tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post5536518278460214258..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Hello, Out There #1: on TruthPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35409431794449531312007-07-13T14:33:00.000-07:002007-07-13T14:33:00.000-07:00The problem they have is radical autonomy in that ...<I>The problem they have is radical autonomy in that they do not believe that anyone or any "thing" (like a book which is the cultural property of people they don't like) has the authority to tell them what the truth is.</I><BR/><BR/>Frank, should we be surprised? This is the logical outworking of 200 years of Enlightenment thinking, rooted just as much in <B>rights</B>, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and "We the People" as "In God We Trust." <B>Radical autonomy is a piece of Americana.</B><BR/><BR/>What a relief that the Christian faith is rooted in the Bible instead of Enlightenment-inspired documents like the Decl. of Independence. <BR/><BR/>Here we go again:<BR/>Lots of "EC" names have been thrown around to show how unbiblical the movement is and everything about it is reincarnated hippie satanism. <BR/><BR/>And here I thought I thought I was a Calvinist...<BR/><BR/>So TRY to be a little more balanced, is that too much to ask?bloggernauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721174374654762327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50537123475627145392007-07-13T13:29:00.000-07:002007-07-13T13:29:00.000-07:00Of course, many (inserting that all-important qual...Of course, many (inserting that all-important qualifier!) Emergents say they believe in truth. It seems to me (another qualifier!) that the problems I generally encounter with the local crowd tend to run along these lines:<BR/><BR/>1) The way they <I>define</I> truth, if they bother to define it at all; too often, it turns out that "truth" need not correspond to actual reality. This way, one can talk endlessly of how he believe the Bible to be <I>true</I> without necessarily letting his audience in on the fact that he doesn't think its statements necessarily reflect what actually <I>is.</I> For a perfect, well-known example, see Marcus Borg's comments on the physical resurrection of Jesus, as quoted by Craig Dunning:<BR/><BR/><I>"I am one of those Christians who does not believe in the virgin birth, nor in the star of Bethlehem, nor in the journey of the wisemen, nor in the shepherds coming to the manger, as facts of history. Yet I find these stories to be both powerful and truthful, and I have no difficulty preaching sermons on them."(Bible Review, December 1992, pg.4)</I><BR/><BR/>This kind of thing seems very common.<BR/><BR/>2) <I>Knowability</I> of truth is frequently disparaged. It varies in degree from person to person.<BR/><BR/>3) Those two things are often (another important qualifier!) put together and made use of in highly selective fashion, such that they are pretty much all convinced that they <I>can</I> know (sometimes via a mystic experience, sometimes not), for example, that <I>God is love</I>, but that they can <I>not</I> know, for example, that universalism is not biblically tenable. This is the kind of thing I referred to as "smoke-blowing" earlier; they do believe that truth exists and can be known--<I>some</I>how--when it suits them, and start in with the hard postmodernism described so well by D.A. Carson when it doesn't.<BR/><BR/>I hope that was halfway coherent. My nine-month-old was sitting on my lap and trying hard to play with the keyboard while I wrote it.Savage Baptisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14366893048089380061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31071650479888572072007-07-13T12:48:00.000-07:002007-07-13T12:48:00.000-07:00See? There are too such people!See? There <I>are too</I> such people!DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87006907843473613592007-07-13T12:18:00.000-07:002007-07-13T12:18:00.000-07:00Excellent Dan, I'll need to print this out for som...Excellent Dan, I'll need to print this out for someone I know who maintains such statements about "truth".P.D. Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17885909266458802577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40755220477727385522007-07-13T11:34:00.000-07:002007-07-13T11:34:00.000-07:00Could you guys put permanent links to this (and th...Could you guys put permanent links to this (and the future in the series) posts on your sideboard? I don't have a use for it today, but I sure will in the future.<BR/><BR/>thanks!<BR/><BR/>(ugly David)David A. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465387359523299616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10886116012816752592007-07-13T10:24:00.000-07:002007-07-13T10:24:00.000-07:00This was amazing. Thanks.This was amazing. Thanks.janellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03562513623973041847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86684546271154002852007-07-13T08:03:00.000-07:002007-07-13T08:03:00.000-07:00Phil,@jsb, excellent points regarding atheism. I n...Phil,<BR/><BR/><I>@jsb, excellent points regarding atheism. I never understood why the task of proving their stance always seems to fall upon the theist. Why don't the atheists ever have to prove anything? They claim to believe only things which are scientifically and empirically determinable. They deny creationism on such criteria, but never admit that Darwinists can't prove much more than we can.