4 Steps Backward

3rd, 09

Four steps backwards

We are here today and thru this series to learn and to be able to give intellectual truth claims of and about Christ and Christianity.

science of epistemology

One of the first things we have to grapple with is our strategy of developing an intellectual defense. This will come thru the science of epistemology. And because you may not be familiar with this concept let’s take a few minutes to explain what it is and why it important to the science of apologetics.

It is a subdivision of philosophy that focus’s its attention on how do we know what we know. How can we either verify or falsify claims to truth. And in life we use this all time. You will say something and one will come back with “how do you know this to be so.” So you give a reason back and forth and so on. You want to substantiate your claim with some sort of basis of knowledge. We could split this into two groups:

1. So your first group will be those who put their accent on their senses. An example might be the person who claims there is no God because if God can’t be touched or seen and such, then it can’t be known. It must, they say, come thru the 5 senses.
2. The second group will put the accent on the mind and the process of formal reason. Like the Missourian who say prove it to me.

So when we come to the idea of truth, what are the elements that are necessary for us to know that anything is true. Now, there have been different approaches to epistemology and especially as it relates to apologetics.

1. The first are those who find the only method to be rooted and grounded in how it relates to the historical record and information that is known thru the 5 senses.
2. The next says , no-no-no, the only way to know is thru logical deduction.
3. Then there are those who think you have to presuppose or assume it from the first step or outset.

So there are in house differences that one will have to deal with in order to be able to establish a sound defense.

Okay, now Sproul is going to come at this slightly backward in two senses. So he gives an example of a class he gave at Temple University in which he lectured on Historic Atheism. An he gave an academic requirement that each student read the primary sources from the most formidable from western theoretical thought. People like John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, John Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and Albert Kaufman and others. As we examined these prodigious authors, who were atheists, and their writings we found and paid close attention to the way in which these opponents of theism established there negative case. And looking at this from the back door they noticed a pattern emerging.

The pattern was that all these men in their arguments against theism attacked one or more of 4 basic epistemological premises.

Let’s explain or at least itemize what they are: The four foundational premises that were attacked by these atheists were:

1. The law of non-contradiction: In order to destroy the case for God some philosophers argue against the very foundational laws of reason themselves. This being the preeminent one.
2. The law of causality: You know what this is basically--cause and effect.
3. Basic reliability of sense perception: How are human senses working and what happens with them. The basic trust in the basic reliability of the senses. Not the perfect reliability.
4. Analogical use of language:

So quickly there you have them. Sproul will answer them in much more depth later. But by the back door you should understand that these esteemed atheists, these opponents directly of Christianity, of the last 150 years tried to dismantle it by negotiating one or more of these 4 principles of knowledge to their favor.

Never negotiate these 4 away

So let’s be careful, you who are reading this, that you develop a careful understanding of these 4 by never, yes, never, negotiating them away. For if you do you will be giving ground that may be fatal to your case to the non-believer and for God himself. For there are Christian apologetic systems out there today that do surrender one or more of these 4. Which Sproul thinks is a serious enterprise to be involved in and a flawed error.

This is the first back door method. One of induction and the process of seeing what the atheist saw as important to their case. How do they proceed and what their assumptions are in the development of their arguments. To see if those assumptions are sound.

The 2nd is to look and see what epistemological premises are assumed and used regularly by sacred scripture. Because it is scripture that is our final authority as Christians. The bible is concerned about ultimate truth is not a technical book on epistemology. The bible does not give us a philosophical analysis on how rationality relates to sense perception or how sense perception relates to the anagogic use of language. But as we proceed and how scripture develops we will see, therein, certain assumptions, or what Sproul is going to call here, pre-suppositions. Prior assumptions that the bible makes in communicating its content to whomever hears or reads it. These assumptions or suppositions are what come from God himself. So I assume they are built into to the creature as God has made that creature. As a thinking creature, as a sensing creature as a communicating creature and so on.

In the bible there is a tacit assumption of the validity of the law of non-contradiction. For it is assumed that the truth is not contradictory.
There is a discernible difference between obedience and the opposite. If God tells us to do A then we are not to disobey by doing non-A. We are not permitted to behave in a manner that contradicts what God commands. So, in the primary sense, we are to operate within the framework of this law of non-contradiction. Without this law, not one sentence in the bible would be intelligible. (He says more later, this time is just a reconnaissance mission. Were just going over the broad landscape.)

Is the law of causality assumed in the bible?

Every time an appeal is made in the bible to the evidential value of a miracle there is the assumption of the reliability of the law of causality. An example would be when Jesus spoke to those and said, “If you won’t believe me for my words then believe me for my works.” A divine cause for the supernatural results that came. For without this law being valid then the resurrection and all other things would be invalid. This is vital to apologetics.

