In the meantime it appears that you are now an advocate of the harmonious operation of faith and reason whereas your previous comment suggested that there was nothing that could prevent a Christian from being mocked by an atheist in a debate.

Right. How do those two points conflict?

et cetera in the hopes that this somehow sharpens your reasoning. I am sorry if my attention to your nascent foray into philosophy is somehow unwelcome.

It’s most welcome. You offer a different view. I just wanted more than out-of-hand dismissal, that’s all. I mean, you implied that the passages of scripture I cited were taken out of context, and just moved along with no real support as to why you thought so. Well, qualifying dissent would be nice! At least I can respond.

You’re right. You didn’t offer any personal view, and that’s your prerogative — but you aren’t offering much as to why you disagree on certain points, and why what I’m saying is actually errant, apart from reasons of practicality, expediency, or pragmatism.

I think that Jay has ably demonstrated that you can get a whole bunch of quotes that don’t necessarily gel with the ones you present.

This is an example of what I mean: how so? What proof? Has he really done that?

If both sets of quotes come from the same Scripture, do they really cancel each other out, making both wrong?

No. I can explain anything he’s cited, along with what I’ve cited, in a harmonious way. There must be harmony if it’s the Word of God. If not, it’s useless.

I embrace both sides but my focus has been toward the side that would exclude the other. I’m not seeking the exclusion of anything and never have. I’m after balance, which requires (fr the time being) focussed criticism of the side which is weighing more heavily in the West at present.

You have so much capacity intellectually, which is why I value your critiques. But it doesn’t really help me to get a “That’s wrong!” without making much of a case as to why what is being stated is wrong, apart from purely pragmatic reasons.

And your video convinced me. I’ll be voting Nietzsche in the next election! lol

I think that Jay has ably demonstrated that you can get a whole bunch of quotes that don’t necessarily gel with the ones you present.

In the meantime it appears that you are now an advocate of the harmonious operation of faith and reason whereas your previous comment suggested that there was nothing that could prevent a Christian from being mocked by an atheist in a debate.

FWIW, I don’t buy a literal 6 24-hr day creation story.

In the meantime, you seem obsessed with me presenting some kind of comprehensive worldview or position. Sorry, I never offered one, and frankly I don’t have any intention to cook up a comprehensive theory of everything. You’ve offered up a point of view and I have presented my critiques, concerns, questions, observations, et cetera in the hopes that this somehow sharpens your reasoning. I am sorry if my attention to your nascent foray into philosophy is somehow unwelcome.

I agree that The Holy Spirit, dwells within us and informs us in a way that encourages faith. But I think that the necessity of some physical proof exists to verify our faith.

Fully agree. Never asserted the contrary.

“in this way that we can separate ourselves from the Schizophrenics! Terrorists! and Cult members!”

Yes, but in part. Christ was thought by PHARISEES, the religious leaders of the day, to be possessed by a demon. Paul tells us that God’s wisdom appears as FOOLISHNESS to men.

What I’m advocating is a bit of balance and clarity — honesty with the entirety of what we sign up for.

“online Bibles to give us a motherlode of out-of-context quotes”

You’re doing so much disagreeing and making so many dismissive statements. I think you owe it to anyone reading this to actually back this statement up — what is being implied is that I’ve taken the Scriptures out of context.

Prove it.

“So are Christians that credibly engage atheists all a bunch of heretics?”

No. Another prime example of taking a piece of what I’m saying, hoping to dismiss my entire view, while ignoring a great deal of what else I’ve said.

I ended that same post by saying, “We are blessed with the ability to be rational, but that only gets us so far — then there is the precipice, which only the Spirit can bear us over.”

Did you miss this part? It would effectively qualify, balance, and frame the other quote you were so eager to remember.

I’m not advocating anti-rationalism. I’m saying that it only gets us so far, and that God and His extension to us through the Holy Spirit transcends our ability to package him and present Him to the unbeliever.

“mysticism, and unreason when there are saner alternatives is, puzzling at best. While study, reflection, and meditation may not be exciting as rolling on the floor as some charismatic expression of faith, you seem to hold more intellectual pursuits in opposition to true Christianity.”

