be a dogmatic realist and be unwilling to defend or reconsider anything either.) On the contrary, willingness to dialogue and seek the truth implies non-relativism: that there is an objective truth of the matter regardless of what anyone thinks about i.

Or perhaps the proposition that “Lisa is a closet relativist” is true for you but not for me?

I do agree with Lisa that one who is in a learning stage of something should remain in an “asking” phase of their maturity, but if saying that we need to do this for the rest of our lives, especially on major issues, is not something that stems from Christian teaching.

See I would say that we should be life-long students. I don’t think there’s a point that we should stop asking. Now that does not negate the need to firmly arrive at certain truths that are essential to the Christian faith. I am not suggesting that at all nor am I suggesting that we need to re-think essentials of the faith. But we can certainly continually seek a better understanding of those truths, their historical development and implications.

Considering criticism of one’s views and being willing to defend it has got nothing, but nothing, to do with relativism.

Here’s a good example. Now I firmly believe the Bible to be the inerrant, written word of God. It does not contain the God’s word, nor does it become God’s word, it IS the God-breathed text. I have been engaged in a number of discussions lately challenging that and the actual authenticity and authority of scripture. (surprise, surprise). Now, when those challenges come I could just drop my piece about my belief and dismiss. It is much more fruitful for me to engage with the person to find out specifically what their objections are and in the process, examine my own beliefs in this area.

I do think there is a benefit for asking with every objection ‘what if that’s true’, for even the essentials. It produces the seed for fruitful study. Examination does not mean I’m going to concede a lesser significance or changed position but it does do much to affirm why I believe what I believe and especially for the sine qua non of Christianity. I have to agree with Micah, that is not relativistic at all.

Micah,

You could have just dropped the entire body of your post except for the last part asking if you have a different definition than you do. I already said that I probably did. There’s no bile, just an opportunity for you to learn. Isn’t that what you’re arguing for?

Tell me your definition of relativism.

Hodge,

I just did. Please read my last comment again.

Lisa,

I’m really reacting to the idea that those who don’t consider the ideas of others must be arrogant. Some people just take things on faith, which is the Christian idea, rather than needing to work it all out for themselves and see before they believe. As someone who has been a pastor, many people frankly aren’t capable of dealing with these issues and often fall away from the truth because they didn’t just believe it. Some people need that. Others, as I have said, have already determined what is true, having already considered the issues, and have concluded, once for all, that they will believe X instead of Y. Hence, when Y comes along, they just say, “No, you’re wrong.” In fact, for those of us who have studied issues for some time and realize the complexity of the issues and needed understanding for an opponent to comprehend the issue, sometimes the only thing that can be done is say, “No, you don’t get it, but God grant you sight to see.”

“I do think there is a benefit for asking with every objection ‘what if that’s true’, for even the essentials. It produces the seed for fruitful study. ”

Sure, if you’re still studying whether it is true. If you’re simply saying that we need to reflect upon what we already believe and opponents can help us do that, then sure. But if you’re saying that we need to reconsider what is true, even until the end of our lives, then I don’t see that in the Bible. Why does Paul say of those who false believers that they are always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth? Why does he use epiginosko so often in reference to Christian maturity, and talk about certainty. Why does a person who is certain of what is true need to reconsider in order to remain a humble learner? What I’m simply saying is that it’s not so cut and dry. What we need to do is have faith and live. I know too many people who sit around wondering what is true all the time so that they never need to live boldly…

in the truth. I just want Christians to get out of this trap, and not judge others when they have escaped it. That’s my only concern.

Lisa,

As one who tries to end anything I believe another person might possibly take as personally offensive I usually do say ‘God bless” if I haven’t commented with them before, and especially when I like their post or their comments. Certainly it is never my personal intention to send a message other than that, but I can see how when some people rip others to shreds and then do it as a cursory blessing thing, it could be considered both false and dismissive. Sort of like Christians who say “We love you” to your face in church then gossip unmercifically about you behind your back. It certainly does nothing to advance the Christian message in the long run, although there may be some short term satisfaction in being ‘right’.

As far as fostering more honest theological dialogue, I agree there is a way to do it without being personally insulting. Once that happens, IMHO, a Christian has not only lost the battle but the war. Folks then have trouble discerning the difference between a well meant theological and the plain old holier- than- thou, I- know- more- than -you- dogmatic snarkiness that we see way too much of in internet theology nowadays.

