Of dwellings and duty
Hello all. Valerie has commissioned me to write a little review of what’s coming up in the next few months, because interesting times are on us, apparently all at once. Usually, I’m not allowed to write up the family news because I get stuck in the theory of it. It’s not my habit to say anything important without explaining it from the foundation up. I don’t intend to start that kind of thing now, so you’ll have to forgive me for long-windedness. However, even though it’s messy, in order to be kind, I’ll give you the scoop before the cone:
The bad news is that I am not announcing any new babies coming into our home. The good news is that we are laying a foundation for a life that is more condusive to baby-bringing. Two things are about to happen: We’re buying a house, and I’m joining the Army (reserves).
Believe me, they’re connected. The house part, I think, is easy to see as a universal good. How can owning a home be bad? Unfortunately, a universal good is not always uniformly good. For us, buying a house means that our total debt levels rise to the neighborhood of $255,000 – more than a quarter million – which is to say: a lot. And it’s not that we’re buying a mansion somewhere. About 2/3 of that will be school debt, which has been hanging like an anvil from my neck since we quit schooling. As best I can tell, there has been almost no direct financial benefit from all that educatin’. Valerie might have gotten her job as a result of her education, but the return has not been in proportion to the investment.
And this (partially) is where the Army thing comes in. I get a $20K bonus for joining. There is another potential $20K school debt waiver. That money could immediately reduce our payments in the neighborhood of $350 a month. Plus there is the pay during training, which will be greater than what I’m making at my job, and again in the event of active duty. And this is reserves, which means that, while I may be an absent father for a little while, my family stays rooted, which is important to us, particularly in the light of the house we’re about to buy.
For those who worry, my official enlistment in the Army looks to be this Friday, but basic training is likely not to begin before November, so there will be plenty of time to transition into a home before I have to leave for a time.
Now that was the bare bones report. Next comes my dreary reasoning. If all you needed was the facts, read no further; what follows is philosophy.
When Valerie and I first began to pursue a life together, from all appearances, she was the dedicated career woman, and I the hopeless drifter. Her unceasing ambition from childhood had been to become a doctor. She was enrolled in biology, pre-med. I was getting a degree in English, with the nascent idea of becoming a poet, or maybe a fantasy author. I had a memory of a desire to become a minister of some kind, if ever I got the theology figured out. Sappy romanticism was in my blood.
In fact, so romantic was I that the idea of a wife who was permanently chained to her career was ugly to me. So as we started talking about getting married, I started insisting that, if Valerie ever took it into her head to become a stay-at-home mom instead, I’d find a way to make it happen. Though I didn’t know what it meant, I meant it just the same.
Rush forward a few years. We have incurred a mountain of debt and Valerie has made a discovery: At least during the early years, raising children is the most demanding, rewarding, and absolutely vital role a woman could ever fill. (I say “during the early years” because, as children grow older, that responsibility shifts from the mother to the father. As they come into this world, the mother raises them, and the father helps. As they approach adulthood, it shifts to the father doing the raising and the mother who helps.) I ask a question: granted that it’s sometimes financially necessary and can’t be helped, is child-rearing the sort of thing that can be outsourced? Outsourcing is the process of taking relatively low-skilled work and assigning it to a secondary party that can perform it at a reduced cost, thereby freeing up time and resources that can be applied to more vital work. Is it appropriate to give over child-rearing for the greater part of the day to a secondary party so that a mother has the time and resources to pursue a career? Valerie’s answer is that child-rearing is more important for a mother to do than to pursue a career. The only time it’s right for a mom to put her kids in day care is if she has to in order to put food on the table.
That’s the sound of the gauntlet being thrown to the ground. The food on the table bit is my job. In my book, a wife should have the liberty to work because she wants to, not because she has to. Unfortunately, we have a quarter million dollars worth of ‘want to’ that have become ‘have to’ on the sly. And for the last year at least, the elimination of that impediment has been my highest, most consuming goal (save one – the reformation of my soul according to the image of Jesus Christ, the recovery of a deep devotional life. But in my mind, the two are linked considerably.)