</I><BR/><BR/>This is exactly William Lane Craig's approach to debates with atheists over the existence of God. Hardly any atheist he has ever debated in his 10-15+ years of this has given the positive case for atheism. Some have gotten closer than others. Most have simply ranted about the irrationality of God-talk and the 'superiority' of scientism.<BR/><BR/>*Letitia*bloggernauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721174374654762327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8613766226447790292007-07-13T07:52:00.000-07:002007-07-13T07:52:00.000-07:00Are emerging churches the new whipping boy of the ...Are emerging churches the new whipping boy of the 21st century? It's only been days since Phil closed the last thread of debate and how quickly someone opens it back up...<BR/><BR/><I>When James said, show me your works and we can talk about your faith (my translation), it seems to apply here. Show me how you're "handling the truth" and putting legs on it, and then we can talk more clearly about whether this is really a belief in truth or just lip service -- or self-delusion. How wide is your net of certainty? How big are the holes in your net?<BR/><BR/>IOW, the declaration "I believe in truth" doesn't get us very far.</I><BR/><BR/>Well said. That about sums up most younger Christians' attitude about talking about truth to nonbelievers. Due to postmodern thinking, talking about truth may sound hollow or unintelligible. People are so jaded by hypocrisy. People want to SEE the truth in Christianity, not just hear its propositions. Demonstrate Jesus, and the stuff about objective truth is already part of it (for responsible churches, anyway). The aim is to act in such a way that nonChristians will say "wow, there must be a God around here!"<BR/><BR/>*Letitia*bloggernauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721174374654762327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19881765172804655022007-07-13T06:42:00.001-07:002007-07-13T06:42:00.001-07:00I wanted to say one more thing on this idea that m...I wanted to say one more thing on this idea that most people, EC or otherwise, "believe in truth."<BR/><BR/>That's sort of like saying most people love America. You put the question to them, and they'll say "Of course!" But Michael Moore believes in America and so does Newt Gingrich. But their take is entirely different, and the way they "show love" is going to be different.<BR/><BR/>When James said, show me your works and we can talk about your faith (my translation), it seems to apply here. Show me how you're "handling the truth" and putting legs on it, and then we can talk more clearly about whether this is really a belief in truth or just lip service -- or self-delusion. How wide is your net of certainty? How big are the holes in your net?<BR/><BR/>IOW, the declaration "I believe in truth" doesn't get us very far.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5462497444798477162007-07-13T06:42:00.000-07:002007-07-13T06:42:00.000-07:00I wanted to note that I really appreciated Dan Kim...I wanted to note that I really appreciated Dan Kimball's first comment in this thread, even if I disagree with him about something very specific.<BR/><BR/>I think he's 100% right that it's not that people don't think there's anything true. I think pomos think there is something true and that there is truth.<BR/><BR/>The problem they have is <I>radical autonomy</I> in that they do not believe that anyone or any "thing" (like a book which is the cultural property of people they don't like) has the authority to tell them what the truth is.<BR/><BR/>People do not want to be told they are wrong. They can barely grasp they are wrong and accept it when they realize it with their own power of observation -- if someone comes up to them and tells them, "dude, that's screwed up," they react as if they've been slapped in the face.<BR/><BR/>But at the root, the question for us as ambassadors of Christ is <I>whether or not we have a commission to tell them they are wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>We do. Paul told everyone they were wrong -- the Jews, the Greeks, Agrippa, the Judaizers, Peter. Everyone! And it wasn't because he was a spiteful prig or a bigot: he wanted these people who were heaping the damnation of God on their own heads to repent and turn to the only Savior who could save them.<BR/><BR/>Our predisposition in evangelism ought not to be fear that the Gospel is a scandal, an offense. It is. It doesn't need any help from us to be offensive to the lost. Our fear ought to be that we aren't telling people that God sent His son to save those who will believe that they need Him and that He will save them.