John Lennox on "Certainty" in The Christian Faith
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ธ.ค. 2024
- This is an excerpt from John's talk at Harvard Medical School for The Veritas Forum. In this short clip the interviewer is struck by the "certainty" that Dr. Lennox exhibits and asks him about it.
4:13 This made my heart flutter. 'Lean not on thy own understanding'. Christ has risen.
"I believe. Help thou my unbelief".
" I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand. .. For this also I believe - that unless I believe I shall not understand.” St Anselm Of Canterbury
As usual, John Lennox gives a good reasonable response to the question! 😇
1. The way a person can be confident that Christianity is true is not about the person, per se. That is, a person attempting to work up faith in spite of reason or evidence or suchlike.
2. Rather it is based on (a) the reasons and evidences for Christianity, (b) the reasons and evidences against other options, and (c) the fact that one can know God as a real living person. That may seem like a wild claim, but as the Bible says "come and see".
3. That said, and to be fair, there is a grain of truth to the faith seeking understanding project: I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order that I may understand.
Totally agree with the wife analogy and KNOWING...... aka, confidence and certainty. It is Biblical.
Just as Lennox recites re: the Apostle John's writing (and it is all over John's writing - the KNOWING, the confidence) "these things I have written in order that you may KNOW", so also Apostle Paul directly relates to the deep and personal KNOWING as well in Ephesians 3.
It is this KNOWING that makes the difference and brings confidence and certainty in any relationship, especially as is necessary through the Holy Spirit, with God.
There are two implicit ways to KNOW God, as Barclay has pointed out in his commentary of John 17, but of which, I remind, one must come to KNOW themselves.
Hear this: no one can KNOW God for you. If you are not drawn to know Him in both of these ways, you won't.
1. to KNOW ABOUT Him, like reading and memorizing various parts of scripture (God's revelation of Himself) which tell us ABOUT Him, and
2. to actually KNOW Him INTIMATELY, in the way we were created to KNOW anyone intimately, especially, Paul says, our wives.
Because it is this deepness of knowledge and love implied and hopefully experienced with our wives which most analogues to our ability to deeply and intimately KNOW God, through our souls, our inner man.
And now I hope you also see the real danger of evolution - convincing mankind that they are simply animals, and have no real souls, no deep spiritual and intimate way to connect and KNOW the LIVING GOD - now, while we are yet here, and of course then, when we are there - that is the biggest poverty in the universe, and eternal loss if not corrected.
All of this is founded upon FAITH. Nothing is nullified in the Word of God. It was always by faith, and must be so today. BUT, the indwelling God of our nature communicates His love in deep and profound ways, NOW, bc of the work of the Messiah.
All of it is true. Believe. Believing is how you travel the distance from not knowing, to knowing. And it is open to all.
Initially, both criminals mocked Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and then the eyes of one were opened to the truth of Jesus’ deity, and the guilty one believed and was promised entry into God’s kingdom. How?
We shall never fully know the answer this side of the valley. It is enough for me that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit place the highest value on love, and God’s love transcends any notion we have of that word.
@@joewright9879*Initially, both criminals mocked Jesus Christ of Nazareth,*
Allegedly.
*and then the eyes of one were opened to the truth of Jesus’ deity, and the guilty one believed and was promised entry into God’s kingdom.*
Allegedly.
*How?*
How indeed!
*We shall never fully know the answer this side of the valley.*
Then why _believe_ such a claim?
*It is enough for me that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit place the highest value on love, and God’s love transcends any notion we have of that word.*
Well so you may think but seeing as there's no good reason to think that claim is particularly likely to be _true_ why believe it probably _is_ true?
Some biblical authors use the word "know" and "believe" as synonyms but that doesn't mean that they're correct to do so. The problem is that it's not uncommon for people to believe that they know something is true. The problem is that it's so common for people to "believe" that they "know" something is true. When the crops fail, or war or disease comes people have forever been certain that Heaven is angry and that they have done wrong by the Gods. When the harvest is bountiful, they "know" that the Gods, or God, is pleased. Either way, it confirms that God is personally involved in their lives.
To use the spousal analogy, most people realize it when they've got problems in their marriage. However, I was closely involved in two separate instances, with good friends, where every action their spouses took reaffirmed their love and their commitment to their marriages. They "knew" their marriages were strong and that their partners loved them, right up to the point where their spouses walked out and to continue relationships they had been having outside their marriages.