I have got to find a way to make more money. But my options for doing so are limited. Now I need a career, and nothings coming to me. Poetry and theology aren’t exactly the big money makers. An MBA or accounting degree involve moving first in exactly the wrong direction. And lo, here is the military siting out with a solution: immediate debt reduction, supplemental pay, and the ability to acquire the sort of experience that can transition into a well-paying civilian career.
Still, joining the Army strikes a lot of people as a sort of drastic decision, especially if you drop it on them all at once. It demands long hours, takes you away from your family for extended periods of time, and then there’s the risk of physical harm. People in the Army can get shot!
It does, and they do, but Valerie and I have discussed these things for some time, and decided that the cause is worth the risk. It’s that important for her not to have to work until the kids are grown. The benefits of joining the military are high, but the diminish with time. The costs of joining are also high and they increase with time. Ten years ago, without a family, I could have joined as active duty with no constraints. Today, I may be to old to become an officer. Another ten years, and I would be too old to join at all.
Joining the army also isn’t only about income. There’s also the issue of patriotism, which I mention quietly, because it’s out of favor lately. Ten years ago, I wouldn’t have joined any branch for any amount of money. I loved my country, but not like that. I thought I could love the people and have no respect for their government. I’ve reversed that position now. I had a similar problem theologically: I thought you could love the church without loving churches.
But as I’ve been growing in my theology, I’ve come to the conclusion that God believes in government, because he desires order. He intended man to be the superintendent over all creation, to create networks and systems and economies. God established authority from the beginning, and expects us to submit to it and participate in it’s administration, rather than sliding out from under it through some anabaptist clause. Therefore I have a duty, not just to government in the idea, but to my government. This government to which I have a duty is the same government that is willing to give out generous gifts I really need, in order to fill its ranks with quality men. So it seems that the cause is doubly worth the risk.
I told Valerie that, in light of this line of thinking, I needed to either join the military or serve some time in local politics. Even though I understand politicking is more lucrative, she said she’d rather I joined army.
They eat all your plants…
actually, they do more hedge-trimming than eating. you dont hardly notice them eating it. suckerfish and snails eat the plants too. We only had 1 crab that was really interested in clipping off the plant.. and then Jason just replanted it anyway. The other crabs have mostly just liked climbing in them. You have to get the right kind.
Check out Gordon Clark’s “The Johannine Logos” and he makes the case that there isn’t as a distinct difference in “rheema” and “logos” as some think there is.
Thanks. I’ll look into it.
Next time you splurge by a red claw crab. they’re fun.
I’m dying. I hate colds. You can interview me if you want. But ask actual questions, not “tell me about you in 9th grade” because i’ll answer “what do you want to know”
oh and p.s. if you had been here you wouldn’t have to ask. so enjoy your nice guilt trip
WHEN U CRACK THE CODE U FIND A POINT AND THATS IT STOP THINKING AND START LIVING YOUR DREAMS HERE ON EARTH.
OK. I’m going to leave that comment up there, because I think it was actually made by a real person, even though I don’t understand what it means.
Mr. God 8:
Care to clarify?
hurrah! — hooray! — huzzah!
Yup. (Another comment from a fascinated fan!)
woot
nice.
you already know my ready response….if any man lack wisdom let him ask…. I say that instead of a blunt “yes” because I think the Holy Spirit has a strategy for reaching each individual and it’s not a one size fits all. At some time each individual needs to hear the truth. But sometimes we forget the parable of the seed and let the word be sown on the pathways where the birds come and eat it. {v}
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Acceptance of a false doctrine is not grounds for going to Hell, therefore telling someone they’re going to Hell for accepting a false doctrine is not an action in which the Holy Spirit will sustain you (since it only bears witness of truth).
Very Long Answer: witheld, on the grounds that if you’re not a Mormon, you’ll probably not believe it anyway.
–Howard “drive-by” Tayler
That makes perfect sense, if one accepts the idea that we can be saved despite having evil thoughts. And of course one can repent evil thoughts just as one can repent evil deeds, so we can be saved despite having evil thoughts.