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57924582943261179342007-07-13T06:36:00.000-07:002007-07-13T06:36:00.000-07:00Dang, that really is good. Thanks again.Dang, that really <I>is</I> good. Thanks again.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44302189477559457382007-07-13T06:29:00.000-07:002007-07-13T06:29:00.000-07:00mine or his Dan?It took me 2 and half years to rea...mine or his Dan?<BR/><BR/>It took me 2 and half years to read his first volume of " God, Revelation and Authority" : God Who Speaks and Shows.<BR/><BR/>all the quotes are from there.<BR/>The first two could be found at page 248 & 106. The other ones are from the same volume.<BR/><BR/>Here is one too good to not post it:<BR/><BR/>“Because theological and ethical statements cannot be verified by empirical methods does not mean, as the positivists erroneously and arbitrarily conclude, that they are beyond verification. Such a judgment stems purely from the metaphysical theory that only empirical experience supplies evidence about reality” (Henry, p.247). <BR/><BR/>Henry, Carl F.H. God, Revelation and Authority Volume I God Who Speaks and Shows. <BR/>Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1999Ben Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17720758092068979228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76808295384178268002007-07-13T06:08:00.000-07:002007-07-13T06:08:00.000-07:00Seriously good quotations; thanks, Benjamin.(Now g...Seriously good quotations; thanks, Benjamin.<BR/><BR/>(Now give the bibliographical info!)DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16492253814373413832007-07-13T06:00:00.000-07:002007-07-13T06:00:00.000-07:00Some Carl Henry quotes:Let's start with the sense ...Some Carl Henry quotes:<BR/><BR/>Let's start with the sense experiences:<BR/><BR/>"The Hindu, the Christian and the logical positivist have similar sense experiences (not identical, to be sure, because every individual’s perceptions differ); the essential difference between them occurs not in what they see, hear, smell or taste, but in what they think about reality. The positivist thinks that sense data alone can relate us to the real world; the Hindu thinks that sense data are illusory and lead away from the real world; the Christian thinks that the phenomenal world is a real creation that witnesses to its Creator” <BR/><BR/>About truth:<BR/><BR/>“The mind of man is not veiled divinity. Transcendent divine revelation, not human reasoning, is the source of truth; publicly shared reason is a divinely gifted instrument for recognizing truth ” <BR/><BR/>About God's revelation:<BR/><BR/>-"Not only the apostate abandonment of revelation as the basic Christian axiom in epistemology, but weak and fallacious views of divine revelation as well, needlessly obscure the truth of evangelical theism. The truth of revelation is dimmed also by an unbelief in the authority and reliability of Scripture, since this dilutes God's Word and speech"<BR/><BR/>"-Either divine revelation is a source of intelligible knowledge or it is not, and if it is - as inspired biblical writers insist - then its content cannot be codeduced from secondary sources, and we are limited to what God has revealed of the intricacies of his plan" <BR/><BR/><BR/>He just says it much better than I could ever do.Ben Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17720758092068979228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71435123745253726662007-07-13T05:39:00.000-07:002007-07-13T05:39:00.000-07:00JSB:I can think of one moral pronouncement that a ...JSB:<BR/><BR/>I can think of one moral pronouncement that a Christian can make that an atheist cannot make.<BR/><BR/><B>What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.</B><BR/><BR/>I'll bet that anyone who has read the Bible -- actually read it and not just run their eyes over it -- could come up with at least 5 more.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65758924822268351732007-07-13T05:28:00.000-07:002007-07-13T05:28:00.000-07:00I find your assessment utterly baffling, and unrel...I find your assessment utterly baffling, and unrelated to the actual article. But, well, now we know what you think, I guess. Sorry you don't find it useful, glad others do.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2530153373936541372007-07-13T05:17:00.000-07:002007-07-13T05:17:00.000-07:00I'm not so sure I like this article. It seemed rat...I'm not so sure I like this article. It seemed rather confusing to me, but maybe that's because my brain doesn't work very well. Nevertheless, I think that this article offers some helpful points of insight regarding the relationship between truth and the Christian faith, but for most non-believers, this article would be far too much for them to process, aside from those fairly well educated.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, discussing the logical fallacies of postmodern thinking can be helpful, but ultimately people come to the truth of Christ through His Word alone. It is powerful enough to destroy logical fallacy on its own. <BR/><BR/>This article is a good start, but it needs more shaping and refining before I could point any non-believer to it.