Some Christians think that if we appeal to reason and evidences to demonstrate that the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we are elevating reason and evidence to a place of authority over God’s Word. I think this conclusion is misguided for several reasons. First, I don’t think it is legitimate to consider reason an “authority.” Reason is merely a tool for assessing reality. It is basic to all human thought. Indeed, one cannot even understand God’s revelation apart from reasoning. It would be a mistake, then, to pit reason against revelation as if they are two competing authorities. As Greg Koukl has argued, using reason to assess whether or not the Bible is God’s revelation to man no more puts reason above the Bible than using grammar to understand God’s revelation puts grammar above the Bible.
Secondly, this confuses the order of being (ontology) with the order of knowing (epistemology). While the Bible is first in terms of authority, it is not first in terms of the order of knowing. Knowledge of the divine origin and revelatory status of the Bible is not innate. We must acquire this knowledge. Knowledge of a proposition requires three elements: (1) belief that the proposition is true; (2) justification for the belief that the proposition is true; (3) the proposition must actually be true. Put another way, knowledge is justified true belief. Given the fact that knowledge requires justification, it cannot be wrong to require justification for believing the Bible is God’s Word. We could not know the Bible is God’s Word apart from such justification. As Kelly Clark has pointed out, reason is not autonomous as the standard of truth, but it is the best tool for discovering the truth.
A proper use of reason is not an exercise of subjecting God’s Word to a higher authority, but an examination of the Bible to determine if it is truly what it claims to be. We use our God-given reason to discover the truth that the Bible is a product of divine revelation.
Thinking to Believe 
June 13, 2013 at 11:12 am
This is an excellent way of putting it.
I do think, however, that there’s this tendency for some to try to make pure reason “do the job” of revelation. Revelation, whether in Scripture or the private evidence of God that He provides to individuals, cannot be replaced; you cannot pure-reason (as in, lacking revelation) your way to God.
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 11:24 am
Agreed.
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Jason:
After reading “Given the fact that knowledge requires justification, it cannot be wrong to require justification for believing the Bible is God’s Word. We could not know the Bible is God’s Word apart from such justification.”
I waited with baited breath then to read what the “justification” you speak of is, which never came in your commentary.
Did I miss this “justification? Is it embedded somewhere? I can’t seem to find the justification you speak of for believing because belief and knowledge are opposites. The only thing that justifies belief is knowledge for once knowledge comes, belief disappears as the darkness disappears when the light comes.
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Believing and knowledge aren’t considered opposites in philosophy. The common philosophical definition of knowledge is, as Jason said, “justified true belief.”
Did you mean “faith” or something?
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Leo,
I don’t know why you would be waiting for such information given the title of the post. The topic I am addressing is “Does apologetics place reason in authority over God’s Word?”, not “What rational justification do we have for believing the Bible is the revelation of God?”
And Stan is right regarding the issue of belief and knowledge. You are working from an unbiblical definition of belief/faith. Biblical faith is not opposed to knowledge, or something needed in the absence of knowledge, but is based on knowledge. The Biblical concept of faith is that of trust, and that trust is based on knowledge, and knowledge requires justification.
Jason
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 3:45 pm
My definition and this is the only one I can speak to is that belief is the absence of knowledge. Dr Salk had a true belief in his quest for a polio vaccine and pursued that goal in true belief however once having found the polio vaccine that belief vanished with the knowledge of the find. It’s like going on a treasure hunt or looking for a gold vein in prospecting. True belief drives you but once you find the treasure you truly believed was there, belief disappeared and replaced by the treasure found.
Knowledge does not need to be justified, knowledge is the treasure to be sought. Belief can only be justified by knowledge; then, it vanishes; it is knowledge that justifies belief. knowledge is supreme.
When I read Jason’s title I did not stop reading, the title never told me much but in the essence of the commentary I expected to find the justification Biblical faith in the supernatural is opposed to knowledge from where I sit. I am not talking about factual accounts of wars or travels or historical events that may or may not have happened, I am talking about supernaturalism, miracles and incredible feats beyond comprehension.
Trust is not a biblical concept, trust is a human concept found in the human experience and justified because it is tried and true. When scripture says to “prove all things and hold fast that which is good(right) I think it is not talking about proving miraculous events because biblical miracles cannot be proved. To hold biblical miracles true because you trust the text describing them is the same as trusting that Captain Kirk travels at warp speed through the universe encountering other worlds and creatures; there is no difference except that we know Star Trek is fiction and we belief biblical miracles is fiction or the events described have a reasonable, logical explanation and that the observers were tricked, were wrong, were mistaken or otherwise coerced or duped into accepting something that appeared one way but was actually another.
I don’t know how you can live in a Biblical mindset that was created thousands of years ago when knowledge about practically everything was slim to none and yet live in a modern, secular world of reality believing in mythology.
LikeLike
June 13, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Leo,
We are not free to define words however we want. Your definition of belief/faith does not conform to the Biblical view, and your definition of knowledge does not conform to the philosophical definition of the word. It would be helpful in discussions if you would use words according to their regular meaning.