I am fairly certain that this has very little in common to the very long answer Howard mentioned. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if from a Mormon perspective this was terribly mistaken, as I have no certain knowledge of how official Mormon doctrine deals with sin.
Since I’m not concerned with becoming a Mormon, I shan’t worry about it.
 
The amusing thing to me when I read that question was that Islam and Calvinism fall into two very different categories: For Islam, the error is obvious. They don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (who died on the cross for my sins). For Calvinism, the error is much more subtle. In fact, so subtle that I don’t know what it is. I think most people say it has to do with predestination. But what most people call predestination, Calvinists don’t believe in that. I checked.
  So, I guess, the real question is, how do you answer a blanket statement masquerading as a question?
  Ooh! here’s another one! Should you warn people that their government is going to collapse when they believe in evil government, such as Direct Democracy or Republicanism?
…I have news for you. They’re all going to collapse — eventually. And eventually, every knee will bow to the one true King. Which, of couse, is why the world both hates & fears the followers of that King
amen, mom-to-be (about the goverment bit). We are called to preach not to convince. God’s spoken truth is the only thing that can convict a heart about falsehood; that includes everyone saint or sinner.
For my edification, please name one error of Calvinism with scriptural support.
Exactly. Couldn’t tell ya. I do understand it’s supposed to be different from Lutheranism. But the differences, from a modern perspetive, I think are pretty inessential.
if you got it you would be forced to wear it like that…just so I could tickle you easier.
You want me to walk around with my shoulders shrugged like that? I think it looks kind of girly…
Son, if you were to wear any t-shirt in such a manner as Miss “Travels-With-Lushes” can tickle you more easily, you certainly should not have the poor taste to be actually photographed wearing said t-shirt from a similar camera placement.-
You would have to change your name to Justin (Sir Justin once you have seen Shrek2) or grow your hair out a lot more and join the Hansons as their travelling uncle. I recommend neither by avoiding the photo session.-
In fact, I suggest not being seen in public like that. Out of public: that is none of our business and we don’t want to know.-
By the way, your sister seems to be amused by some of the goofy comments I come up with on certain blogs! Hard to believe . . .
Who said I was going to let him out in public with a shirt like that on? I was only going to use it for torturing purposes.
You are a very wise woman. Torture should only be done out of public view. No digital cameras allowed.
in the abstract, I say “loverly”….in the practical day to day….where does the aspect of “faith seeing the promise” com in?
Well, it’s a long essay, so I’ve broken it up into parts. Sorry I didn’t make that clear. I’ve added a “part 1″ thingy at the top now.
KB
This is a good post. Thanks for linking to my blog. I’ll definitely reciprocate.
“Fortunately for us, the Bible has never said that the sun revolves around the earth. In fact, it quite clearly states that everything revolves around the Son.”
Clever use of homophones(sun/Son), but it confuses the point. We know that the effect of the Sun and our rotation cause day and night for us on Earth.
In Genesis 1, day and night are created (Day 1) before the sun (day 4). Clearly a literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g. creationism) differs from what we now hold true through science.
“…there can be no disparity between my experience and the scriptures.”
Is thus not true, and the absolute authority of scripture is challenged.
Actually, it’s a pretty standard homophone.
I never said anywhere that I am insisting upon a literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, some portions of the bible are quite impossible to take literally, since they are quite clearly metaphorical.
This is a series of essays discussing why I believe the bible is true, not discussing whether it is literal. Such a discussion would be extremely silly, and I’ve never heard anyone actually attempt to make such an arguement.
As to whether the earth is 6 thousand years old, or merely 4.6 billion, I think it is a very complicated issue, and I haven’t quite decided.
A word from The Great Experimenter, a title recorded on at least one recipe card:
How about if you substitute for just one can of beans and see how it turns out. Consider some of the properties of beans compared with those of eggplant. B and E may have similar densities, but that may be where it ends.
Eggplant may be a better sub for some tomatoes, or it may work well as yet another participant rather than a sub.
And, ummm . . . you don’t plan to have chili this summer, do you? Ice cream in the winter is ok, but chili in the summer? I don’t knowwww…!
chili is fine any time of year. eggplant tho…
No Chili in the Summer? What did cowboys eat before there were hamburger joints?