I myself "knew", I was certain, I was not bright right up to the point that somebody cared enough to test me and diagnosed me with severe ADD, which has borne out over the years. It took me a few years to come to grips with the fact that just because I am certain that something was true had no bearing on whether it actually is true. People with confidence and a strong belief in something based on what they know about that something often interpret that as "knowing", especially when it supports their worldview, but it isn't, it's believing. I know several Muslims who are completely confident in their faith based on the work Allah has done personally in their lives. Same with a couple who follow Ekankar.
Now, as long as people don't try to turn their religious beliefs into law, apart from those all members of societies generally accept, murder and bodily harm, theft and so on, it matters not to me what people believe about God. My only caution is to keep alert for people who strive to convince you that "belief" and "knowledge" are synonyms.
You are ridiculous! Knowing and believing are two absolutely, controversial ideas! You cannot get to knowing by simply believing strongly enough! For goodness sakes, invest in a dictionary!
All of your gobbledygook about reading passages from an old book and making it say what you want it to say, is absolutely ludicrous!!! Be honest with yourself and everyone else. Admit that you simply heard these ideas and decided to believe them. If believing in these things gives you some comfort that is fine. However, don't fool yourself and try to fool others into thinking that just because you believe something hard enough, it makes it true!
A wise man once said that you cannot reason with the unreasonable. I find you quite unreasonable.
@@bentrider heart breaking. why are you here? to do this? Do you think that because you can't believe, others can't either? Indeed. The shame is on you. Unbelief is a sin. Your self-sufficiency is a sin. You weren't made to carry the world on your shoulders. God is actually there for you. You can't believe because you won't. Believing is easy. It is the unbelief which makes you struggle so, and rant, and rave with so much logic and rational that you make your own head hurt. Humanism is worst that a dead end street.
I have been a Christian for nearly 45 years and have been certain in my faith because of all the ways God has interacted with me over the years because of my putting my faith in Him. But one won't experience any of that unless they first put their trust in Jesus.
The problem is that it's so common for people to "believe" that they "know" something is true. When the crops fail, or war or disease comes people have forever been certain that Heaven is angry and that they have done wrong by the God's. When the harvest is bountiful, they "know" that the Gods, or God, is pleased. Either way, it confirms that God is personally involved in their lives.
To use the spousal analogy, most people realize it when they've got problems in their marriage. However, I was closely involved in two separate instances, with good friends, where every action their spouses took reaffirmed their love and their commitment to their marriages. They "knew" their marriages were strong and that their partners loved them, right up to the point where their spouses walked out and to continue relationships they had been having outside their marriages.
I myself "knew", I was certain, I was not bright right up to the point that somebody cared enough to test me and diagnosed me with severe ADD, which has borne out over the years. It took me a few years to come to grips with the fact that just because I am certain that something was true had no bearing on whether it actually is true. People with confidence and a strong belief in something based on what they know about that something often interpret that as "knowing", especially when it supports their worldview, but it isn't, it's believing. I know several Muslims who are completely confident in their faith based on the work Allah has done personally in their lives. Same with a couple who follow Ekankar.
The other issue is that insisting that the danger of evolution is that it interferes with your belief system doesn't say anything about whether or not evolution is a fact., It's forcing science to conform itself to your beliefs or be rejected, not on it's merit or lack thereof, but on whether we want to believe it, which is not a good way to determine whether or not something's true.
I have personally experienced that same certainty of "knowing" from so many people of differing faiths, and various Christian interpretations, not to mention various Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, also among scientists, physicians and historians, to believe that certainty means knowing, no matter how many of the faithful insist otherwise.
Now, as long as people don't try to turn their religious beliefs into law, apart from those all members of societies generally accept, murder and bodily harm, theft and so on, it matters not to me what people believe about God. As Thomas Jefferson said, " What matter if a man believes in one God or 20? It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". The only caution is to keep alert for people who strive to convince you that "belief" and "knowledge" are synonyms.
Allow me to point to you a source of COGNITIVE BIAS operating on your thinking. This cognitive bias is known as THE AVAILABILITY BIAS. Please be patient with me.
I do not here express disagreement with your 45-year faith experience.
Now, imagine the claim that without faith in Jesus, the quality, depth, meaning, significance, and the magnificent wonderfulness of YOUR life would have been a thousand-fold!
See, you did not experience your life without faith in Jesus for 45 years and therefore you do NOT know what you have missed out. Because what you have missed out is not available to you, you simply are unaware of this unexperienced possibility. You are only aware of what has become available to you: the one you aver about.
I used to be a firm believer in Jesus. For very compelling reasons I gave up my belief in Jesus and God, etc. more than 45 years ago. Ever since then, my life has been rich and resplendent in quality, depth, meaning, significance, and a magnificent wonderfulness.
Now do you see my point?