Again, you were wrong to expect that. It wasn’t the purpose of the post, which should be clear. Now, if I titled the post “evidence that the Bible is God’s word,” then you should expect for me to supply the evidence, and you would be rightly dismayed if none was presented.
Who said that trust is a Biblical concept? I said that the Biblical understanding of faith is that it is trust based on knowledge. I didn’t say that this is a uniquely Biblical concept. Trust is a universal concept, and the Bible adopts/assumes it.
As for the rest of what you have written, I am not responding to it because it is not the topic on this thread. You may want this thread to be about the justification for believing the Bible to be God’s Word, but it’s not, and I’m not going to turn it into such in the comments.
Jason
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 1:58 am
It seems odd to me that any Christian would hold reason and revelation in such a dichotomy.
The revealed Word of God commands the use of reason as a means by which that very Word is engaged.
Isaiah 1:18a,
18a. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord…
1 Peter 3:15,
15. But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear…
In Matthew 17:25, Jesus asked Peter to engage his brain and reason through the question the Lord posed.
In Matthew 21:28, Jesus asked His audience to reason out for themselves the parable He was about to pose to them.
And again, in Matthew 22:42, Jesus asked His audience what they thought about the Messiah. Using both reason and the revealed Word, they responded accordingly.
Are we not to worship God with all of our minds, too (Mark 12:29-32)?
In Luke 10:26, we have this fascinating little nugget:
26. He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
From the Greek, we can get a picture of what the Lord really asked the man. He asked him:
In what way do you perceive/understand [the text of the law in question]?
Certainly this question reaches for the man’s ability to read, understand, process, and reason through the implications of the law in question, which are all functions of the brain and mind, not blind-but-hoping-for-revelation faith of the heart.
Now, if the man had reasoned correctly, it may have been attributed to him as revelation, as was the case with Simon Peter and the identity of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:15-17). Turns out the man was merely putting Jesus to the test, to catch the Lord, and also to justify himself.
It was at that point that the Lord super-ceded the man’s reason and spoke revelation.
Further into the New Testament, we see Paul, on at least two occasions reasoning with his audience, using the revealed Word of God (Acts 17:2 and 18:4).
Certainly his methods for evangelism and promotion of the revelation of Jesus as Messiah, not to mention propagation of the Gospel in general, are methods we ought to use when we evangelize, promote revelation, and propagate the Gospel? that is, with reason?
On a personal note, before I converted, I had all sorts of questions, questions that required reasoned, sensible, plausible answers. I wasn’t looking for and didn’t need a “just believe” answer.
I needed reasons to believe. And when those reasons were shared, it wasn’t too long before I was a Christian.
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 8:10 am
Jason:
Regarding knowledge:
In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology; the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as “justified true belief.” However, no single agreed upon definition of knowledge exists, though there are numerous theories to explain it.
Of course you cannot respond to things you do not know and I accept that answer without your admission as I understand it.
Wouldn’t it be just wonderful if the world responded exactly as you bid them to, which is typical of folks in every religious cult on earth. But religion is more than just a belief, religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business. And giving respect to this mentality is exactly what’s got us into the mess that we’re in.
We’ve given religion ideas that are above its station and we persuaded it that it’s something it’s not. When the truth is that faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It’s an act of will. It’s not a state of grace; it’s a state of choice. Because without evidence, you’ve got no reason to believe apart from your willingness to believe.
So why is that worthy of respect anymore than your willingness to poke yourself in the eye with a pencil? And why is faith considered some kind of virtue, is it because it implies a certain depth of contemplation and insight? I don’t think so.
Faith by definition is unexamined, so in that sense it has to be among the shallowest of experiences and yet if it could it would regulate every action, every word and thought of every single person on this planet.
I know you can’t accept my atypical comments because they are not what you want or what you feel cozy with but it serves to remind me of the many similar responses Jesus provoked every day from the same cozy religionists in his time even from the disciples: John 6:63 “…..The words that I speak to you are spirit…. 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.”
Censorship is usually a way to make sure that your expectations are met in a public forum.
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 8:19 am
Aaron:
You quoted Matt 17: 25 Saying “Jesus asked Peter to engage his brain and reason through the question the Lord posed.” but would you say the same statement to engage his brain and reason” applies to v 27 in the same conversation?
27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”
I am curious as what you think about the reasoning involved regarding this perplexing verse because it does not say if that event actually happened or if Peter just laughed it off as Jesus’ humour.
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 8:28 am
Jason:
You keep interrupting the thread by saying certain comments are not part of the topic. It seems to me that your comments and other comments about the topic are part of the topic so why can you not stand to read comments made about comments you make regarding the topic. You come across so infallibly Papal; an impulsive compulsion perhaps?
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 8:38 am
Aaron, it’s not a dichotomy between revelation and reason, but between revelation and *pure* reason (that is, reason unaugmented by revelatory experience).
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 10:19 am
Jason:
You said: “It would be helpful in discussions if you would use words according to their regular meaning.” but your “regular meaning, means biblically regular and not dictionary regular.
