Reason and the Message: Difference between revisions

=Background=

We are steadfastly convinced of two things:

The way that most message believers see it, these two points don’t seem to be compatible.  To believe the first point requires faith, and revelation.  And it does. But it is the different paths that we take to arrive there — primarily, the subject of point #2 — that will shed much light on how we can stand in absolute unity on the attributes of the bible, while attempting to communicate across galaxies with regard to the message.

Here is how one translator put it:

Many in the message ignore the many issues we have raised in this website and, when challenged, refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion or even attempt to answer the questions raised.   

Why is it that there is a refusal to obey scripture?  Is it because they know that they don't have any answers?

=The Confusion=

Paul reminded us that we walk by faith, not by sight. (2 Cor 5:7) He did not say we walk by faith and not by reason. He did not say we walk by faith and not by logic. Why sight? I believe it is because it represents the input of the five senses, the empirical data gatherers of our human existence. All of this information is processed by the mind, but little thinking, and certainly little faith is required in order to accept such information. It is raw data, and it has quick and immediate impact on our emotional responses. Animals interact with their environments primarily through this channel. NOT doing that is one of the primary attributes that separates us from them.

So how does faith vs. sight compare to faith vs. reason?

That is a very basic illustration and does not include divinely given faith. Any person so willing, whether they are a Christian or not, could effect that sort of faith, and indeed they do, every single day. But it is important to illustrate it nonetheless, to contrast faith with sight, and to show the absurdity of pitting faith against reason, when the two are so connected. Please note that there was no empirical proof of what you believe will happen [a positive result for your surgery], but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a solid basis for your faith.

The protestant reformers recognized three elements of biblical faith, noticia, assensus, & feducia, or, in English, knowledge, assent, and trust. The more knowledge you have about the object of your faith, the greater your capacity for faith. The assent is the “amen” from the heart that says, yes, that knowledge is absolutely the truth. The trust is simply acting on that truth. Take away any of those three elements, and you don’t have faith of the bible, the faith that pleases God. Studying the bible all of your life will grant you a good bit of knowledge of God (noticia). Having the conviction that what you have come to know is true is also necessary (assensus), and so is falling back into Jesus’ arms even when you can’t see him, and joyfully putting the one human life you have to live, under his Lordship (feducia). When I read Hebrews 11 with that perspective on faith, my mind was blown.

In their purest form, all of these orders are purveyors of truth. Two plus two can never equal seven. The truth of two plus two will always be four. A conclusion that follows from a faulty premise is an illogical conclusion. No amount of faith changes either of those situations, ever. Because it’s God’s law and it is true, and it cannot be changed. However, just as with science, that human intellectual order can bring destruction when out from under the proper influence of its creator. Paul said “Be transformed, by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2) He also warned against the type of arrogant knowledge that would raise itself against God. (2 Cor 10:5) In both of these passages, the proper believer’s response is submission and humility, not ignorance.

I believe the bible’s claims about itself, namely that it is the Word of God, and that it is true. I cannot empirically prove it to be so, but it is also not an illogical conclusion. Over the thousands of years of its history, its many writers penned the most profound, coherent, beautiful narrative of human history and redemption ever written. Prophecies were recorded, and fulfilled. Promises were made, and then kept.

We aren't asking for empirical evidence for supernatural events and fulfilled prophecies, we are pointing out what should be obvious to someone who honors the laws of logic laid down by God himself: they could not have happened, because you have to commit every logical fallacy known to man in order to prop up the claims. That is not vindication. That is our first line of defense, of discernment, the laws of logic that we use every day whether we understand them or not.

As for the existence of Jesus, again, that is not only logical, but verifiable by non-Christian historians like Josephus and others. It would be far more difficult to argue that he did not exist. Why is this? Because it is true that he existed! Logic is designed to funnel information toward true conclusions.

=Conclusion=

It’s completely insane.