It’s becoming evident where some possible biases lie. My line of thought has nothing to do with the Charismatic at all. These are very basic and fundamental truths of salvation… like, Bible School 101. It concerns me than anyone would think they’re outrageous with so much “empirical testimony” in Scripture speaking so plainly about these things.

Through this while thread, all you’ve done is disagreed without actually investing anything of your own view, and how your view would be Biblically justifiable. You’re disagreeing because, well, you just disagree. But what good is that?

I’ve presented case after case, (each one very much rational — imagine that) and instead of conceding anything of value, you just continue to pick away at minutia, again, without offering any of your own beliefs and what they’re grounded in.

Instead of speaking to the Scriptures I’ve cited (and none of them taken out of context you implied) you’ve just side stepped them.

What do you believe about them? They are authority regarding this topic. You’d like to make not statement concerning them?

Go and read the context if you like! I can defend very handily my mention of each one, its relevance to the conversation, and the appropriateness and stability of my interpretation.

As you’ve said, the Scriptures are empirical testimony. They attest to the merits and necessity of testimony. However, they also teach that much of what matters is beyond the grasp of the human mind, and must be accepted through supernatural means. You’ve not once actually given much of an argument as to why this is not the case, and why you personally do not believe it to be so in the terms I’m presenting. You’ve only talked about the practical reasons why this line of thought might dangerous or hard to swallow.

A triune God is hard to swallow. immaculate conception is hard to swallow. 6 day creation, the fully God fully Man Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are all hard to swallow. These things and more are non-nonsensical to the unbeliever.

Would you deny any of these?

I’d very much like for the conversation to continue, but I think for it to be worthwhile you’re going to have to invest something a bit more personal — something of a position.

“That The Holy Spirit is easily capable if acting the opposite way and you’re both right.”

I’ve maintained the reality of both all along. I’m not denying the physical, visible, rational, practical works of God. They are bountiful and ubiquitous.

It seems though that there’s much reluctance in embracing the deeper truths of the Scriptures, and the things in which spiritual substance is grounded.

What leaves me shocked is your conclusion:
“The Scriptures are clear on this and you have no grounds on which to suggest something more intellectually safe or “scientific” or tenable for the sake of ease or credibility — so that in a debate with the atheist you will not be laughed at or dismissed.”

So are Christians that credibly engage atheists all a bunch of heretics? Isn’t the whole project of Plantinga, or Clark, or Craig to make a credible defense of Christianity in the face of secular critique?

I’m not about to deny that there is surely some mystery in Christianity but fetishize mystery, mysticism, and unreason when there are saner alternatives is, puzzling at best. While study, reflection, and meditation may not be exciting as rolling on the floor as some charismatic expression of faith, you seem to hold more intellectual pursuits in opposition to true Christianity.

Why cede reason in defending Christianity? It’s unnecessary.

34 Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?

For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead

I agree that The Holy Spirit, dwells within us and informs us in a way that encourages faith. But I think that the necessity of some physical proof exists to verify our faith. I think in the New Testament there is huge emphasis of the church being unique and that in our love we prove God to the unbeliever and it is in this way that we can seperate oursleves from the Schizophrenics! Terrorists! and Cult members!

“since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you”

Its not outside God’s power to inform us in physical ways and surely the logical arguments and proofs of Christian scholars have aided in keeping us seperate from spiritual piracy for the last 2000 years. I think this legitimacy that we enjoy as Christians is from the Holy Spirit.

I think you dudes are going at from such polar opposites that you’re not seeing
- works in ways that cannot be sensually embraced
- employs methods that are other to our rational faculties
- moves in ways that science is ill-equipped to answer?

That The Holy Spirit is easily capable if acting the opposite way and you’re both right.

“The threshing floors will be full of grain, and the vats will overflow with the new wine and oil. Then I will make up to you for the years that the swarming locust has eaten”

“And yet, it must have been real to at least the four ringleaders. How do we know we are not so programmed?”

I’d say “seemed real,” or “appeared as real” — certainly this can be this case without the object of belief itself being real.