Is this the biblical definition of Faith? “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
I think it is not the dictionary definition that “faith is belief that is not based on proof.” So we should comment on language definitions and not biblical concepts that are not language dictionary compatible. For example:
“….If we had taken the religious story for granted to begin with we would have said we already know enough; we know God made this; God wants it this way; what’s the need for enquiry? We already have all the information we need. The big difference between this side of the house, mine, and the other is I am absolutely certain that I do not know but that it might be possible to find out and that doubt and skepticism and innovation and enquiry are the only means by which wonder and beauty and awe and symmetry will be discovered and beyond those peaks we yet see, new more wonderful peaks will rise. Whereas on the religious side of the house it says we already have the certainty. We know that God created us and we even claim to know his mind and what he wants and I just invite you, to the few minds, to the possibility that the skeptical and the enquiring and the doubtful with be better than anything that calls itself Faith because anything that calls itself Faith calls itself certainty and for certainty I think there is no place, in an institute of intellectual mentation and higher education.” Christopher Hitchens
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Stan wrote:
“Aaron, it’s not a dichotomy between revelation and reason, but between revelation and *pure* reason (that is, reason unaugmented by revelatory experience).”
That’s even more odd. How would anyone expect to reason out the existence of Christ, the meaning, application, and consequences of the Gospel and the rest of the revealed testimony of Scripture without the revelation?
Leo,
While we may not have a verse saying Peter did or did not, I think we can be confident that Peter obeyed, even if what the Lord said rubbed against reason. Earlier in the Gospel narrative, Peter showed a willingness to obey the Lord when given what would otherwise seem an incredulous command, as found in Luke 5:3-8. There, the results show for themselves.
3. And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship.
4. Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.
5. And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.
6. And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake.
7. And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.
8. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 10:59 pm
Stan:
As far as I am concerned there is nothing incredulous about Luke 5:3-8. I grew up at river’s edge on the East Coast and every year the gaspereau(alefish), we called them kyacks would run the river rapids much like the salmon to the inland lakes and bodies of quiet water to spawn but unlike salmon they would not die and would head back to sea after the spawn; they came every year sometimes early, sometimes late and we would set the seines, weir traps called bourne in french.
We would set about the same time every spring early summer and sit for days on end and nothing; then suddenly they became so plentiful in a matter of minutes we would stand on rocks and using huge dipnets would scoop netfulls at a time to breaking point capacity; some people had an uncanny ability to say within hours, minutes even that the run was starting and the word would go out to set the bournes.
THis scenario would not be incredulous from personal experience but catching the first fish, opening its mouth finding money, that’s incredulous; unless….. unless opening the mouth for money was a cultural metaphor for gutting a fish for market-ready sale and turning the catch into money in the marketplace; in that way I could understand the phraseology meaning the money from the sale of a good size fish would fetch enough to pay the temple tax for two people. Not literally money out of the mouth of the fish but the opening the mouth and gills for “gutting”, “cleaning” and filleting for stove ready cooking, now that’s another matter.
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 11:44 pm
@Aaron, that’s the point. You wouldn’t pure-reason Christ. That is my deliberate thesis. I’m a Christian, but I didn’t pure-reason my way there, as some Christians mistakenly hope they might.
@Leo, that response is bizarre to me. Please explain why you thought that response would resonate with anything I’ve said so far.
LikeLike
June 14, 2013 at 11:59 pm
Stan, I think Leo was addressing me.
Further, I can see how one might pure-reason themselves into realizing the existence of God, but apart from that, not much. Thanks for the input and clarification.
Leo, while your personal experience is interesting, it’s far removed from the context of the Bible text.
LikeLike
June 15, 2013 at 6:38 am
Aaron:
My personal experience is hardly removed from the context of the bible text: my experience shows the similarity of the context, suggesting that Jesus for example knew the fish run had begun even though Simon said they had toiled all night and had taken nothing, exactly as we had toiled with our scoop nets and taken nothing; and then, quite suddenly in many cases, the fish appeared and we were swamped by the magnitude of their numbers.
Therefore it is easy for me to understand how the nets were swelling with fish in the bible context of the fishy story compared to my own similar encounter with huge schools of fish as their migration manifested itself in certain areas where before there was nothing.
How you failed to understand the connection I made in the context of the bible text doesn’t make ordinary sense to me and suggests you never read a word I wrote.
LikeLike
June 15, 2013 at 6:58 am
Stan:
Sorry for the confusion, Aaron was correct, I was addressing his comment about the “draught of fish” in Luke 5:3-8 story and inadvertently salutated using your name.
LikeLike
June 15, 2013 at 8:13 am
Aaron:
Leo’s perspective:
Simon Peter did not show a willingness to follow Jesus’ suggestion by the fact that he argued about the suggestion, saying, I imagine: “what’re you talking about? We’ve toiled and fished all night, we’re tired and sleepy, there’s no fish here man.”
Then thinking better about what he said in a moment of annoyed reflex and perhaps even humbled by the way he addressed Jesus whose only intention was to be helpful and considerate to the few friends he hung out with, in a softer tone said,
“Okay, okay, I’ll drop the net for your sake because you asked,” and shouted to the the other fishers on board…
“Okay fellas, prepare the nets for one more troll; don’t come up empty or you’ll all go home with empty pockets again today…Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go! Let’s make it or break it.”