And there can never be a substitute for tomatoes!!!
Hamburger joints? Why would a cowboy want to eat a hamburger joint?
OK. Go ahead and eat chili all summer long. And defile it with eggplant but not in place of something else. Just add it. I’m sitting here shaking my head. I just can’t see a lasting place for eggplant in chili.
I would stick with ratatouille and eggplant parmigiana. It would be really tasty in pasketti, too. I’m just not seeing it in chili.
And that’s all I have to say about that for now.
Next time you talk to the Italy-visiting cabinet painting Tennessee slug, tell her hello for me.
besides, isn’t summer when people have chili cookoffs?
I’m not liking bloglet. it doesn’t notify about a new post immediately when you put something up, by the time I get anything from bloglet, i’ve seen your post for quite a while.
Hmm. MT has a built-in version, but it has the drawback of not being able to unsubscribe without emailing me.
I may set that one up and see if it works better… later
KB
this might help — if you’re not into soy [I'm neutral but my Maker's diet says no--not sure why]go ahead and try this with the regular ground beef:
Laszlo’s Eggplant-Soy Chili
12 ounces dried red beans 3 bay leaves 8 cloves garlic, peeled and smashed 3 large onions, diced 3 tomatoes, seeded and chopped 3 eggplants, unpeeled and diced into 1-inch cubes 2 cups dry red wine 2 cups vegetable stock 2 cups tomato paste 1/4 cup extra virgin olive oil 1/4 cup ground cumin 1/4 cup liquid smoke 1/4 cup soy sauce 1/4 cup hot pepper sauce 2 cups texturized vegetable protein (TVP)
Combine beans and bay leaves in enough water to cover beans. Soak overnight in refrigerator. Drain and add fresh water to cover. Cook beans for 45 minutes; remove from heat and set aside. Meanwhile, in a large nonstick skillet, sauté one-third of the garlic, one-third of the onion and one-third of the tomato over high heat. As tomato softens, add one-third of the eggplant. Stir gently, then cover and cook on medium heat for 5 minutes. Next add one-third of the wine and one-third of the stock. Simmer until eggplant is soft, then transfer to a large stockpot; keep warm. Repeat previous steps until all garlic, onion, tomatoes, eggplant, wine and stock are added to stockpot. Remove bay leaves from beans; add beans to stockpot. Add any remaining bean liquid along with tomato paste. Stir well and cook chili on medium heat. Pour oil into a small saucepan and heat on medium-high. Mix in cumin and quickly fry into a paste. Add to chili, stirring well. Add liquid smoke, soy sauce, hot pepper sauce and TVP; stir well, cover, and simmer for 30 minutes, stirring frequently. Add water as needed. Serve over rice, if desired. Makes 12 servings.
now I’m sitting around with a worm on my tongue wondering how you’re going to wind this up.
I have not yet begun to write!!
“My car broke.It was the oddest thing.” hahahaha. sorry. I’ve just gotten so used to those cars dying every couple of months (or days) that I’ve told Jason if I get a new car its going to be a mid90s or later honda, no late80s. ha.
oh, and no, if you were given the pleasure of a spare half-grand in your account, you would have spent it on something else (like music), and when the car broke down you wouldn’t have that money available…
I wondered how they made records..happy birthday
Hey! You stole my comment!
I already knew how they made records. That’s because no matter how many birthdays you have, at least to a point, I will always be older than you. It’s on record.
I’m a member from R.A.T.S. and I was reading this post. I under stand what you’re saying, and agree, but I think you’ve fallen into an anachronistic trap. You say:
People usually interpret the word to mean “belief,” or better, “really really strong belief.” But the word “faith” comes from the Latin “fides,” which means something along the lines of “trust” or “adherence,” not just belief.
My response is that it doesn’t matter what faith means, if faith is not a good translation of pistis and pisteuoo. “Belief” is just as legitimate a translation as faith. And I think faith is misleading. You may ask a hundred different people what is faith, and you will get a hundred different answers. You attempt to show the meaning of faith by tracing it, correctly, to its Latin origin of fides and then showing that fidelity is an english derivative of fides. You then seek to use fidelity to define faith. This is rather anachronistic and misleading. Fidelity does not mean the same as faith, though there may be overlaps.