Either what you claim about JC is true or false. If you claim it is true, then it must be true for all to see and OBJECTIVELY demonstrate its truth. The truth about JC cannot be reached at by faith for faith is precisely an excuse for not having sufficient evidence and reason to acquire OBJECTIVE knowledge. Truth about JC must be proven with sufficient OBJECTIVE evidence. Lacking such objective evidence, all we can HONESTLY do is to suspend judgment about JC, and refuse to believe in him on faith.
Lovely note
So, with all due respect, one won't recognize God's interaction in their life unless they trust and believe that God interacts in their lives? How then to differentiate from the Moslems who recognize God's interaction in their lives, or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Buddhists or any other theists throughout history who are certain that God interacts in their lives?
@blueglassdave look up Sam Shamoun or Fr Josiah Trenham.
I am certain.
It is easy to be certain in Christ once you know Him.
We the true Christians live in a loving relationship every single day with the Father through Jesus our Lord and the Holy Spirit.
We KNOW God - whether 'you' believe us or not is not a problem but for you. You cannot say that we don't try to show you the Truth, can you?
We also pray that He comes to you as well - or that you come to Him.
This world is not everything.
God holds Dominion over the future Kingdom of His New Earth - and it is as beautiful as Eden in ETERNITY... And there is nothing that evil men and their controller can do about it.
Christ is King.
It's the truth.
He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.❤🎉🎉🎉🎉
May God Almighty Father Richly Bless And Protect You And Your Family Too Doctor Lennox In Yeshua Jesus Christ's Precious Saviour's Name Shalom And Amen!✝️✝️🛐🛐😇🌟🤗🙏🙏🙏🇨🇦🇬🇧🇮🇱♾️🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🗽🦅❤️❤️❤️‼️
John Lennox just nails it! His confidence is not based on him but on Christ and Christ revealing the Father.
Beautifully said. ❤
The wife analogy - that’s some convincing argument 🙄
After receiving the Holy Spirt sealed the deal for me!😊
Certainly... well, I suppose he will be lining up for his Nobel prize.
Folks want to believe what they wish to be true, however extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as Carl Sagan questioned.
When it comes to supernatural claims this is particularly important.
No 'certainty' in Christianity, it is based on a theory of atonement at the Cross, but there was a new covenant of sanctification for justification and Jesus as Judge.
It is the same kind of certainty when you say "I am certain God exists because of this or this or because I feel a connexion to God" and "I am certain that God does not exist because of this or this and because I know this connection thing is pure dillusion".
Amen!
The whole point of calling it faith is that you can’t be certain lol
Amen
Mr. Lennox just made it worse for me as a lifelong Christian who is seeking answers to my doubts.
The Hindus are certain
The Muslims are certain
The Buddhists are certain
The christians are certain
But the atheist are certain that it's all.myth and superstition because god refuses to show himself
I fall into the latter certainty
Did you even watch the video? Imagine the hubris of someone who thinks that 99.9% of all people in the history of the world with some kind of god belief were all wrong.
The narrow mindedness of atheism never fails.
@@Peter-dl4bpand yet the original post is quite valid - your god is the only true god - got it 🙄
@@barry.anderbergdid you read the original post - which of the thousands of your claimed 99% are right?
@TheMainezetetic totally irrelevant with respect to the question of theism vs atheism
John has evidence that his wife loves him
We have no evidence of god doing anything for anybody!
Nonsense. We have the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Explain to me why that isn't evidence.
Except for all of the many millions who testify that God has done things for them - that is evidence that "God has done anything for anybody." In the same way as it is 'evidence' that millions of men's wives love them, when they testify (like John) that their wives have
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible. It (Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." -- Mark Twain
Lennox must be approached with caution, he stumbles before Genesis chapter 2, his views on creation are tainted therefore his biblical worldview is secular.
Roger Bacon??
I think he meant Francis Bacon.
Love cannot promise safety . It never could. Never did . Which is why Jesus cried out on the cross "MY God MY God why has thou forsaken me""?
Those who believe that God loves them and therefore protects them are seriously deluded . As we know from millions of sudden deaths from disease or accidents or crimes ranging from the very young through to the very old .
But the prosletysers use the message that "God is watching over you " to get them in and get their money off them .
Especially the TV evangelists who get rich on their promises
I love the title. 'certainty' in 'faith'. Sometimes comedy writes itself.
It's not comedy. It makes perfect sense
Does his wife exist ?
faith is not certainty - the two are not synonymous
Then you have a flawed definition of faith.