Then, astonished that the fish run had begun in the morning instead of in the night as was expected, in amazement mixed with delight, Simon Peter rushed to Jesus exclaiming,
“OMG Jesus! Look at the fish, OMG, oh dear heavens you shouldn’t be hanging out with a loudmouth guzzling tavern dwelling fisherman like me; thank you for your alert wakefulness; I was falling asleep and didn’t see the waters rippling and glinting with fish. Wow! Thank you. Thank you.”
“Take it easy Simon, calm down”, said Jesus, I understand. I know you’ve worked all night but me?, I’m fresh up from a sound night’s sleep. Thank you for your friendship, a friend I was able to help. I’m glad I noticed the thin glisten of silver splashing and sparkling the surface”
When they pulled in that catch of fish, awe overwhelmed Simon and everyone with him. It was the same with James and John, Zebedee’s sons, coworkers with Simon.
Jesus said to Simon,
“Don’t worry Simon, you’ll soon be fishing for men and women, making huge catches and filling many seats in many rooms”
They pulled their boats up on the beach, prepared the fish for Joseph of Arimathea’s chain of fish markets, collected there due then left the boats tied and secured, nets and all, and followed Jesus to the pub to celebrate the huge catch.
Meanwhile the Scribes and Pharisees were watching from their distance at the goings on and Jesus seeing them lurking about said,
“All the people, yes, even the tax-collectors, when they heard my cousin, John the Baptist speak, were baptised by his baptism. But the Pharisees and the experts in the Law only tried to frustrate the purpose of John’s baptism.
“What can I say”, Jesus continued, “that the clerics of this generation are like—what sort of men are they? They are like children sitting in the market-place and calling out to each other, ‘We played at weddings for you, but you wouldn’t dance, and we played at funerals for you, and you wouldn’t cry!’ John the Baptist, my cousin, came in the strictest austerity and you say he is crazy. I come, enjoying life, feasting and celebrating and they say, ‘Look, a drunkard, a lush, a glutton, a bosom-friend of tax-collectors, fishermen, sinners and outsiders!’ Ah, well, wisdom’s reputation is entirely in the hands of her children! The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
Leo
LikeLike
June 17, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Leo, you were at a completely different body of water, fishing for a different species of fish, in a different regions of the world, nearly 1,980 years removed.
That is a completely different context, whatever similarities there may have been.
LikeLike
June 17, 2013 at 6:37 pm
The Lord specifically appealed to his people using reason in Isa. “Come let us reason together…” & implies the intent to use reason ALL OVER THE BIBLE ! The goodness of God leading us to repentence necessarily requires personal & honest reasoning in considering how good God has been to us & how undeserving we have been.———– But He does NOT endorse using the “Wisdom of the World” & reasonings based upon IT. This kind of reasoning is based both on mans own vanity & on the teachings of Demons! So there is a great need to ask WHAT KIND of reasonings do you refer to.
LikeLike
June 18, 2013 at 11:01 am
Sorry VS I don’t care how you cut up the bodies of water.
I think you do not even know the meaning of context( The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting) you should look it up in a dictionary since context regarding my comment about fishing schools of migrating fish whether they’re sardines in the Sea of Galilee or on the Jordan River or in the Tusket River in Canada, are completely in the context of the story as your own words state the setting and the context of fishing as part of the circumstances.: ” body of water” and “fishing” even in different regions of the world, are contexual.
So why you continue to use the word “context” like some favorite punch line to make false brownie points show a somewhat childish trifle, in addition to using the word as an excuse not to answer the points brought up in the story which you obviously do not have answers for so you sluff them off as not in context. Give me a break for Christ’s sake and grow up.
There is only one Ocean called the Global Ocean and all fish migrate and move the same way whether they are light-blocking sardines in their tens and hundreds of millions off the coast of Africa, dolphins, whales, Atlantic Salmon, Pacific Salmon, Kyacks or sardines in the Sea of Galilee or in the Jordan river in the middle east.
LikeLike
June 18, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Sonny:
You said : “The goodness of God leading us to repentence necessarily requires personal & honest reasoning in considering how good God has been to us & how undeserving we have been.”
My personal and honest reasoning says you are not right at all about this. What you have said in that statement is what the Christian doctrine is for its members so that you end up carrying the burden of their Dogma along with perhaps some of your own minor baggage but nothing that would require most people to carry guilt and self loathe on a daily basis; that is the Church’s religious insanity to keep you in thrall so you become pliable in Religion’s hand so you can then do their bidding whether it is buying indulgences, filling the collection plate or tithing.
Remember the bible was written by men in a language all derived from a person.
For example if you or I was to commit an act like David did: commit adultery with the wife of a soldier, get her pregnant and then send the husband to the front lines to be killed so he could marry the widow well, David should have been full of guilt and self loathing for that, but that is not normal for everybody based on that atrocious act!
2 Samuel 11: 2 And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.
5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.