Can we be deceived with our senses?

Sure. Augustine used a famous example to show the limits of reliability of sense perception. Which was the “bent oar” analogy. Where in a boat you put your oar in the water and in the light of day it appears to have been bent at the water line. Well we know it is, today, because light refracts but with just your senses at your disposal you would think it was physically altered. It appears that we can be deceived by apparent reality. This just proves that there are limits to our senses being trusted. But it doesn’t mean that our senses are altogether unreliable. For physical science rests on our ability to observe, test and examine conclusions.

Lastly, Analogies or similarities about God are not to be taken seriously because it can’t describe meaningfully or adequately about a transcendent entity.


This is where much of the discussion against Christianity in 20th century philosophy. Stating that religious statements don’t tell us anything about external reality they just tell us about ourselves. They just show us in emotive statements. Our emotions and religious feelings. But they have no counter part in objective reality. Because human language is inherently incapable of rising above the realm of humanity to speak about the meaning of a uncreated being.

So if Christianity is going to survive these attacks that come as the basis of language not being able to convey truth we have to construct some basis of ANALOGY as to how God is like us. In order for there to be meaningful discourse about him. An example of this type of analogy would be in the 1st book of the bible where it is said and asserted that God created man in His image. ….. And in his likeness. There is an analogy between the Creator and the creature. This, then, makes discussion about Him possible.

Next time and in subsequent episodes we will look at each of these 4 individually and see how each is important to the science of epistemology and the defense of truth.

Law of Contradiction

4th, Defending Faith

1. Law of Non-Contradiction
2. defending faith, 11-21-08: Part 2: Contradictions; never - paradox; yes - mystery; yes - antimony; no.

Law of Non-Contradiction

R.C. Sproul has been teaching for over 40 years. He has been able to discern over time that students coming into his classes were starting to come in with changing assumptions on how knowledge works. Harold Bloom wrote a surprising, at the time, book called the “Closing of the American Mind.” Where he states, even in the first page, that 95% of students coming into college are assuming a philosophy of relativism. And those ideas they come into college with by the end of college will be set in concrete. He states that the modern American academic community has a perspective and mind that is closed to objective truth. The truth is now perceived and taught as being subjective. As a matter of preference.

Now that is quite a sad commentary but when you live for even 24 hours of time you don’t live as a relativist. Because in day to day activities you can’t survive if you employ the practices of relativism. At an intersection you see a truck coming down the street in the corner of your eye. You don’t say to yourself that it is just a relative thing that I choose to believe. It isn’t really coming down the intersection. Illusion and reality will come crashing together if relativism succeeds.

People assume, even when they deny it, a certain amount or some rational framework for the world in which they live. The assumption for that objective framework of reality is necessary for any science to take place.

Aristotle's philosphical inquiry

It was Aristotle in his philosophical inquiry, centuries ago, developed theories of physics, chemistry, drama, ethics, biology and was prodigious in the scope of his learning. But he also developed what has now been termed Aristotelian logic. Now when Aristotle developed his theories of logic he made the statement that logic is the “Organon” of all science. That is, logic itself is not a science. Rather, logic is an instrument that is a necessary tool for all science. That is, what Aristotle said it was a necessary condition for any meaningful communication. If I say for example, that this piece of chalk I hold in my hand is not a piece of chalk I can’t communicate anything intelligible to you when I make such a statement. When I do it in hushed and serious tones with much intensity can anyone figure out that it is just a series of nonsense statements (maybe an African Bishop could.) This is a purposed violation of the law of non contradiction. And we see it in a thousand fronts in our society today. Which is why we are here today, to be adept at this.

In this series I will show you time and again how the law of Law of non contradiction (hence LNC) and the principles of logic are violated in attempts to undermine Christian theism.

Example of with a Dr. of Engineering at Carnegie/Mellon. He states that there is no rational evidence for God thru science. So Sproul discusses this with him over a cup of coffee. They agree on certain established premises and then Sproul says that logic must conclude that God exists. But he refused to go there. He grant that the argument is compelling and the logic demands that I must affirm the existence of God -- but -- I don’t believe in logic. ( He would of said at the start of their talk that he does ascribe to logic for it is half of the scientific method and he can’t deny there rules.) But he retreated to the position of denying the validity of logic. When talking about a salt shaker he would become rational but when it came to God, no-go.

He makes this observation about LNC: it is easy to deny the law but all denials are forced and temporary. So, they only deny the validity of this law when it suits them. When they want to avoid a conclusion that they don’t want to have to debate and embrace. When dealing in argument and philosophical debate and theological discussion that when the opponent denies the LNC the argument is over. There is no need to go any further with your interlocutor if they say they don’t believe in rationality . They are saying that there alternative must rule of Christian theism though it is manifestly irrational. OK. That is all that this example of this discussion was able to show. That is what apologetics does. If you’re going to be rational and reasonable then you have to affirm the existence of God. And if the only way one can deny the existence of God is by denying logic then go ahead and do it.