@@timothyeyo9245 thank you for your insightful comment. doubtless you would contend that faith is the default position whereas in fact it is a subjective and speculative view. perhaps one should be mindful of the adage: 'one man's faith is another man's delusion'
@andrewjankowski7137 Interesting, an adage I've never heard of. I argue the exact opposite, faith is as objective and certain as knowledge itself. I see the two as both sides of the same coin.
Knowledge relies on experiential confirmation and rational coherence to be truth whereas faith relies on nothing. It testifies and bears witness about itself, and requires no empirical confirmation.
It is self-evidently true to the reason of the one who has it. If truth itself is made to stand alone independent of its epistemological approaches, it becomes easy how knowledge and faith are of the same substance.
@@timothyeyo9245 no slight intended, of course, but i find your 'reasoning' a tad too sophistic bordering on logical fallacy. i don't see how one can 'know' the truth of something which cannot be determined and demonstrated to be true, conclusively and irrefutably. such truth as you offer is i think speculative conjecture, by definition subjective - thus not everyone is imbued with the self-evident truth of which you speak.
perhaps bertrand russell can throw some light on this:
'where there is evidence no one speaks of 'faith'. we do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. we only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.'
but what do i know....
@andrewjankowski7137 I appreciate your cordiality thus far. It isn't too surprising that you see my reasoning as somewhat fallacious given your obscured understanding of what faith is. You must acknowledge that sense experience is but one route to arriving at truth. It is not that faith is undetermined or undemonstrable in its truth claim, but that the way it does so is entirely different from the process of logical syllogism.
This does not mean it is irrational but rather 'super-rational' (for lack of better wording), in that it transcends the linear nature of argumentation, complementing rational thinking where they meet. So indeed not everyone possesses this faith. I would liken it to intuition, though I am cautious in using this term, due to its tendency of being conflated with emotion.
It is irrefutably true to those who have it, and while arguments and evidence can be put forth, giving credence or logical validity to it, the faith itself is unaffected, as it truth claim does not rely on them.
Comparing your wife to God is ludacris! Why? Well, because we can actually see your wife. We cannot see god. We do not know if God even exists. You can certainly believe however, it's a horse of a different color to say that you know that a god exists. What a ridiculous argument!
Think you’ll find ( by his writings and views )that salvation is in “man’s hands” to accept or reject Christ. The Bible teaches we are in bondage to sin and only God can set us free. Lennox is unbiblical in his theology.
Whatever the bondage we are in was not of our making. Salvation is step 2. Step 1 was God explicitly creating us to need to be saved in the first place.
We are born “ in Adam”, only by God’s undeserved Grace can we turn to Christ,justified by Faith Alone.
@@chrismachin2166 you still haven't told me why we need to be born in Adam at all. It was never necessary.
We are born “ in Adam” . Ephesians 2:3 we are all by nature children of wrath. Psalm 51:5 Behold ,I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
“You still haven’t told me why we need to be born in Adam at all. It was never necessary.”
Do you believe in Biblical truth?
@@chrismachin2166 I'll say again. Why did we have to be
brought forth at all?
Lennox is making a _deeply_ flawed argument here by oversimplifying the question of belief via _demonstrable_ evidence e.g. his very _visible_ wife & her very _visible_ behavior (even if it can't be _known_ to be _unquestionably_ representative of her love for him) & the god of the Bible which is just as invisible as the god claimed to exist in the Koran or gods claimed to exist in the Bhagavad Dita etc. etc. etc... so it's dishonest to pretend one is just as worth of faith as the other because nothing could be further from the truth.
A spouse can be _seen_ to act lovingly or not as the case may be & even if that's not proof positive it _is_ independently visible to other people as well if they have known her general behavior towards him therefore there's something to judge as evidence which is a lot more than untestable claims written in holy books like the Bible or Koran or Bhagavad Gita etc.
And to say that he can know that Jesus was God coming to the Earth to know mankind is equally speculative because no one alive today was around to see if a man called Jesus had any supernatural powers given to him by a heavenly father.
Many Biblical scholars don't even agree that Jesus claimed he _was_ the son of God rather than we are _all_ supposed to be children of that God but so what? The Koran says something else which is equally faith based as does the Bhagavd Gita & a whole host of other books claimed to be some god's word. Well they can't all _be_ true however they can all be _false_ can't they?
I primarily want to address your first point.
The issue at stake here is exactly what you're pointing at: visibility. God is *not* a thing, He is *not* a "visible entity". There is a sense in which both the atheist and the Christian agree that "God does not exist": It's because He doesn't exist *like* any *thing* else. The *kind* of relationship you have with God is different than the kind relationship you have with a spouse (even though it may share characteristics).