14 And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah.
15 And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.
16 And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place where he knew that valiant men were.
17 And the men of the city went out, and fought with Joab: and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also.
26 And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband.
27 And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.
Any personal and honest reasoning would be displeased with this act. But that doesn’t mean the regular parishioner should bear the burden of guilt and loathing for David’s sins and other such heinous acts.
“It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolt those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. M Harrison Smith, August 6, 1816
Leo
LikeLike
June 18, 2013 at 5:33 pm
Leo Thank you for inadvertently proving my point about personal & honest reasoning proving Gods goodness. David was an excellent example of it. Ps 51 shows he WAS displeased with what he had done. However a number of your other roving comments are based on the wisdom of the world not on the wisdom of God. For example you say that “…remember the Bible was written by men in a language derived from a person. ” So who was the person that invented the language Adam used to communicate with God ? Then for some unknown reason you place me & my assertions in the setting of Roman Catholicism. You would do well to leave out preconceived biases
& unrelated trivia such as the comments of Jefferson etc & simply address ones point. So i repeat that honest & sincere reasoning is called for all over the Bible. When Jesus said “Count the cost” he is expecting you to use reason. When the Bible says “Taste & see that the Lord is good”, the writer anticipates that if one really “dives in” to seeking God that their reasoning (as well as their emotions ) will verify that doing so is most rewarding. Part of Pauls argumentation to the Galatians is based on reason. So to is is in Hebrews. So too it is in Romans. Also any time the scripture asks the audience a question then reason is expected to be used. “Do you think the scripture says in vain that the [human] spirit that dwells in us desires to envy”, is yet another example. Paul asking “Consider what I say & the Lord give you understanding. “, implies the use of reason. So as Jason said so well, reason used in apologetics is not being appealed to as an authority outside the the scripture. Biblical reasoning is an inherent PART of scripture.
LikeLike
June 18, 2013 at 8:31 pm
Adam is a symbolic name representing Mankind; reason tells us that Adam of Genesis never existed but was conjectured by the writers of Genesis. Nobody was writing anything about any Adam and Eve; they certainly could not if they were the first couple created so reason tells us they’re metaphoric.
All religion derives from a person as does all language; one does not need language to communicate with the Father of Jesus because the father, the God that Jesus refers to, lives within, inside us, not in the thousands of supernatural gods man created outside the human experience.
There is no such thing as “Bible Reasoning”; there’s no reasoning to be found in the bible, reasoning only comes from within the human experience. All the bible does is textually describe human intuitive reasoning, that is the only reasoning there is in this world, the reasoning that comes within reasoning is like understanding; where one reasons, where one understands, is in the brain.
David may have been displeased by what he did he was certainly after Nathan spoke to him and accused him of putting Joab up to the horrible deed but that did not curtail the murder and killing within his family that followed him throughout his life.
Jefferson’s quote deserves as much credence and dissemination as anything Paul said. When you speak about bible quotes you are commenting with preconceived biases & unrelated trivia but knowing that, I would not be so audacious enough to suggest you leave them out of your comments since they support the way you reason presumably.
One of the most profound examples of twisted Philosophy in found in Hebrews, if Paul is indeed the author of Hebrews: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” This offers no reasoning whatsoever about anything and yet is quoted countlessly by Christians but it is a meaningless statement and says absolutely nothing of meaning. The same thing can be said by substituting the word “Faith” with the word “wish”, “prayer”, “plea” or “belief” but just because you have a dream, a wish or a belief about the tooth fairy or Santa is not evidence that the tooth fairy or Santa exists but it certainly is evidence of things not seen which is not evidence for any thing at all.
One final point: “Consider what I say & the Lord give you understanding.” does not imply the use of reason but you infer that it means the use of reason.
LikeLike
June 19, 2013 at 9:50 am
Sonny, excellent points and well spoken.
Interesting how Paul refers to Adam and Eve when explaining the new covenant in Romans 5 appealing to our sense of reason of how sin entered the world through the first human beings and has passed on to all of us, and how Jesus is the second Adam to take that sin away.
The biblical authors always provide sound reasoning from front to back as they refer to other scriptures to help us reason and understand the big picture.
Naz
LikeLike
June 19, 2013 at 11:16 am
Naz:
This “our” and “us” and “the world” in the phrase: “…appealing to our sense of reason of how sin entered the world through the first human beings and has passed on to all of us,…” does not include this writer; AND,
I hasten to add, it does not include many, many other sensible people who do not agree with your reasoning definition based on a belief that supports Christian reasoning by an impossible myth. And those people to whom your sweeping inclusion refers but who do not agree with your sentiment, prefer to take responsibility for their own actions without feeling the least guilty or filled with self loathing about how your ancestors behaved by claiming their sins were infused into the genetic pool of all Homo Sapiens ever since. This is one of the most lolable comments ever!