<BR/><BR/>Seth<BR/><A HREF="http://www.whatum.com" REL="nofollow">whatum.com</A><BR/>theological satireSeth Fullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07971543656247882892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38153462323296914502007-07-12T20:12:00.000-07:002007-07-12T20:12:00.000-07:00You make strong points, but rarely will you ever f...You make strong points, but rarely will you ever find a person who outright denies the existence of absolute truth, except in belligerent philosophizers.<BR/><BR/>@jsb, excellent points regarding atheism. I never understood why the task of proving their stance always seems to fall upon the theist. Why don't the atheists ever have to prove anything? They claim to believe only things which are scientifically and empirically determinable. They deny creationism on such criteria, but never admit that Darwinists can't prove much more than we can.<BR/><BR/>I think in light of this post, we should also keep in mind that we are human and are perfectly capable of misinterpreting truth, specifically the Bible. No one is immune to false belief, whether they believe it is "truth" or not.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01193341283807477751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87016615638222062892007-07-12T19:00:00.000-07:002007-07-12T19:00:00.000-07:00There are too many Dans...in the Reformed blogosph...<I>There are too many Dans...in the Reformed blogosphere. They're solid Biblical names, but youze guys really to differentiate yourselves some!</I><BR/><BR/>I'm the best-looking one. You can tell from my picture.Savage Baptisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14366893048089380061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54991449199218282172007-07-12T18:53:00.000-07:002007-07-12T18:53:00.000-07:00On a serious note, thank you very much for this po...On a serious note, thank you very much for this post, Dan, and thanks to the Lord for the idea of writing this series. May the Holy Spirit continue to grant you wisdom as you walk us through these posts, and as we in turn lead others to them.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30517192120251347822007-07-12T18:51:00.000-07:002007-07-12T18:51:00.000-07:00There are too many Dans (and too many Davids) in t...There are too many Dans (and too many Davids) in the Reformed blogosphere. They're solid Biblical names, but youze guys really to differentiate yourselves some!Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88534425835267249762007-07-12T17:05:00.000-07:002007-07-12T17:05:00.000-07:00Dan K, you posted while I was writing. Thanx for t...Dan K, <BR/><BR/>you posted while I was writing. Thanx for the clarification to the first part of what I was asking!Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10350390523818046990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17532915793503613452007-07-12T17:03:00.000-07:002007-07-12T17:03:00.000-07:00Thanks for the interaction, Dans. Dan K, as Dan P ...Thanks for the interaction, Dans. <BR/><BR/>Dan K, as Dan P pointed out, I wasn't insinuating that you personally went along with the examples I gave, but what your thoughts were regarding their basic content. <BR/><BR/>Also, what are your thoughts regarding the need to be certain enough to act in a specific way? What is the default position? Act according to what all the available evidence seems to teach? Or, if there is a shred of doubt anywhere, act according to that doubt and against the available evidence? Is an orthodox position "orthodox until proven wrong" or "wrong until proven to be without any doubt whatsoever"?Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10350390523818046990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77493888368509094712007-07-12T16:59:00.000-07:002007-07-12T16:59:00.000-07:00Hi again Dan!You asked: "You wouldn't say those th...Hi again Dan!<BR/><BR/><BR/>You asked: <BR/><BR/><BR/>"You wouldn't say those things — but should anyone say them? If he does, where does that put him in relation to the truth, in relation to Christ?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>No, I don't personally feel anyone should call God a "chick" if that actually happened. So, no I am not ambivalent - if a Christian friend of mine or a Christian in our church was saying God is a "chick", I would be correcting them in saying that is not truth.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Same for of a Christian friend or a Christian in our church was saying that God was guilty of "divine child abuse" I would be correcting that statement as well.<BR/><BR/>Is that what you are asking for? I didn't mean to sound ambivalent on that.<BR/><BR/>DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62790963708679227002007-07-12T16:39:00.000-07:002007-07-12T16:39:00.000-07:00Keep up the great work here!CalebKeep up the great work here!<BR/><BR/>CalebCaleb Kolstadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16430229005942296570noreply@blogger.com