Also, I think you run into some theological problems with wanting to define faith as differently than belief. Many reformed (and not reformed) theologians see 3 steps in saving faith. 1. Understanding 2. Assent 3. Trust. Yet, even though I am reformed, I see problems with this setup. Most people want to define “assent” as “merely tipping the hat”, or “nodding the head”, and yet this does not what assent means. It means to agree, to concur.
What does the Bible say about the gospel? One must believe the gospel. But to define faith as you are doing, seemingly would have to make an extra step beyond belief inorder to have “faith”. Gordon Clark tackles this in several books, “The Johannine Logos” and “Saving Faith”. The problem with people that don’t have faith is not that they believe the gospel but don’t trust Jesus, it’s that they don’t really believe it.
The problem is not that the Pharisees believed but didn’t trust, but Jesus tells them that they do not really believe Moses, for if they believed Moses, they would believe Jesus. Now, there are implications to true belief, for if I truly believe that the lovingkindness of God is better than life, then I’m going to act in accordance with that. This isn’t easy believism, this is true belivism.
So while I agree with the thrust of your post, I believe your energy would have been better spent looking into the meaning of pistis and pisteuoo. I believe that biblical faith is simply belief. There are those who claim to believe and do not actually believe. It’s not that they believe and don’t trust, it’s that they don’t really believe.
Great post.
Thanks Zac. It’s good to have somebody really engage and debate me. (I would say Praxis is a good thing, but I’m not so sure praxis should be discussed outside the bedroom
)
You did catch me in an error. I knew I should have reviewed before I started posting these. I completely forgot to look the original word up. Usually I do better than that. When I get done with the series, I’ll go back and do some more research before I republish as a single document.
I think the metaphor still holds, though. You don’t believe the message, you believe the messenger. I don’t believe the Word of God the same way I believe my school report card. I believe the word of God the way I believe my stock broker. He says the market’s going up and I invest. What’s more, I tell all my friends to invest, because by golly the market’s going up.
I don’t have my Strong’s with me here at work, or I’d check myself, but Jesus repremanded the disciples for having little faith. This corresponds quite well, I think, to a low fidelity stereo. It’s playing the right music, but the quality is so low that it’s hardly evocative.
I’m glad we can have some constructive interaction. My point of contention isn’t in the main thrust of your posting, but something that I’ve been thinking about for a while now…what is faith? Is it merely belief or is it more?
Well, because I’m not writing a paper, but commenting on your blog I’ll make this short…hopefully. I think that biblically faith is belief. The noun is pistis, the adjective is pistos and generally the verb is pisteuoo (the “oo” being an omega). Generally the noun pistis is rendered “faith” in most translations–though this may speak more of the tradition involved than an adequate translation.
The adjective, pistos, is generally translated faithful, believe or believers. The verb, pisteuoo (a cognate of pistis), is in the vast majority translated believe. Before proceeding it’s obvious that generally speaking one word can never communicate the full range or exact nuances of another word in another language. But it has become my belief that we hide behind vague terminology in our theology of faith.
You say: “You don’t believe the message, you believe the messenger.” I hope I don’t come on too strong (for we don’t really know one another), but this is just silly. You’ve just forced a false disjunction between believing the message and believing the messenger. Now obviously, I admit that in persuasive speaking there are the traditional 3 parts to persuasion. The pathos, logos and ethos of the speaker. So yes, the ethos of the messenger does play a part in our being persuaded, but when one says, “I believe the messenger,” we ARE stating that we believe the messege.
What does it mean to believe a person? It is to believe that which they say. The message. Jesus says to the Pharisees, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” The problem with the Pharisees is that they really didn’t believe the propositions in the Scriptures. By the way, I’m arguing that only propositions are objects of knowledge. The Pharisees searched the Scriptural propositions, and these propositions testified of Jesus, and yet we see that they were unwilling to come to Jesus (i.e. believe the propositions of Scripture).