I’m glad you brought the subject up, as we certainly can all learn to temper both our actions and reactions, without being mealy-mouthed on one extreme in our theology and unnecessarily harsh on the other. Christians also need to develop more of a sense of humor when they’re posting, IMO.

That having being said, dare I end this with “God bless?” 🙂

Micah,

So that’s your entire definition? That’s not really complete. Relativism, as it is more commonly held, is the idea that there is in fact an absolute truth that is beyond both of us, and it is true regardless of what you or I believe. The problem is that the human condition, either being from sin or finitude, makes it difficult and sometimes impossible to know what that truth is with absolute certainty. Because of this, individuals are engaged in endless dialogues and pursuits of truth in the form of opinions offered as different perspectives seeking to describe the one reality. Hence, my take may be equally valuable to yours, or it may not be, but we all have to be open to both being valid and listening to each other because no one can claim that they have obtained the truth absolutely to the exclusion of all other people’s interpretation of that truth. One must continually be in a state of re-evaluating one’s own position or just accepting that multiple opinions are valid and seek to learn from everyone’s perspective in order to get closer to the truth.

Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that God is capable of communicating absolute truth and give certainty to His people through special revelation and the interpretation of the Church. It is through faith that one receives it. So the individual lives by faith, believing that they have obtained absolute truth with certainty and lives accordingly.

Hodge,

although that may be what you have meant by relativism, it is just false that that is what it means. If relativism means anything, it is the denial of objective truth – it says that the truth itself of some propositions or other are relative to the situated agent, as I noted above. (I have a Master’s in philosophy, so please don’t try to “school” me on this.)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on it:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
Presumably no one here will want to read the whole thing (I know I don’t), but the first few paragraphs should at least be of some help.

Then there’s always Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism (which is supposed to be about as reliable a “reality check” as any encyclopedia) which also bears out my definition.

Micah,

I am actually noting the most widely held form of relativism there is.

“2.3 Perception

Perception is the interface between cognition and reality. Descriptive perceptual relativism is the empirical claim that certain groups (e.g., those with different cultures, languages, biological makeup) perceive the world differently. As we will see below, for example, various philosophers of science have argued that theory influences perception to such an extent that partisans of substantially different theories might literally see the world differently.

Descriptive claims about perception are sometimes thought to bear on various versions of normative relativism. For example, some writers have argued that people with different concepts and beliefs will nevertheless perceive the same things in the much same way and that these common perceptions can be used as a fixed point from which to adjudicate the claims of rival frameworks. Most philosophers and vision scientists today now agree, though, that perception is theory-laden; our perceptual experiences in a given situation are influenced by the concepts, beliefs, expectations and, perhaps, even the hopes and desires, which we bring to the situation.

Normative perceptual relativism is the claim that there is not just one correct, framework-independent way to perceive things. But different ways are correct relative to different constellations of concepts and beliefs. Given modern medical training and practice, a competent radiologist should see that this spot on the X-ray is a stomach tumor, and anyone with any sensitivity should see that Sam felt humiliated.

As with most versions of normative relativism, the strongest versions of normative perceptual relativism, ones on which “anything goes,” are implausible; there clearly are constraints on the perception. But weaker versions of the thesis may be defensible.”

Most relativists are relative in their interpretations of reality, not whether there is a reality. In other words, only very few people hold to an anti-realism form that you are arguing here. Most people don’t. They are relativists in terms of perception of truth, not truth itself. Hence, perceptions can equally be true, but can also be discarded if valued as contributing little to the larger picture of reality gained from multiple perspectives and reasoning.

BTW, I’m well aware that most argue for your popular version of relativism. I’m suggesting to you to get out of the books and evaluate what people actually believe.

EXCELLENT post, Lisa!!

Hodge,

If God has communicated absolute Truth in such a manner that the human condition does not interfere with the understanding of that Truth which denomination or person teaches the absolute, unadulterated Truth and how do you know??

Michael,

I didn’t say the human condition didn’t interfere, but that God is capable of communicating to us in our fallen state. The emphasis is on God’s ability rather than our disability, which is where Christianity has always placed it.

I also said nothing of denominations. I said the Church (big “C”), and what I mean by that is the historic Christian Church as it is taught in modern local ecclesiastical bodies. Through the preaching of the Word within the historic witness, God communicates His truth with certainty to His people. If your denomination does this, then there’s no need to say that it exclusively does it.