To reiterate: The area so many modern people get hung up in when it comes to "belief" has to do with who God is. It's less true to say that God exists as much as it is to say that He *is* existence, and that anything that exists only is because He wills it into being at every moment.
The questions that follow from these propositions multiply: What does it even mean to have a "relationship" with such a being? But the answer is already in front of us: We understand our relationship to God precisely through the created order He makes. He calls Himself "Father", and so we face Him as "Father"; we dispose ourselves as children, and in this disposition we begin to relate to Him not in a way we create for ourselves, but in the way He gives to us. This is what Lennox here means by "He pursues us" -- whatever the nature of our relationship to God, it can only be apprehended by receiving what He gives to us in terms of relationship. This includes the language of revelation (like God as Father) and, fundamentally, His very self in the person of Jesus.
The question of other religions has always been a non-issue for me. There are many ways in which God may try to reveal Himself to people, and I've no doubt that the various religious systems are extensions of that revelation. But that doesn't preclude that there is revelation that encapsulates a deeper and truer vision of God than others. The contradictions in the religious systems are wonderful because they allow us to test the truth claims ourselves. If Muslims profess Christ is not God, but Christians do, the only way to understand the veracity of them is to enter into relationship with the contested party and see for yourself. For a modern person, this means searching the scriptures, taking the words of Christ seriously, attempting to follow His teachings etc. Belief does not amount to simply intellectually assenting to propositions, it is often a "messy" process of entering into the very life of the other.
@@wierdpocket *I primarily want to address your first point.*
Please do.
*The issue at stake here is exactly what you're pointing at: visibility. God is not a thing, He is not a "visible entity".*
So why believe any God claim since _none_ of the gods claimed to be justified can be shown to be justified?
*There is a sense in which both the atheist and the Christian agree that "God does not exist":*
No that can't be right because atheism isn't a claim that there isn't a god, all it is is not believing god claims due to there not being any good reason to believe claims that there is one but Christians _do_ believe a God exists & also believe it's the one described in Biblical scripture.
*It's because He doesn't exist like any thing else.*
But the problem with an assertion like that is that the God of the Bible is indistinguishable from any _imaginary_ god & that is not an insignificant shortcoming of such a claim.
*The kind of relationship you have with God is different than the kind relationship you have with a spouse (even though it may share characteristics).*
There's no good reason to believe that to be the case. For example, John Lennox's wife is someone we could meet, ask questions of & form a judgement about based on what we can _all_ see regarding her. The same cannot be said about any god including the God described in the Bible so there's no means by which we _can_ know they share _any_ characteristics at all.
*To reiterate: The area so many modern people get hung up in when it comes to "belief" has to do with who God is.*
Well yes because there are a lot of very different gods to choose from & they can't _all_ be true but they can _all_ be imagined.
*It's less true to say that God exists as much as it is to say that He is existence, and that anything that exists only is because He wills it into being at every moment.*
But there's no good reason to believe that claim otherwise you'd have been able to supply just one but you haven't. All you've supplied is an unsupportable claim & anyone can come up with unsupportable claims for _anything you like_ can't they?
*The questions that follow from these propositions multiply: What does it even mean to have a "relationship" with such a being?*
Well if we are to take claims that there _may_ be such a being _seriously_ we'd need a good reason to think that what it's _said_ to be like in the Bible is likely to be factual. Can you think of just _one_ good reason to think that is likely to be the case because I've never heard one myself & that problem can't be rather conveniently overlooked as if it's not important because it's _very_ important. It's _central_ to establishing if there's even a being with which someone could have a real relationship with.
*But the answer is already in front of us:*
Can it be independently tested for veracity somehow or does it need to be taken on faith instead? All gods claimed to exist are taken on faith as I've pointed out they can't _all_ be real but they can _all_ be imaginary.
*We understand our relationship to God precisely through the created order He makes.*
So how can that claim be tested for veracity in such a way that it can be shown to be valid by a non-partisan 3rd party? If it can't it's completely indistinguishable from all of the other gods taken on faith _too_ isn't it?
