Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wallace doesn't believe in "deductive" Christianity. He reaches his conclusions inductively and states this in no uncertain terms.
Once one HAS faith, then it is certain that bringing reason to focus on the BIBLE is an absolute necessity if one is to get anything anywhere near correct considering the amount of "formal doctrines" that pervade Christianity like a virus.
Didn't you say earlier that "once rationality enters the picture, faith departs"?
And since when is induction better than deduction?
Agreed. The foundation absolutely must be revelation. Sure it's perfectly reasonable that a Supreme Being exists in the universe, but we cannot scientifically prove his existence. What we can do it [sic] accept the invitation in scripture (or elsewhere) from that Supreme Being and verify His existence by personal experience. We reach out to God, dig deep and find Him. When you find Him, it's wonderful beyond description. You were reaching out for a cup of water and found an ocean instead.
A process that requires reason (as with any method of verification) in conjunction with faith in God.
Note: Faith requires first that you understand who or what you are placing your faith in, and to conclude that it is the appropriate course of action - ie. reasoning. Faith is impossible without a foundation of reason.
Wallace doesn't believe in "deductive" Christianity. He reaches his conclusions inductively and states this in no uncertain terms.
And arriving at faith claims inductively is impossible. You have to start with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Once one HAS faith, then it is certain that bringing reason to focus on the BIBLE is an absolute necessity if one is to get anything anywhere near correct considering the amount of "formal doctrines" that pervade Christianity like a virus.
A process that requires reason (as with any method of verification) in conjunction with faith in God.
Note: Faith requires first that you understand who or what you are placing your faith in, and to conclude that it is the appropriate course of action - ie. reasoning. Faith is impossible without a foundation of reason.
While I'm almost entirely in agreement with them, I think Wardendresden overshot the mark a bit. As with so many things, truth seldom functions in absolutes and extremes. Of course we don't need become a mental vegetable in order to experience God. Of course it takes thought and reason.
But I wholeheartedly agree that personal revelation must of necessity be the primary foundation for any true believer. Proving things scientifically misses the point entirely. God wants us to find him through reaching out to him directly. Science can tell us a lot about how God created things and how his creation runs, but it cannot prove or disprove God's existence. It's nice when science proves (or at least verifies the possibility) that Bible events really did happen. All such things are fine and good. Ultimately, the Bible could be proven to be half inspired text and half ancient mythology. If you let paper and ink be your foundation, then your faith may easily be destroyed if/when paper and ink proves to be dead wrong about a few things. The Bible doesn't need to be perfect for God to be real. The Bible can and probably is extremely imperfect and that's okay. The same is true when you are built on dogma and ritual being absolute truth. The same is true of denominations: If you put your faith in the church you attend each week, you're faith is extremely vulnerable because people are imperfect. If you are built on a foundation of personal revelation, then all the rest can and IMHO should be added. When a crisis of faith comes, if you are built on knowing God and knowing that He is, then you far less likely to be shaken.
Didn't you say earlier that "once rationality enters the picture, faith departs"?
And since when is induction better than deduction?
Did I WRITE that inductive rationality is better than deduction. Deductive reasoning is the reasoning of the inerrantist who starts from a poor premise--that the written bible is correct literally, historically, and providentially. So it is certainly WORSE than inductive reasoning. And inductive reasoning can only happen AFTER faith is produced in the believer. I wrote that WALLACE claims inductive reasoning as superior to the inerrantist deductive reasoning.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 10-03-2014 at 05:37 PM..
While I'm almost entirely in agreement with them, I think Wardendresden overshot the mark a bit. As with so many things, truth seldom functions in absolutes and extremes. Of course we don't need become a mental vegetable in order to experience God. Of course it takes thought and reason.
But I wholeheartedly agree that personal revelation must of necessity be the primary foundation for any true believer. Proving things scientifically misses the point entirely. God wants us to find him through reaching out to him directly. Science can tell us a lot about how God created things and how his creation runs, but it cannot prove or disprove God's existence. It's nice when science proves (or at least verifies the possibility) that Bible events really did happen. All such things are fine and good. Ultimately, the Bible could be proven to be half inspired text and half ancient mythology. If you let paper and ink be your foundation, then your faith may easily be destroyed if/when paper and ink proves to be dead wrong about a few things. The Bible doesn't need to be perfect for God to be real. The Bible can and probably is extremely imperfect and that's okay. The same is true when you are built on dogma and ritual being absolute truth. The same is true of denominations: If you put your faith in the church you attend each week, you're faith is extremely vulnerable because people are imperfect. If you are built on a foundation of personal revelation, then all the rest can and IMHO should be added. When a crisis of faith comes, if you are built on knowing God and knowing that He is, then you far less likely to be shaken.
Exactly!
P.S. I might add that this is a huge failing of evangelical churches--as Wallace pointed out in his message. They send young people off to seminary completely unprepared for the level of scholarship that will be required. How many churches preach that there are 400,000 variants in the NT alone--and quite a few in the OT where the underlying MEANING of the words is subject to debate. Those churches are destroying the faith that young people have which was frequently arrived at through--reason. They have not had a revelatory experience.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 10-03-2014 at 05:40 PM..
I was told early in my christian formation that one could pray to Father, Son or Holy Ghost, and I would still be praying to G-d, this makes things rather confusing, especially after I read where Yeshua pointed everyone to the Father, not Himself, believing in Yeshua doesn't necessarily imply worship, believing in Him that He is telling us Truths regarding the Father is more like it...He did state that He has a G-d and Father and that His G-d and Father was ours also, which would make Yeshua our brother...He is the first born of all creation...Is this stating that being the first-born as in actually having followed the correct path and pleased the Father, thereby the Father resurrecting Him, thereby Him becoming the firstborn out of the dead?...First born or eldest brother?...Did He, in fact, show us the way to the Father?...The correct path?...Eveything that He taught, if we followed, would bring us to where He is?...We place so much emphasis on believing that He is part of a Trinity that we miss the possibility that He was relating to us that if we believe in Him, we believe what He has said regards the Father, that if we follow that path that He has laid out for us, that we can achieve the state that He had achieved...
As I've pointed out many times in the past, not only is it a tall order to show that it's the only possible formula, it's a tall order just to show that it is just one possible formula. I've challenged people for a decade to show me one instance of a person arriving at the doctrine of the Trinity just by reading the Bible without any outside influence. To my knowledge, it's never happened. Ever. Anywhere. It is impossible to arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity just with the Bible. One must be told what it is and how to find it in order for it to exist at all. It is the product of ecclesiastical authority, not scripture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