Hodge,

I’m just a little confused here which is why I’m asking some of these questions. You said “Through the preaching of the Word within the historic witness, God communicates His Truth with certainty to His people.”

This is why I asked the question about denominations. It seems no denomination can agree with another denomination on what the Word or for that matter the historic witness say or mean. They often can’t even agree on what the core issues contained in that witness are (for instance I would bet CMP’s essentials list is a bit minimalistic in your opinion). You personally have made statements in past discussions interpreting the historic witness of the Church, or the Scripture, which other conservative scholars would disagree with. Now I am of course aware that for all you’re disagreements there are a lot of points of agreement, but what about these disagreements? What accounts for them?

Also do we need to be certain about the Christianity in the same way we are certain that 1+1 = 2 in order to believe?

Michael,

It’s my fault that you’re confused because I didn’t explain it that well. Here is my view: All people will believe by faith, not sight, what is the true source of authority, in this case what Bible and what Church is authoritative. God will cause His people to believe the right source of authority and others will believe the wrong source. Now, if you’re asking, “How do I know if I’m right,” I believe that I am right. So does the Mormon and the JW and the Methodist (not that I’m saying Methodists are of the same variety as cults). For me, it’s a predestination thing, where I believe that the elect are given certainty in the truth. Now, do we need to have agreement in all things? I would want to work toward that, but that is a different question than the certainty issue.

“Also do we need to be certain about the Christianity in the same way we are certain that 1+1 = 2 in order to believe?”

I believe certainty will eventually be like the certainty of 1+1=2, but I would say that certainty is produced from faith, not the precursor to faith. In fact, we might even say that certainty is a characteristic of faith, and the more mature we become in the truth, the stronger our faith/certainty becomes. Hence, spiritual certainty is a gift from God and cannot be obtained sufficiently through a natural learning process. It must be obtained by faith first, even though we continue on to “see” it by drawing out the implications of that truth in our daily lives, as Lisa noted.

Re #33:

But how do we trust that our perceived certainty is the absolute truth, given that it is actually our human egos that often want us to be more right than someone else? Isn’t it possible to be wrong even if we believe we are among the ‘elect’? That’s sort of like saying my belief in God’s sovereignty makes me impervious to being wrong about anything. We all know that isn’t true, because it isn’t solely about our faith proving the accuracy of our beliefs. After all, there is much disagreement among even the those that consider themselves the’ elect’ among us.

mbaker,

All Christians consider themselves saved, which is what the Reformed consider the elect. We are not trusting in our falleness as humans (e.g. trusting that our egos will not get in the way when in fact they would), but in God’s ability to communicate. Ultimately by saying that we will always lack certainty in the absolute truth, we are saying that God is weaker than the power of our sin. This is why 2 Peter describes the reasoning of the orthodox as emphasizing God’s role and the reasoning of the heretics as emphasizing man’s condition and role. What we do when we argue descriptively of our fallen tendencies rather than what the Bible says is argue from an alternative authority (i.e., our experience). All people do this, but the Bible indicates that God will give certainty to and a mature knowledge of the truth to His people that is no longer dependent upon the wind and waves of not knowing the truth.

“but the Bible indicates that God will give certainty to and a mature knowledge of the truth to His people that is no longer dependent upon the wind and waves of not knowing the truth.”

And given the large numbers of people who think they’re in this state, the only way we can tell who really is, is who ends up in heaven or hell, apparently. So how do you know you’re not just self-deceiving?

“And given the large numbers of people who think they’re in this state, the only way we can tell who really is, is who ends up in heaven or hell, apparently. So how do you know you’re not just self-deceiving?”

I find it interesting that everyone is so reliant upon man’s contribution toward his own salvation that there is even an objection to what I am saying. How does anyone know he is not self deceiving, regardless of what you believe? That’s a question for everyone, not just me. My point is to say that not everyone is self deceived, that God has transferred them. The difference, therefore, of a man who thinks he’s going to inherit a million dollars and a man who inherits a million dollars is based on what someone gives him in the end, not what he does himself. Do I think that there are good reasons for some beliefs and bad ones for others? Sure, but most people believe that they are right and will convince themselves even through bad reasoning. That’s just the nature of our condition. My point is that true believers are transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light by an act of God. What they believe is a result of what God has done and their certainty in the truth is justified. Everyone else is still in the condition of deceiving and being deceived; but all are certain, even if only in their faith in their uncertainty.

Hodge,

“How does anyone know he is not self deceiving, regardless of what you believe? That’s a question for everyone, not just me.”