What is most critical in our day is the triumph of irrationalism not over just the secular mindset but over the Christian community also. Where we have seen the impact of existential philosophy make inroads deeply into Christian orthodoxy. When I go to seminaries and colleges today and walk in the door I find that the student has already been convinced by the secular world that truth can be contradictory and irrational. That the bible can be incoherent and double-truthed, but, it is still the word that God put in a book. Quite astonishing.

In neo-orthodoxy there are two leading exponents who are Karl Barth and Ammel Brunner who, both, were intensively influenced by existential thought. One of them was Soren Kierkegaard who took a new position towards reason. Not to say his thinking was brand new for aspects of his philosophical underpinnings have been around in other forms.

Created by God or Man

Some early Christians wanted to eradicate the influence of Aristotle from Christian ideas. For they thought that they only needed what they thought was there’s alone. But, keep in mind, Aristotle didn’t create or originate logic. Anymore than Columbus invented America. What he did was discover what was already there. Rules that are built in to the human mind and the conditions for human beings to carry on meaningful discourse. He discovered and defined principles of reasoning that are already built in to your humanity by your creator. By the God who is not the author of confusion and who is not irrational or absurd. He speaks in a coherent and intelligible way as to be understood by God’s creature’s. A necessary condition for this is that he not speak with a forked tongue but by cogency. Hence the law of non-contradiction.

He repeats that the influence of neo-orthodoxy by the likes of Barth and Brunner has been extensive in the first part of the 20th century. Barth wrote a commentary on Romans and it was said that it was a bomb shell that fell on the playground of the theologians. He made this observation about Romans, “unless the Christian is able to uphold both poles of a contradiction then the Christian has not gone to maturity.” So, the mark of maturity is to affirm both sides of a contradiction. Also, his compatriot Ammel Bruhner made this observation, “contradiction is the hallmark of truth.”

It is a slight step to say that contradiction is permissible and allowable. We can have them and live with them and embrace them. Can we? But then we step next to not only embracing them but glorying in them because they are the very hallmark of truth.

Now let’s apply these ideas to scripture

His favorite application is to go back to Genesis 3 and to the first couple. And God sets down a series of principles. And he says all the fruits of the trees around the land you may eat but one is off limits. That one will, if eaten, is going to make you die.

Translate that to a logical proposition: If A then B.

Then, next, the Serpent comes and discourses. He says with craft some items of interest and then proceeds to the heart of the issue and says you will not die but rather will be like God himself.

Translate that to a logical proposition: If A then non-B.

Adam could have said that, in terms of Aristotelian logic, well Mr. Serpent that is a direct contradiction from what my Creator said just a little while ago. But they say to themselves, ha-ha, based on new forms of thinking , I must embrace the contradiction as the very part of all truth, and because the Serpent stated a contradiction, which we must embrace, then the serpent must be an ambassador for one of the poles of the truth. As it were, a representative for God, they say. So they go on to say, that must be the logical case. And as a mature being, able to see both sides of truth -- not only should I eat of this tree but -- I must eat.

I have tried to reduce this example to its ultimate absurdity. For if you can affirm contradictions as true, then there is no possible way to delineate between truth and falsehood, good and evil, obedience and the opposite, between the things of God and the opposite and between Christ and the anti-type. What, you can tell me, that you can embrace both these poles, as if all is truth? As if, Christ is both himself and his antithesis; at the same time and in the same relationship?

Nothing is more seductive to the truth of God then to cut away at the very fiber of truth itself.

This law, LNC, has no content to it. If you’re embracing logic you are not embracing any information or content or any premises. All logic does is measure the relationship between premises and between propositions. So, if I make two statements we can see if they are, consistent and coherent or contradictory. You apply the rules of logic to see whether my conclusions really follow from my premises.

In the classic syllogism: you have a 1st premise and then you have a 2nd. You have two propositions and how do they relate? If --- on the first premise it is true, then manifestly, if --- on the second it is true; then there is no -- if -- to the conclusion. It is a must.

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man, therefore
Socrates is a mortal.

The truth of your conclusion is made by the validity of your argument. There are rules that measure the relationship of ideas. Logic is like a policeman that God has put in the brain of human beings. To blow the whistle as to recognize the lie. The whistle blows when things don’t compute. A computer in the brain that functions to make things rational and a test of coherency.