So what does it mean to know a person? It means to know and believe certain propositions about them. Again Jesus says to the Pharisees, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.” But people often point to James, “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” People point out that there must be a qualitative difference between believing something and having faith, or else why would the demons believe and not be saved?
The word for believe here is pisteuoo…it could be translated “The demons also have faith…” But it’s not a qualitative difference, it’s a quantitative difference. The reason demons aren’t saved is that, at least here in this passage, the object of their belief (and only propositions are objects of belief/knowledge) is monotheism, and James is saying monotheism won’t save you.
But people may respond and say, “No, it takes more than just belief, but it takes trust as well.” My response is, “What is trust?” Trust is simply believing someone’s word. At the heart of trust is belief, it is simply emphasizing something about the concept. Many people believe that one may believe but not trust…or to put it another way…one may believe something but not act in accordance with that belief.
I’m saying that we always act according to our strongest beliefs. As Christians we all believe that the lovingkindness of God is better than life (Ps. 63:3), but at the moment that we sin, we simply do not believe that to be true, thus the man said to Jesus, “Lord I believe, only help my unbelief!”
To have faith in God is simply to believe God’s Word. Not to claim to believe, but to believe. To say that we must trust God’s Word is another way of saying, “You must really believe, not just claim to believe God’s Word.” To say that we must trust in Jesus is another way of saying, “We must believe the Words that Jesus spoke.”
People, affected with anti-intellectualism, like to claim that my sort of thinking offers up dry orthodoxy, and that we don’t have faith in some doctrine, but in God. This is simply a farce. Propositions are the only objects of knowledge. A person cannot be an object of knowledge, but we may believe and know certain propositions about them. The Scripture says we must believe God’s Word, the Scriptures. There are certain, central doctrines that must be believed, and that is what saving faith is.
I’ve rambled, and now I must leave work, I’d love to discuss this more. Grace.
“Propositions are the only objects of knowledge”
I think I disagree pretty strongly with you on that statement. I can konw a great number of things without reducing them to discrete statements. I may or may not be capable of clearly expressing such knowledge, but I can know know them just the same. Take the classic example: “Adam knew Eve” (Hebrew. Strongs # 3045. To know, properly, to ascertain by seeing–I did my homework on that one
) There is a kind of knowledge that is wholly experiential and cannot be reduced to a single proposition (such as “Eve makes good babies”).
I was an English major, so please forgive me while I adamantly stand by my metaphor. You seem to wish to reduce belief to a binary statement, a thing that is either on or off, a 1 or a 0. Binary oppositions serve a very useful purpose, primarily for evoking clarity and making fine distinctions. Nevertheless, life is experienced in analog.
To know God, you must experience Him. Any number of statements about him would be insufficient, the same way any number of statements about my fiance would have been insufficient to convince me to marry her. In the same way, belief in God is not the sum of assents to certain theological proposiitons. That’s belief in a creed, not belief in a God. A creed is what you create after the fact to reduce your experience to clear, mentally digestible understandings.
Granted, if you have experience the same God that I have, you and I should be able to reduce our experiences down to roughly the same set of doctrines. But the doctrines must follow after experiencing God, or we will be in danger of idolizing our doctrines in place of the living God.
You pointed out that believing the message is essentially the same as believing the messenger. This is true. As long as the message did in fact come from the messenger. Ever play telephone? If I “add to or take away from” the message before I pass it on, then the message is no longer from the same messenger. Then you can believe the message all you want, but you’ve got the wrong messenger, and your belief is useless, because your message has lost a certain degree of truth. That’s the point I was trying to bring out with my discussion about “alignment.” I’m not trying to make a controverted disjunction between the message and the messenger; I’m trying to join them as closely as possible. The only way you can ensure that you have the right message is to ensure you have the right messenger. An overwrought focus on the message will eventually result in “sound without substance” while your internal voice tries to go on saying the message from memory without constantly checking it against the original messenger.
There. Now I’ve rambled too.
Good interaction. Sometimes with text one cannot discern a light-hearted conversation and an argument, so before I begin I’ll reiterate that I mean all of this in friendship.