Speak for yourself but I am sure Sonny will not gain any comfort from your words of support as erroneous as they are to the reasoning minds of common sense humanity, although he will more likely than not, quickly thank you for an attempt to support a fellow member of your guilt laden, self loathing group. Lol
LikeLike
June 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ……………
Naz
LikeLike
June 19, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Leo- As i said there are 2 kinds of reasoning. What reasoning youve used so far is based the wisdom of the world & that is your perfect right.Other points you make are simply assertions with neither type of reason to back them up. 1- You reason with worldly wisdom that “faith” is not substantive & could be replaced with the word “wish”. Plus you say this is closer to the dictionary meaning. Your reasoning is faulty.When you sat in your chair you had full confidence that it would support your weight & not collapse YET YOU DID NOT EXAMINE ITS LEGS. Its because since you have set in the chair many other times you are totally confident it will hold you again. We have seen God fulfill his word in our own lives. We have also seen his word already proven on many points. Thus when Gods word says he framed the world.,our faith in the past proofs of his word become substantive evidence that his word is true here also. You did not “wish” your chair would hold & neither do I “wish” he was creator, I KNOW he was. Honestly your reasoning is likewise faulty in point after point-where you even use any. You reason that Adam was not a literal man because his name has symbolic meaning. Faulty. The name of virtually ALL significant Bible persons have symbolic/prophetic meamings. Yet all the falsely reasoned points you make are irrelevant to the main issue that Jason submitted. The specific point that Jason made that using reason does not constitute making it an authority above Gods word stands. Then I submitted a tweek in differentiating between reason based on vanity or doctrines of demons (the “wisdom of the world”) vs reasoning based on Biblical truth & asserted that the latter:honest reasoning is appealed to all over scripture. Then Naz added more excellent & specific examples to this contention. THE POINTS STAND ! All your long winded comments have not even addressed them.Thus as I said ,what Jefferson said did not even address the issue & so was irrelevant.———————REASON is appealed to in scripture. It doesnt mean everyone will agree & you keep telling us you dont . Fine. So? You say “Consider what I say & the Lord give you understanding” is NOT an appeal to reason. So ? You base this on nothing.The plain word’s definitions by the dictionary you want to use so much say it DOES mean an appeal to reason. Try looking up the definition of “consider”.. You ridicule the idea that a sin nature entered into mankind. So? It is you not me /us who cant explain why no animals commit murder of their own kind ( dont confuse with hunting for food). To not know that man has a sin nature is astounding. & ps we have millions of sardines around every one of the 7000+ islands of the Philippines. Who in the world told you they block light ???
LikeLike
June 19, 2013 at 6:20 pm
Aaron if your still here I want to commend your excellent 1st comments. You gave specific examples & stayed with the criteria Jason laid out. Ill try to do that part better.Thank you !
LikeLike
June 19, 2013 at 9:44 pm
Baaaawwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa……….
Leo
LikeLike
June 19, 2013 at 10:08 pm
I already gave the entire chair analogy and what you are saying is what I said in other posts so thanks for adopting my example which by the way was not originally mine but I did repeat it but not for the reason you mention; the chair was an illustration that most Christians do not even understand the nature of faith because faith only requires someone, something to get into action on you behalf but faith never made a man great, the chair has nothing to do with your faith in the chair all your faith does is let someone, something get into action to show you it is big enough for the job so you congratulate the chair not your faith. Whether you sit in the chair is irrelevant the chair can still support your weight. So your faith is irrelevant.
As far as Jason’s comments, I don’t need to answer Jason’s comments; what I chose to do was comment on the posters’ comments and so the posters answered my comments, some of them criticizing me because I answered your comments.
Paul cannot talk about the mind of Jesus. How many followers of Jesus did Paul murder? And hand over for murder. If you want to quote philosophy, comment on Adam and Eve as the first humans out of Africa or India or wherever you think the Garden of Eden was located, then quote me the scriptures of Jesus, if you can’t substantiate your ludicrous claims with supporting scriptures from Jesus then I’m afraid you’re just spinning your tires Sonny Boy.
The sardines I referred to that block out the light from above to anything below because of their massive numbers. If you were scubaing under the mighty numbers in the millions you would not see the light of day because of their numbers because they block the light. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough before you fell off the log. Oh, “fell off the log” means to lose understanding of the parable like a true disciple. Lol
LikeLike
June 19, 2013 at 10:17 pm
No animals commit murder of their own kind? You should watch National Geographic when male lions take over a pride with young cubs… Murder is swift and fast and many animals kill their own kind, the list would be shorter if you said what species do not murder their own kind? have you lead a life sheltered from the realities of the world? Male chimps have also been known to commit infanticide.
I raised rabbits as a youngster and quite surprised that the mother would eat her offspring, not all the time but sometimes but I never knew why.
LikeLike
June 19, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Sonny and Aaron:
Referring to your back patting in your comments is so lolable and predictable Ahh yes Sonny and Aaron, the commendations are racing between you and who will win the popularity contest do you suppose?.
Here is what Jesus said about you guys seeking pretentious approval from each other all the time: give heed to man Jesus and forget Paul and your quotes from everyone but Jesus.
Looking to one and other for approval How can you do what is right.
You pore over the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life. But there’s no eternal life to be found in the bible for, these scriptures you read, testify to me and you will not come to me so that you may have the eternal life that only I can give you, instead you have a dead bible, and a dead religion and it won’t be long before you’ll have a dead Christ on your hands because if you don’t come to the one of whom it testifies you’ll crucify him again and again.