*He calls Himself "Father", and so we face Him as "Father";*
No, the Bible _claims_ that the Christian God is our father but since there's no good reason to believe that claim over claims we may also be presented with in the Koran or the Bhagvad Gita or a whole host of equally unsupportable holy books that counts for absolutely _nothing at all._
* we dispose ourselves as children, and in this disposition we begin to relate to Him not in a way we create for ourselves, but in the way He gives to us.*
But there's no sign that the God described in the Bible gives us _anything_ which couldn't just as easily be ascribed to the god described in the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or the Book of Mormon or any one of a whole host of lesser known religions all equally relying on faith rather than demonstrable evidence so again that claim counts for _nothing._
*This is what Lennox here means by "He pursues us" --*
I don't doubt that he does but the same fallacy remains front & center: there's no good reason to believe that claim so _why do so?_
*whatever the nature of our relationship to God, it can only be apprehended by receiving what He gives to us in terms of relationship.*
There's no good reason to believe that the God of the Bible is at all "friendly" anyway, at least not if the Bible is to be believed but don't take that on faith (why take _anything_ on faith when _anything at all_ can be taken on faith?) Listen to how the Bible describes God's character in the Bible verses I've put a link to at the end of this response if you don't believe me...*
*This includes the language of revelation (like God as Father) and, fundamentally, His very self in the person of Jesus.*
So you keep claiming but you've still failed to come up with even one good reason to believe that claims in the Bible ought to be taken on faith when claims about a different God made in the Bhagavad Gita or Koran or Book of Mormon etc. could just as easily be taken on faith _too._
*The question of other religions has always been a non-issue for me.*
That comes as no surprise because you are clearly of the opinion that what you've come to accept from the start is significantly better justified than any alternative god claim so you've never stopped to wonder whether your faith is better placed than the faith a Hindu or Zoroastrian or Sikh may feel equally firmly about but they can't _all_ be right however they can all be _wrong_ can't they?
*There are many ways in which God may try to reveal Himself to people,*
Okay then name just _one_ which can clearly be shown to be valid & not presumed if that's true. Can you? I very much doubt that you can but feel free to prove me wrong if there is a demonstrable way to establish a Biblical God is well justified over any _other_ deity taken on faith.
*and I've no doubt that the various religious systems are extensions of that revelation.*
But there's no good reason to believe claims that any revelation has ever been given to anyone so maybe you should reassess your assumption. Especially since religions such as Hinduism & other faiths are significantly _older_ that the Christian faith.
*But that doesn't preclude that there is revelation that encapsulates a deeper and truer vision of God than others.*
Assertions there have been revelations in any faith you care to mention don't in any way, shape or form support assumptions that they must therefore be real. If I'm wrong about that please describe a testable means of establishing that ones made in the Bible are above question because I can't say I've heard even one which comes close & I've asked a lot of Christians if they can quote one which couldn't simply be _assumed_ to be valid/
*The contradictions in the religious systems are wonderful because they allow us to test the truth claims ourselves.*
_Seriously?_ How can _any_ faith claim be unequivocally demonstrated to be valid without _some_ degree of an assumption creeping into one's conclusions? Can you say? I very much doubt that you can but like I've already said feel free to prove me wrong if I _am _wrong about that.
*If Muslims profess Christ is not God, but Christians do, the only way to understand the veracity of them is to enter into relationship with the contested party and see for yourself.*
And how exactly can that be done in a testable way which couldn't simply boil down to a strongly held opinion? You do kn ow that there are plenty of Christians such as the Unitarians etc. who aren't of the opinion that Jesus Christ was the son of God yes? So forget the Muslims, what could you say to Unitarians which clearly demonstrates that you know something that they don't which isn't merely a cherished belief you happen to _consider_ to be a fact? Can you say or do you agree that it's simply a different opinion to _their_ opinion?
*For a modern person, this means searching the scriptures, taking the words of Christ seriously, attempting to follow His teachings etc.*
But on _what basis?_ On the basis they _might_ be _true?_ - Well the same could be said of _Hindu_ scriptures or _Mormon_ scriptures or _Koranic_ scriptures too at least in principle couldn't it so there really _has_ to be something stronger than personal opinions like that which can somehow be tested by non-partisan 3rd parties for veracity instead, Can you think of anything that doesn't also require faith just like all of those _other_ religious claims?
*Belief does not amount to simply intellectually assenting to propositions, it is often a "messy" process of entering into the very life of the other.*
Well that's a very vague assertion which doesn't explain in any _detail_ just how _one_ faith claim can be _clearly_ & _unequivocally_ demonstrated to be superior to any one of a whole host of _alternative_ faith claims so you really have to do a lot better than essentially package up what to all intents & purposes resembles entirely _circular reasoning_ in favor of Biblical claims rather than claims believed on faith by _Hindus_ or _Mormons_ or _Sikhs_ etc. & I don't simply mean you need to describe differences because I'm very much aware that there are many differences between all of them. What I mean is that you need to describe something that differentiates Biblical claims believed on the basis of faith from other religious claims believed on the basis of faith but in a different context. In the meantime here's what the Bible tells us itself about just how "_friendly"_ God is. _Should I believe these verses are accurate or not?_ th-cam.com/video/8VN8xXYDPnk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=MPpodIV3CNusvdvh
Stop quoting your waffle. Believe in nothing dumbass.
