Use your browser arrow to return to the lesson.
This last statement, "We probably can never know anything with absolute* certainty from our limited place within a system which is within other systems" -will cause problems for some people. If someone asked me if I thought that the Bible is logically and scientifically accurate, I would give a resounding, "NO" --because that would be trying to justify the greater by the lesser. I know of no logical system or scientific understanding that is absolute. Those who would embrace such a thought would be like a novice using the phrase "more perfect", or display how captured they have been by the grand, but fallible claims of scienticism.
In a great many apologetics web sites brothers challenge this position. They attempt to make Faith rational, which to them is necessary to have "no uncertainty". They would consider my position as pure Fideism.
Yet others would claim that this issue is the most important of all of those engaging the Reformation. In the attempt to "make" faith reasonable, some have tried to make so called metaphysical laws of reason or logic to be absolutes. It is true that many scientists have historically believed that our entire universe behaves in some universal mathematical manner. From that perspective, systems of logic (there are more than one) become a mathematical subset, and in their own domain have a defined sense of purity or absoluteness. Mathematics is an abstract system, but could there be something that "connects" to what we know as reality? [in opposition to what we call abstract] Can a non-absolute system contain or even accommodate an absolute, and could we access it with our human intellect?
The difficulty with Biblical faith is that it is a place of certainty and confidence. Faith itself is certainty- it needs no logic constructs. Therefore, some think that everything that faith consists of must in itself, be certain. Since many require logical rationality to be a part of faith, that would mean that logic derived rationality is also required to be inerrant and certain. This argument also carries over with the scriptures themselves, and often spawned a type of fundamentalism. When the Bible says we only know in part, does it mean quantity or essence? There is another alternative.
The word reasonable does not have to taken with mathematical purity, but with a strong sense of probability. As explained in earlier lessons, even sense evidence cannot provide absolute certainty. Classic faith is often theologically taught as consisting of an object, an intellectual conviction of the certainty of the truth involved, and a commitment to respond and behave accordingly. My thesis here is that none of the above are able to provide the required certainty characteristic of faith. Even the object, which is the Scriptures, have added to them a qualifying condition of their being inerrant and accurate only in the original script.
Since we do not have access to any of these autographs, we return to the necessity of probability. This is one of the reasons why the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, necessarily came to dwell within the believer. Scriptures claim that the Spirit bears witness with our spirit concerning truth and certainty. He who has ears to hear, must then hear what the Spirit says, as Jesus consistently exhorted. Jesus never forced belief through logical necessity. The additional "element" that, when added to faith gives it certainty is the testimony, evidence, or witness of the Holy Spirit, Himself. Jesus always gave freedom of choice as to how one accepted him. Some fear that if rational reasons are not given to validate Christianity, there is no "reason" not to have "faith" in Buddha, or Mohammed? Our task is to clearly communicate the Gospel of the Kingdom and allow the Holy Spirit with the person's will. How the Fall has injured our minds is also an issue that should be considered.
Logic, reason, sense evidence, are all valuable and to be expected. They may or may not be a part of a faith experience. Who has hope for what is already there? (Rom 8:24,25) And faith is the substance of things hoped for. (Heb 11:1) For some people, logical reasons are as sight. They have their own confirmation. Nothing else is required, and unbeliever or saint need neither hope nor faith. But Christians are exhorted to look at the unseen. (2Cor 4:18) Jesus' comment to Thomas brings the balance. John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Faith is not primarily about belief, but confidence and trust, and such that results in appropriate behavior. Salvation and the Kingdom have always been about relationship, not doctrine.
* I do not include any metaphysical or mathematical concept of truth as an absolute, but an elementary principle, not elevated to the same essence as Scriptures - - as some do. I do believe that reason is a part of natural revelation, as is mathematics, and propositional logic only a special case of language and mathematics. The additional mix of language even renders logic systems less accurate.
One of my (non-absolute) reasons for this is found in Col 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
I recommend a book by Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence: faith, doubt & certainty in christian discipleship., Eerdmans Pub., ISBN 0-8028-0856-5. It is scholarly but not academic.