How can believers do what is right, know what is right, hear what I say, when they constantly look to each other for approval and are not concerned about the true approval that comes from the authority within of which I said, “the Kingdom is within you”. And where does the Father reside? In the Kingdom! Axiom of equality. The Father and I are one. Where do you fit?
Luke 6:26 ”There’s trouble ahead when you live only for the approval of others, saying what flatters them, doing what indulges them. Popularity contests are not truth contests—look how many scoundrel preachers were approved by your ancestors! Your task is to be true, not popular. :-?
John 5:41-44 ”I’m not interested in crowd approval. And do you know why? Because I know you and your crowds. I know that love, especially the Father’s love, is not on your working agenda. I came with the authority of my Father, and you either dismiss me or avoid me. If another came, acting self-important, you would welcome him with open arms. How do you expect to get anywhere with the Father when you spend all your time jockeying for position with each other, ranking your rivals and ignoring the Father?
John 12:42-43 On the other hand, a considerable number from the ranks of the leaders did believe. But because of the Pharisees, they didn’t come out in the open with it. They were afraid of getting kicked out of the meeting place. When push came to shove they cared more for human approval than for the Father’s glory.
Leo:
Have a nice eternity
LikeLike
June 20, 2013 at 6:33 am
Sonny, save your breath my friend………
Naz
LikeLike
June 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Yes Naz your right—–Blessings, Sonny
LikeLike
June 20, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Blessings on you Sonny and Naz…blessings on you ten fold… OMG….
REMEMBER THIS ANYBODY? Not so long ago?
Naz Says:
March 6, 2013 at 9:56 am
To leonardoTheGreater,
“I am amazed you keep posting here !! But I think it’s great.
Your strong opposition to a belief in God shows that you want to know the Truth. Nobody is going to argue with you about all of the fake prophets and false gods because there are many imposters and liars out there.
I can’t believe that a person of your extraordinary intellect and writing ability cannot figure this thing out ! It is so obvious even a child can understand it.”
WHAT IS AN AXIOM?
A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident at first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer
Now you can come up with many excuses why God is not self evident: testing us, to see who really loves him, prove us through suffering; but, in offering excuses, you deny reality, reason, logic, knowledge.
Religion is Pregnant with assumptions:
1st.If there was a God it would be self evident,
2nd.Religions would not have to proselytize; and,
3rd.There would not be a fractured human race, each faction promoting their God Brand and Messenger and making extravagant claims of miracles,
Why would anyone presume to think that a Creator needs to be defended by the Creature?
Ego created Religion, Church, Prophet and God. The audacity of arrogant clergy perpetuate hoax, myth & magic as true creations and their proxies. minions and proselytes perpetuate the supernatural god myth hoax.
And you say:
“Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa……..”
Hahahahahahahahaha as I laugh at your calamity all the way to the Kingdom that you foolishly believe is somewhere outside the human experience.
You miss the Jesus message so completely I am awed because I “got it” when I was 12 years old, and you, now an old Christian soldier of status quo impossibility and you still “don’t get it.” You have no imagination yet adhere to the imagination of stoneage religionists who did not even understand the weather cycle and had to invent the “Rain God” to explain it. OMG . What’s up with that?
LikeLike
July 13, 2013 at 10:11 am
I’m a Christian but cannot hide from the fact that the Bible is full of inaccuracies, just as a flat earth for example. I don’t agree with your ‘reasoning’ that revelation is above reason. God gave us reason, and only through investigation and reason can we truly be sure of what we read. Any believer can think he or she got a revelation, which might be nothing more than wishful thinking or hypnotic imagination. Didn’t you see the Christians bleating like goats and roaring like lions? It’s called the ‘Toronto Blessing’, what a revelation! Revelation needs to be balanced with reason, and vice versa.
LikeLike
July 14, 2013 at 2:47 am
Dear Hamman -If it is ONLY through investigation & reason that we can be sure of what we read in scripture then How do you know whether or not your name is written in the Lambs Book of Life ? We simply cant confirm that & many other clear Bible declarations by either one of them. Additionally may I add for consideration that there is no Post Exile Hebrew word for “sphere” as distinct from “circle”. The earth is in fact a filled in 3 dimensional circle.
LikeLike
July 14, 2013 at 8:11 am
Sonny:
First of all the Lamb’s Book of Life is a metaphor, there is no book and no names are written there. How many, metaphorically are written there? Not 144,000 thousand in case you are getting a little hot around the collar; when you read and understand what the bible is alluding to; actually speaking quite clearly about, is
John 1:12: “…AS MANY AS received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God
Acts 2:39 “39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, AS MANY AS the Lord our God will call.”
Romans 8:14 “For AS MANY AS are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God”.
A circle, filled in with a 3 dimensional surface, is still a flat earth you fall off of when you reach the edge of the circle.
LikeLike
July 17, 2013 at 2:59 pm
I looked for your solid evidence that said book is a metaphor since there is such evidence that a number of terms from the book indeed are. You would have provided it if you had any. As for flat earth & 3d filled in circles- A flat surface is not a sphere sir. It is 1 dimensional & you would indeed fall off the edge. However a 3 dimensional filled in circle is what we today simply call a “sphere”.( We do have the word “ball” but not “sphere” the Hebrew text .)Its just like we simply call a filled in 3 dimensional square a “cube”
sir. A cube is not simply a collection of 6 squares & I really have no more time to waste.