Given this is it possible in your line of thinking for a believer to ever have any assurance of salvation whatsoever??

I just don’t see how in you’re system differs practically from the belief that one can’t know absolute Truth with absolute certainty you described earlier. You can be absolutely 100% sure that you’re right in your system and still be deceived. Thus you can’t truly be 100% sure you’re right. You’re assurance and certainty of being right could simply be deception.

Hodge,

I glean from your comments that you consider the elect will be preserved and assured of salvation. Belief and faith in Christ will therefore endure by the power of the Spirit. However, that does not negate the fact that the elect will necessarily understanding absolute truth absolutely. We are after all, both saint and sinner, having a dual nature, would you not agree?

The topic of the post had to do with how we handle differences of understanding, which can certainly occur even among the elect. Will they believe in the essentials? Yes absolutely. Will they understand everything perfectly? Absolutely not.

“My point is that true believers are transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light by an act of God. What they believe is a result of what God has done and their certainty in the truth is justified.”

But true believers still sin, no? And is not our faith in Christ’s ability to ultimately deliver us from sin somewhat subjectified by our personal dependancy upon Him as our Savior? So to that extent for us Christians to break ranks, so to speak, with what the rest of the world considers a 100% certainty : i.e. that a human body cannot be resurrected and return to normal functioning despite mortal wounds, already constitute somewhat of a personal subjective view of known truth on our parts as well?

It seems to me we can only conclude what others have also pointed out here: That even as God’s people we can’t know ALL truth with 100% certainty, because if were just about making biblically wise choices 100% of the time, we would be 100% correct in our behavior at all times, and we are not. Our sin natures will always cause us to doubt, and even if we are presented with 100% truth we often cannot receive it, like Thomas, even in the face of irrefutable evidence.

Wow, Lisa. You got picked up by the James White show. Big time.

At first I was going, “Who’s this Mrs. Robinson?” Oh, it’s Lisa.

He didn’t say, Bless your heart, which phrase covers a multitude of sins, but I kept expecting him to burst into song:

And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)

Well Marv, not the kind of publicity I would have wanted but, oh well.

‘I will pray for you’ and ‘God bless’ can be perceived to be even more offensive in discussions between an atheist and a theist, compared to discussions between two theists.

Not only are these statements dismissive, condescending and shutting down of the conversation. These statements carry implied assertions of which there is disagreement. e.g. the eixstence of deities, the efficacy of petitionary prayer, and the effectiveness of blessings.

This is a good article. I will cast a spell on you, Lisa :p

Michael,

“Given this is it possible in your line of thinking for a believer to ever have any assurance of salvation whatsoever?? ”

To which Lisa correctly stated:

“I glean from your comments that you consider the elect will be preserved and assured of salvation. Belief and faith in Christ will therefore endure by the power of the Spirit.”

You then said:

“You can be absolutely 100% sure that you’re right in your system and still be deceived. Thus you can’t truly be 100% sure you’re right. You’re assurance and certainty of being right could simply be deception.”

Sure, which is why we are so reliant on God. The difference between the believer thinking he is right and the unbeliever thinking he is right is that the believer actually is right. Of course everyone can be deceived, but my point is that the believer’s certainty is valid and the unbeliever’s invalid. I believe God testifies to the believer of the truth (e.g., the Spirit bears witness with our spirit). There are a variety of verifications (e.g., love for God by accepting the truth, loving the brethren, the Church gives verification, etc.), but these are all reliant on the certain belief that they are all true. My point is that we need to emphasize God’s role and not our own. God gives genuine certainty to His people.

“However, that does not negate the fact that the elect will necessarily understanding absolute truth absolutely. We are after all, both saint and sinner, having a dual nature, would you not agree?”

Sure. My point is not to say that we can know truth absolutely, but that we are given a faith by God that causes us to have absolute certainty that A is true and not B. Only God can understand the truth absolutely, but we can believe the truth absolutely, even if we don’t comprehend all aspects of it. So our knowledge of the truth is made firm through the faith that we are given. There is a possibility that we are wrong, but there is a possibility that if you walk into the street the bus won’t run you over. That doesn’t mean that you’re not absolutely certain that it will if you do walk in the street. The mere possibility of something else being true does not affect your level of certainty.

“Will they believe in the essentials? Yes absolutely.”