@@paulbrocklehurst2346 I appreciate your enthusiasm for this topic. You’ve tangled a bunch of different issues into a cognitive/linguistic knot, so let me do my best to untangle them and present them as distinct topics:
I. What/Who God is
a. What God is philosophically
b. What God is theologically
c. Who God claims to be in Christian revelation
II. Reasons for believing the proposition: “God Exists”
a. Proofs for God’s existence
b. The distinction between faith and the epistemological ascent to a proposition
III. What “the Bible” is
a. What the Scriptures say
b. Different ways of interpreting Scripture
c. Scripture as understood in different theological traditions
d. Historicity of Scripture
e. Christ’s unique claims in Scripture
f. The relation of Jewish Scriptures to Christian Scriptures
IV: How to verify truth claims
a. Different kinds of truth
b. In Science
c. In Philosophy
d. Relationally
e. Morally
V: The problem of competing religious claims
a. Inter-religious unity
b. Inter-religious difference
c. Intersection of religious and “secular” ideas
VI: God’s moral character as presented in the Christian tradition
a. The meaning of imprecatory passages in Scripture
b. The meaning of apparent moral contradiction within Scripture
VII: How God reveals Himself
a. Creation
b. Reason
c. Phenomenon
d. Other minds/bodies
e. Apophatic vs. Cataphatic ways of understanding God
I'm happy to continue a back-and-forth, but it's best to pick one topic/subtopic and consider it at a time.
Beginning with I.a - A fundamental misunderstanding you're having is referring to God as a "testable object" among other objects. That isn't what Christians or theists are talking about when they talk about God. When we talk about God, we need to define terms, otherwise we can talk past each other. In the Western philosophical tradition, God is the "Ipsum esse" - existence itself, which can undergo nothing like scientific scrutiny. Again, this is because God is not one object among other objects. He is the ground of being by which objects have their being.
If this seems like a non-starter, I'm happy to look at topic IV.
@@wierdpocket*I appreciate your enthusiasm for this topic.*
Good because again & again I hear Christians as well as Hindus & Muslims & others claim to _know_ that their favorite holy text is valid & every time I ask them how they can be at all sure about that all I hear in return are unsupportable _opinions._
*You’ve tangled a bunch of different issues into a cognitive/linguistic knot,*
No not really. All I've done is ask a pretty simple question which is can you come up with even one good reason to believe claims that the God you're convinced is real exists? That's a _fair_ question isn't it? Especially when so may people of faith claim to know things which when push comes to shove they are reticent to answer directly.
*so let me do my best to untangle them and present them as distinct topics:*
I'd much rather you simply supply just one good reason to believe claims that the God described in the Bible is at all likely to be _real._
*I. What/Who God is
a. What God is philosophically*
Sure, what is a 'God' besides the creator of everything except rather conveniently _itself?_ I'm well aware of what a god is said to do but not what a god is supposed to _be._ People usually tell me what their god _isn't_ e.g. Not visible, not detectable & not measurable etc. but that make it indistinguishable from _nothing at all_ so I do hope you can do a lot better than _that._ Can you?
*b. What God is theologically*
Well different theologies have different claims & I'm not at all interested in claims just whatever can be _demonstrated_ instead because any fool can make unsupportable _claims_ can't they?
*c. Who God claims to be in Christian revelation*
That's fine if you're able to demonstrate that any revelation has clearly & unequivocally been made. _Can you?_
*II. Reasons for believing the proposition: “God Exists”*
Hopefully you have at least one _good_ reason because anyone can come up with bad reasons can't they?
*a. Proofs for God’s existence*
If there's _any_ proof how come _faith_ is required for belief since proof would make it completely superfluous?
*b. The distinction between faith and the epistemological ascent to a proposition*
Oh boy that sounds suspiciously like an attempt to bamboozle me with fancy terminology. You won't be tempted to try that approach I hope! Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that if you can't explain yourself to a six year old child you don't understand your assertion yourself! You do well to remember that!
*III. What “the Bible” is*
It's a book of claims. To be precise it's a book of _books_ making claims.
*a. What the Scriptures say*
They say a lot of things but the pertinent question is why _believe_ it's claims?
*b. Different ways of interpreting Scripture*
There must be many ways but all I'm interested in is how anyone can know for sure that they've _correctly_ interpreted it?
*c. Scripture as understood in different theological traditions*
Again, how can anyone know that one tradition is more likely to have accurately understood it whereas another has not?