LikeLike
July 17, 2013 at 10:01 pm
Sonny:
Thanks for your reply.
It was indeed a waste of time.
LikeLike
July 17, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Sonny :
If the Lamb’s Book of Life is not a metaphor please give me the link so I can have a look at it; if you can’t, that’s because it is a metaphor and no such book exists sir.
LikeLike
July 18, 2013 at 4:33 pm
“Lamb” here is of course figuratively referring to a very real personage: The Lord Jesus Christ. A book or Books are referred to dozens & dozens of times in the scripture.They are not metaphors sir. You really need to take some time to verify this very simple fact. Now if THIS book is different and is a metaphor as you claim it is, then you obviously need something to back up YOUR claim. For example I could back a claim that the “sea” from which the multi-headed beast arose that John referred to in Revelation 13 is figurative because the actual interpretation of said “sea” is given in 17:15. Likewise we see from Daniel that “beasts” are a figurative term for persecuting kingdoms. Therefore one could reasonably conclude that the 1st beast of Rev 13 is also. You have nothing specific to back your claim. Now I would admit that not there are times that a literal reading of many terms makes no sense at all as they are used in a statement and we may conclude that it is probably a figurative usage. However as to this book there is nothing unreasonable in concluding that it as with all the other books mentioned in scripture is a literal one. Your request for a link on it as some kind of supposed needed proof makes as much sense as a request for a link to the Book of Jasher or letter to Laodicea.or the original of ANY Bible book. Thank you sir, Ive had my last reply to your non-stop line of empty assertions
LikeLike
July 18, 2013 at 9:36 pm
Sonny:
You are asking me to prove that something does not exist; how ridiculous is that? If this Book exists then the onus is on the person making the assertion to prove its existence. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is worse than merely useless.
Is your name written in the Lamb’s Book of Life? It seems to me that you should be able to go to this Book you believe exists and see if your name is written there. You cannot because there is no book to look at. It is all metaphorical as were the beasts in Daniel and John’s rambling daydreams in Revelation.
The only metaphorical Beast that actually had existence in John’s day as it does today is the Beast whose Number is 666, Whose Name you do not have the discernment to figure out yourself and the Mark which you have to have wisdom to understand what he’s talking about.
I have already told readers what the Mark, the Name and 666 means elsewhere and if you can find it, you will know what it really means and let me assure you it is not some davinci code or hebrew numerology nor is the mark something that will appear on the forehead or in your right hand which themselves are metaphors. But that is why Rev 13:18 challenges you with: “…Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast….” .
Do you think you have wisdom Sonny? You see I am not indoctrinated by the clergy for I have my own conclusions just as Jesus had his own conclusions about scripture that infuriated the religionists in his time as you are also frustrated because I do not adhere to the herd mentality. Sorry.
LikeLike
July 18, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Sonny:
Luke 6:26 ”There’s trouble ahead when you live only for the approval of others, saying what flatters them, doing what indulges them. Popularity contests are not truth contests—look how many scoundrel preachers were approved by your ancestors! Your task is to be true, not popular. :-?
LikeLike
September 8, 2013 at 10:02 pm
You open by, “Some Christians think that if we appeal to reason and evidences to demonstrate that the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we are elevating reason and evidence to a place of authority over God’s Word.”
I know little of Christianity but I do know about Judaism. In Judaism, of course, we belief the Bible to be God’s word. But that does not in any way reject reasoning and research. We do not have to doubt as in support of disbelief, but we can doubt simply for the sake of questioning and research. Doubt does not mean anything but eventual comprehension of the ultimate truth that the Bible is right. Questioning in Judaism is encouraged.
Science held very strong sway before quantum mechanics began to rupture past premises taken by physics, like there being solids and particles and determinism – but today physics has been, incrementally at first and then by huge strides, getting closer to the Bible’s view of things.
One example of the latter is “string theory”. What string theory proposes to say is that the universe was created as a grand orchestration, because the smallest “units” of physics are “things with cyclical frequencies”. I ask you, is this not what we read in the Bible – as to how God created the universe – does it not say ” And God SAID let there be light!” etc. Well, is SAYING not an auditory phenomenon? And is not the audio quality, or speech, a matter cyclical frequencies?
There are more physical aspects that dovetail with Torah. E.g., Bell’s Theorem (non-local phenomena exist in the universe); The need for a constant observer; That there is Unity to the universe; and more
We can get much deeper – but then you’d have to know a whole lot more of Judaism – from Jewish sources of course – and then you’d also appreciate why there may well be 10 or 26 dimensions to set theory, and why this speech of God is continuous, etc. etc..
LikeLike
September 9, 2013 at 12:25 am
Still cant back up a single claim. I listed specific examples & the Biblical references to back up that my examples of figurative language from scripture are indeed so. But once again not a hint to back your claim that the Book of life is one. But then Leo you honestly havent backed up any of your endless claims .Im sorry.
LikeLike