“you’ve danced relatively close to Plantinga’s idea of warranted belief as a defense for theism – I’ll assume that you’re familiar with it given your interest in Notre Dame’s philosophy of religion faculty.”

I’m not sure if I know this argument. The only ideas of Plantinga’s that I’m familiar with is the argument that belief in God is reasonable in no different a way than belief in mind is reasonable. We believe in mind, so, it is at least reasonable to consider belief in God. Is this what you’re referring to?

“appear to be part of a set of universal innate ideas”

I’m not really headed there… but if Monarchs know to fly to Mexico every year, and babies know to suck on nipples, I can’t really vouch for a pure tabula rasa view of the mind. This will take us on a tangent though that isn’t really related to this topic.

“what about the Ethiopian traveler who was convinced once Philip explained Isaiah to him? It is dangerous when we appeal to internal, unverifiable confirmation when a good look at the information available to everyone else will do just as well”

Yes, I don’t necessarily disagree with you.

But answer this: how was it Philip was able to interpret Isaiah? Years of study? A tutorial by Jesus? I would argue it was through the empowering an illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Christianity is inherently mystical. When you try to make it something purely rational, you sap it of its essence, and it becomes nothing more than good ideas.

Are you only after good ideas?

“Some say God exists out of space but in time, others disagree”

It doesn’t matter as far as this discussion is concerned. By supernatural I mean:

- works in ways that cannot be sensually embraced
- employs methods that are other to our rational faculties
- moves in ways that science is ill-equipped to answer?

I’d be very interested to hear how you would interpret the following passages:

“Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit”

“your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God”

“…but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.”

“I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit”

“The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this”

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God”

“Faith is evidence of things hoped for. The conviction of things unseen.”

A smattering of passages. Yes. But they all together (context considered) suggest:

- belief in Christ guarantees the indwelling of the Spirit

- the Holy Spirit communes and converses with the Believer

- Faith is a gift from God – that is, not of human initiative

- in the same way as the Spirit, Faith is a confirmation to the believer – evidence

* * * * *

You can believe what you want… but the Scriptures are clear as far as what God believes. I’m not sure why you would be in such disagreement.

Perhaps sharing your interpretation of the passage above will help us understand where you’re coming from. Maybe I’m missing something in your view that is equally Biblical.

Schizophrenics! Terrorists! Cult members!

The place of Faith leaves us in such company – that’s the price of following Him. The Scriptures are clear on this and you have no grounds on which to suggest something more intellectually safe or “scientific” or tenable for the sake of ease or credibility — so that in a debate with the atheist you will not be laughed at or dismissed.

We are blessed with the ability to be rational, but that only gets us so far — then there is the precipice, which only the Spirit can bear us over.

And yet, it must have been real to at least the four ringleaders. How do we know we are not so programmed? You’ve danced relatively close to Plantinga’s idea of warranted belief as a defense for theism – I’ll assume that you’re familiar with it given your interest in Notre Dame’s philosophy of religion faculty. Yet the way this idea was expressed by Kelly James Clark in that email Jay sent out makes the idea of warranted belief in theism appear to be part of a set of universal innate ideas. Like the problem of other minds, we assume it them to be so, and like grammar (think Chomsky’s work) we have this belief innately.

Of course Clark’s system appears (from what I can see of it) to simply provide evidence against atheism, it is not quite so handy in the field of comparative religions and the seductive certainties offered in every house of worship. FWIW I can see how an atheist would construct an argument against it – but then Clark doesn’t put much stock in arguments – that’s the point of warranted belief.

Moreover, I think you’ve set this up as a needlessly mystical event – what about the Ethiopian traveler who was convinced once Philip explained Isaiah to him? It is dangerous when we appeal to internal, unverifiable confirmation when a good look at the information available to everyone else will do just as well. That way lies Jonestown – or at least Pat Robertson.

For the sake of your amusement I would like very much to answer your question, except you’d need to define “supernatural” first. Some say God exists out of space but in time, others disagree, I do not know that there is a universally accepted view of this matter, the Bible is silent – or at least vague – on this point.

On lighter note, I have YouTube video of Kant you might enjoy at my blog – check it out!