You say:
“Take the classic example: “Adam knew Eve”"
I think you’ve fallen pray to a figure of speech. It’s very apparent that the term “know” is not speaking of what we are speaking of, namely intellectualy apprehension. The term know here refers to affections, completely different. It’s similar to me saying, “God heard my cry.” Well God has no ear drums, so God didn’t hear anything in the sense that we hear something, it’s a figure of speech.
“There is a kind of knowledge that is wholly experiential and cannot be reduced to a single proposition (such as “Eve makes good babies”).”
I will simply disagree with this. Define knowledge that is experiential. Many mystics have tried to hold to such things…a big modern day way of saying it is, “You can know with your head, and with your heart.” But that’s simply undefined double-talk. I do not disagree that one has experiences, but all knowledge is propositional. Truth is a characteristic of propositions alone.
“To know God, you must experience Him.”
False. To know God you must know the propositions that are in His Word. And what does this mean “experience”? I believe this is another undefined term that carries little weight with me. Experience how? Everyone experiences His providential love and control, so does that mean everyone knows God? Can one know God apart from His Word, the Scriptures?
“Any number of statements about him would be insufficient, the same way any number of statements about my fiance would have been insufficient to convince me to marry her. In the same way, belief in God is not the sum of assents to certain theological proposiitons. That’s belief in a creed, not belief in a God. A creed is what you create after the fact to reduce your experience to clear, mentally digestible understandings.”
False. Your confusing interaction with knowledge when speaking of your fiance. On the contrary the Scriptures repeatedly proclaim that to know God is to know His revelation. The only way we come to know God is through revelation, and all revelation is propositional. Only propositions are objects of knowledge. Repeatedly the Scriptures tell us how one is saved…and what is it? To believe. To believe what? God’s Word…i.e. the Scriptures…i.e. the propositions that God has revealed to us.
“But the doctrines must follow after experiencing God, or we will be in danger of idolizing our doctrines in place of the living God.”
Again, I’ll wait for you to define what you mean by “experiencing God” in a way that does not include every single person ever to have lived…in that case the word would have no meaning. But one would only idolize one’s doctrines if they believed the doctrines were God. On the contrary, I believe epistemologically one can only know propositions, and thus to believe in God is to believe His revelation about Himself. So when one asks me, “How do I know God? How can I be saved? What does it mean for me to believe God?” I’m not going to respond, “Go experience Him man, and then I’ll tell you about some doctrines…” No…on the contrary, I will do what the prophets, Jesus and the apostles did…point them to God’s Word, i.e. the Scriptures. It’s naught for not that the Bible says, “In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth”, “you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God”, “faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of Christ.”
What of Lazarus and the rich man? The rich man begged that God would send Lazarus back to warn his family that they might be saved. His plea was rejected, but what was told him? “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.” But then the rich man pleads again, saying that if someone from the dead visits them, they will believe, and what was told him at last? “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.”
It’s through reading and being persuaded to believe the Scriptures that one is saved. Jesus said to the Pharisees, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life…” He does then say, “But you should seek some experience from God…” But what does our Lord say? “It is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” He basically says, “You are right to look in God’s self-revelation to man, but you simply just don’t believe it!”
I am also still waiting for an explanation by what you mean “We believe the messenger, not the messege.”
“You pointed out that believing the message is essentially the same as believing the messenger. This is true. As long as the message did in fact come from the messenger. Ever play telephone? If I “add to or take away from” the message before I pass it on, then the message is no longer from the same messenger. Then you can believe the message all you want, but you’ve got the wrong messenger, and your belief is useless, because your message has lost a certain degree of truth.”
You’ve simply evaded the issue. If the message is “added to or taken away from” then it is no longer the message. That is X+Y no longer equals X. I completely agree with this section of the statement, that if one does not believe the true message (the gospel) then belief is useless. There are certain key doctrines that one must believe, there is disagreement (as always) as to what the essentials are, but I think they are probably:
Something to that effect.