But this is a descriptive statement of a belief in which you have certainty. I could simply ask, “Are you absolutely certain of your view of certainty?”

mbaker,

“That even as God’s people we can’t know ALL truth with 100% certainty, because if were just about making biblically wise choices 100% of the time, we would be 100% correct in our behavior at all times, and we are not. Our sin natures will always cause us to doubt, and even if we are presented with 100% truth we often cannot receive it, like Thomas, even in the face of irrefutable evidence.”

Once again, I need to point out that this is a statement that emphasizes our condition over God’s ability and what He has declared He will do in the Scripture. It is also a descriptive statement based on experience, and not the Scripture. We are told in Scripture that we will obtain certainty and no longer be tossed around by the wind and waves of other teachings. Being tossed around is a sign of immaturity. It may be that the vast majority of evangelicals (most likely American evangelicals) are immature in their faith and lack certainty; but they ought not argue that this is the final state of the Christian in this life because the Bible states otherwise. Some have obtained a maturity of faith that no longer doubts. As I mentioned before, some have matured to a faith that X is true and not Y and no longer have any question in their minds as to whether it is true. A person may not have obtained it in all issues, but it is something that can be obtained on issues (and not just “essential” issues). Once again, I am not saying that we are not subjective. My point is that certainty comes to us through our subjectivity and our subjectivity is not a barrier to God’s capabilities.

Hodge,

I think you might have completely missed my point.

You seem to equate confidence the confidence God gives us by faith with certainty that our own belief is right. They are two different things. Yes, maturing in the faith can and certainly should give us a stronger confidence in certain areas, but it can also change our minds about others. Does it mean we are immature because we are still growing and learning?

In some cases certainty in the Lord can become arrogance in human practice, if we are going to judge folks strictly by how long they’ve been a Christian, rather than whether they are practicing solid doctrine or not. Obviously there are churches full of long time Christians that haven’t progressed any further in the faith than when they first believed. So to rely on the confidence God gives us by faith to say we know all we should about Christianity is like saying we learned all we need to know in kindergarten.

P.S.to Hodge, re:# 48

We can’t really claim that maturity as Christians necessarily gives us more a more absolute assurance of truth than others either, because we can just as easily accept well reasoned, well presented false theology simply because it comes from the pulpit as many of us older Christans can testify.

So then, is it only searching the scriptures to verify that everything we are taught is true like the Bereans, and/or receiving formal training that will bring us closer to 100% certainty? Done as it should be, with God’s agenda in mind, I believe both broaden and clarify our understanding of God’s truth. However, if it were only a matter of arriving at the correct conclusions by personal study and/or formal education why would so many respected and highly educated theologians still disagree with each other on so many issues?

I believe discussion of theological matters follows along the same lines. While it can and should make us think more deeply about what and why we believe, none of us this side of heaven can claim we have 100% certainty of the truth in our own right. That goes for our favorite clergymen as well, (as I for one have sure learned the hard way), no matter how well trained or respected they are in theological circles. Only Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life can legitimately make the claim of absolute truth as head of the church. So until He reveals all things to us when He comes again, I think Lisa is right that we all should keep a teachable spirit when it comes to discerning the truth of God’s word.

There’s certainly nothing relative, immature or subjective about that, rather it is a practical scriptual admonishment for all believers. Keeping an open mind in that regard doesn’t mean just because we question what we’re being taught, like the Bereans, or disagree with each other over some theological point of view, that we are automatically rebelling against authority, or abandoning the historic…

…. beliefs of the faith by embracing other doctrines. Rather as Christ’s followers who have committed our very lives to Him, we are told to continue to remain committed to diligently searching out and growing in His truth, as it is set forth in God’s word, throughout our lifetimes and hopefully encouraging others to do the same.

Another way of putting mbaker’s point, as I understand it, is that Hodge seems to be advocating a quite radical form of epistemological externalism – that the measure of whether we are justified in believing something true rests entirely on mind-independent matters over which we have no control. This means that anyone may be have spent their lifetime “doing their homework” with the utmost care and responsibility, so that they can be as certain as they can be that they’ve done what they can to be sure that they believe the right things (assuming that this is the measure of being saved), and not be saved; because in the end, “God saves who he wills” anyway. If this is the bullet you want to bite (and some indeed do, such as “old line Calvinists” like the Primitive Baptists – even repentance is classed under “works” and thus dismissed as without value), then it’s inconsistent to appeal to “maturity,” or anything else intrinsic to the believer, as though it contributes something positive or is a reliable mark of something relevant to being saved.