*d. Historicity of Scripture*
Yes this is _very_ important especially where _supernatural_ claims are concerned. Do you accept all supernatural claims as equally valid across cultures or do you only take _Christian_ claims seriously? If so why distinguish one supernatural claim from ones made in _other_ holy books?
*e. Christ’s unique claims in Scripture*
Does uniqueness guarantee validity? If so how can you know that to be the case?
*f. The relation of Jewish Scriptures to Christian Scriptures*
First I'd like to hear a good reason to believe that any claim can be known to be a "revelation" rather than a cherished _belief_ instead?
*IV: How to verify truth claims*
YES! This is very very important! Especially with regard to test it _independently_ the way scientific discoveries must be.
*a. Different kinds of truth*
Oh boy... are you serious? Sounds more like you're intending to discuss opinions like _"chocolate tastes nicer than vanilla"_ not verifiable facts. Am I _wrong_ about that?
*b. In Science*
If you understood the nature of science you'd understand that science isn't about 'truth' per se, it's about whether some understanding is well supported by non-partisan 3rd parties or not.
*c. In Philosophy*
Philosophy is more about _conjecture_ rather than 'truth'.
*d. Relationally*
There's no such word. Are you sure you didn't mean to type _'Rationality'?_
*e. Morally*
Absolute or circumstantial?
*V: The problem of competing religious claims*
Yes that's a very BIG problem for anything faith based rather than _evidence_ based.
*a. Inter-religious unity*
Based on what? Faith? anything at all can be believed on the basis of faith so I hope you can do better than that!
*b. Inter-religious difference*
^ Same problem!
*c. Intersection of religious and “secular” ideas*
Secular ideas are just _ideas_ so why discuss anything that's merely an _idea?_
*VI: God’s moral character as presented in the Christian tradition*
Excellent! Perhaps you'll address the Biblical description of God being _'Drunk with blood'_ which I quoted from The Good Book yes? _No?_
CONTINUED IN PART 2...
Verbal diorrhea
That was a long winded way to say he can't demonstrate why is he certain. He said his faith is evidence based, which can not be true since there is no evidemce that would confirm his religious delusions.
Have another listen or reflection on his proposition here.
@tomgreene1843 I saw a lot of his videos/debates and not once I heard a convincing and coherent arguement from him. He is argueing the usual apologist strawmans that have been debunked a hundred times.
"He said his faith is evidence based, which can not be true since there is no evidemce that would confirm his religious delusions" if you ignore all of the evidence which exists (arguments; testimony; the historical sources in the Gospel). You only dismiss that as not "evidence" because of some subjective prejudice - it remains evidence nonetheless
@crucified_to_the_world none of the things you mention is evidence. Do better.
@@AndrasSchein-Illes-rd5ux They just are though. Someone's personal testimony, arguments, and first-hand or second-hand eyewitness accounts are all types of evidence. You can dispute them, as reliable or unreliable, but that has nothing to do with whether they count as evidence or not. You might want to take another look at the definition of that word
Lennox denies the imputation of the active obedience of Christ by Faith Alone,in Christ Alone ( being justified by the supernatural undeserved gift of Regeneration). He has a flawed theology that doesn’t make sense. If you believe a person has the ability to ‘ come to Christ’ without Regeneration first,you are going against Biblical revelation.”No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
Lennox is speaking of what comes after regeneration. In folksy terms, he shares his experience of what we would call sanctification. He says it's all God's doing as God reveals Himself more and more in a way that keeps making the believer's faith stronger. Lennox knows regeneration is essential. He doesn't mention it explicitly here. I don't think it's because he is trying to hide it or deny it. His answer was appropriate given the question and the context.
It is funny how he talks like he has a direct connection with God the way he has with his wife but he does not actually say it. He creates the impression that he communicates with God himself but all he talks about is scripture. It is obvious that he never actually met God. If he did he would have said it. He would have said that God appears and talks to him. The question is why is he talking like this? Why is he creating false impressions?
If you read something written by someone, they have communicated something to you - so you have communicated with them. It is perfectly coherent, in the Christian view, to have communicated with God if you read the Bible (which is written by him - inspired through the human authors)
@@crucified_to_the_world When you read a text you don't have a direct communication with the writer. Direct communication is not one way. There has to be a back and forth. Lennox mentioned communicating with his wife as an example, implying that there is this back and forth but he did not say it directly. If Lennox communicated with God the same way he communicates with his wife he should be having direct information from God. That is what I am criticising. He is not clear. He creates impressions but stays vague in ways that suit him. This is dishonesty.