“The only way you can ensure that you have the right message is to ensure you have the right messenger. An overwrought focus on the message will eventually result in “sound without substance” while your internal voice tries to go on saying the message from memory without constantly checking it against the original messenger.”
I’m not really sure what you mean in this quote…could you elaborate? I think the way you know you have the right message is to do what the Prophets continually tried to make Israel do…go back to the Word. We only know anything about God because of His revelation…so we turn to the Scriptures and steep ourselves in them.
Rambling is good for the soul…muhahaha…
I’m saying that biblical faith is simply belief. When I present the gospel, I don’t ask the person to seek some mystical encounter or spend 30 minutes trying to explain fidelity
…but I say what the Scriptures say…”Believe…take God at His Word…don’t nod your head and tell me you believe…BELIEVE…live by what God says, and not by what you say. If the Bible says you deserve hell, then believe that…truly believe that…if the bible says that the only way to be saved is to trust in Christ, then believe that…”
It’s not that I dislike the terminology “trust” or “faith”, but it’s that those terms are so vague and many people end up communicating something unbiblical. What is trust? Believing the proposition that this person’s statements are true…what they say is true and they will do what they say they will do…i.e. it is true. I trust my fiance because I believe the proposition that what she tells me is true. She tells me that she won’t cheat on me, so I take that as true.
I offer a friendly challenge to show that anything other than propositions can be objects of knowledge…hehe…that should only take 15 years or so…grace.
By all means, friendship. No offense taken, I assure you.
However, I am at a bit of a loss for words. Each of us thinks that what the other person thinks is absolute nonsense. For instance, I consider intellectual apprehension to be the weakest part of knowledge, something that you forumulate after you perceive. I consider the initial perception to be the foundational part of knowledge. But this is because I am, in fact, a mystic. The creedal statements you listed are all things I believe, but I believe them as a direct result of a series of mystical experiences that I have had. If I had not had these experiences, I would not believe any of these statements, and I would have no reason to.
You ask, “Can one know God apart from His Word, the Scriptures?” But of course. Why do you ask such silly questions. Abraham was called the friend of God, and what did he have but mystical experiences? A voice or an angel telling him to sacrifice his son to God. A debate with an angel over destroying a city. A smoking torch passing between two sides of a ram. These were not universal experiences of God’s love and control. Nor was Israel’s experience with a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. Nor was Ezekiel’s experience with the valley of dry bones. They were real and specific experiences with a real and specific God.
A proposition about God may give you knowledge about God, but it doesn’t give you knowledge of God. This is why Job said “My ears had heard of you, but now my eyes have seen you,” because there is a difference between knowing propositions about God and actually encountering Him in person. I’ve already discussed my thoughts on this here. I thought I mentioned it in this series that I’m working on, but it looks like the link is broken. I’ll have to go fix that.
You say:
“However, I am at a bit of a loss for words. Each of us thinks that what the other person thinks is absolute nonsense. For instance, I consider intellectual apprehension to be the weakest part of knowledge, something that you forumulate after you perceive. I consider the initial perception to be the foundational part of knowledge.”
I do not think that the content of knowledge comes from perception.
“You ask, “Can one know God apart from His Word, the Scriptures?” But of course. Why do you ask such silly questions. Abraham was called the friend of God, and what did he have but mystical experiences?”
Then you deny Sola Scriptura…which may of be no consequence to many, but some consider this an essential part of evangelicalism. Abraham had the Word of God, as we have the Word of God, except in the present time the Word of God is found only in the Scriptures. This will of course lead us to discussing cessationism.
“A proposition about God may give you knowledge about God, but it doesn’t give you knowledge of God.”
You’re using the term “knowledge of God” to really mean “experience of God”, which is simply using the same word “knowledge” in a completely different sense. But be that as it may, these experiences that you would claim to have…what do you know about them other than the propositions of what happened?
“This is why Job said “My ears had heard of you, but now my eyes have seen you,” because there is a difference between knowing propositions about God and actually encountering Him in person.”
Firstly I don’t think this is what Job is talking about. Secondly, I have not claimed that there is not a difference, I have simply claimed that an encounter of God is not an object of knowledge, only the propositions about an encounter with God are.
Grace