Some definitions and asides

1. law of non contradiction: one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.
2. According to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, this is a fundamental principle of thought, which is so basic that it can be successfully argued for merely by showing that any opponents of the principle must be using it (and thus be committed to it) themselves.
3. Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." Avicenna, Medieval Philosopher.
4. Socrates states, "It's plain that the same thing won't be willing at the same time to do or suffer opposites with respect to the same part and in relation to the same thing" (436BC).

defending faith, 11-21-08
2. Contradictions never - paradox; yes - mystery; yes - antimony; no

We have been examining in our course on apologetics some ideas or concepts which are very closely related to each other and that they can be and frequently are confused with one another. We start out with three major categories of contradiction, paradox and mystery. With an extra added called antinomy. Some use this term as a synonym for paradox but in classical and historic cases antimony has been a synonym for contradiction. To muddy the waters even more and you were to go to recent English dictionaries and look up the word contradiction you will find synonyms for this word as both antinomy and paradox. Yikes. Sproul is laboring quite hard to present these words with their proper meaning and you look at these synonym relationships and how do we overcome this confusion of these terms. Where the lexicographer ‘s now are saying these words are almost synonymous. How do we explain that? Well in language as often been fluid. So when a lexicographer sets about the task of finding a words meaning he does three things. Finds the etymology of a word. Contradiction comes from Latin for the speak against. Next is usage through history. And the subtle shifts it might go through. The last is by contemporary usage. How is it used it today. If it is used incorrectly often enough it will take on the meaning of how it is used today.

So since we are talking in a theological sense we will want to use the terms in that sense. When students come to college and embrace as viable the world view of relativism they are in essence saying that they can hold both ’poles’ of a contradiction. Which Sproul says is fatal to Christianity and is slanderous to the Spirit of God. To have God be speaking in contradictions is like having God speak with a ‘forked tongue.’ Which, therefore, is untrustworthy. Because what He says means what it says and cannot mean what He doesn’t say in the same place and in the same relationship. So some will try to get around this by saying God has a greater position of logic which allows God to violate these laws of logic. In essence, saying that we as men can be demonstrated to be liars if we violate the law of contradiction but God can do both because He is some higher form of Being. And logic to Him can be both true and not true at the same time. In a higher and transcendent view of course. This view is epidemic in the Church today. So if that is taken to it’s logical conclusion it will be fatal to the Christian faith. Because that would mean, practically speaking, that you cannot trust a single word God has ever said because lurking behind what He says is some ‘higher form of logic’ that makes it possible, in the final analysis, for Him to mean the exact antithesis of what He has spoken to us in His word. And ultimately by divine logic Christ could be the antiChrist and the anti-Christ could be Christ. And we would have no way of knowing the difference.

Mystery

The scripture includes many statements about what mystery is and how we should understand this. The Trinity is defined as one in essence three in person. I don’t think there is anyone who can penetrate that concept of the trinity. Or in the same way, can anyone understand the two natures of Christ. Which is a human nature and a divine nature. Historically what the Church has done in defining the nature of Christ is to say that he is “vera homo vera devious. Truly man and truly God. Distinct but perfectly united with each other in such a way that they are not confused or mixed, separated or divided. And these are the four negatives used at the council of Chalcedon in 451AD. But all it really accomplished is that it put a fence around our understanding of the incarnation and then said ‘we don’t know how these two natures coexist in one person in the mystery of this birth and we haven’t penetrated how it works. In this council it is saying what it is not and not saying what it is. It leaves the two natures of Jesus as a mystery for future consideration. We don’t understand with our finite minds the trinity or the mind of Christ. “The finite cannot grasp the infinite.”

Will we ever have a comprehensive knowledge of God?

The mysterious nature of something does not vitiate it’s reality. If that were the case then modern science would collapse under it’s own weight. There are prizes out there for the one who can unravel completely what gravity is. There are still disputes about what the nature of motion and time. Elements that are hidden and are mysterious to our discovery. One can become an expert on a particular thing but there are still questions for discovery.

Mystery: meaning is seen as something was once hidden but has now become available and manifest

Paul is fond of using the word musterion (Gk) which is mystery in English. For him its meaning is seen as something was once hidden but has now become available and manifest. For example, in the Old Testament that when the Redeemer would come he would create a church that not only was for Jewish people but all others as well. A mystery that is now revealed in the new covenant. This does not mean that now all is revealed and there are no other mysteries now.

Rules that were already functioning about the relationships amongst propositions and statements

How does the term mystery relate to contradiction. They have something crucial in common. That is unintelligibility. A present lack of understanding. If I say to you that a piece of chalk is not a piece of chalk, that I use contradictory statements about a piece of chalk, what have you learned about this chalk? Nothing. Because my statement is gibberish. Earlier in a lesson we said that Aristotle set forth or described the rules of logic. Some think he invented logic but he no more invented logic that Columbus invented America. He set forth rules that were already functioning about the relationships amongst propositions and statements. Even though Aristotle studied several sciences he said that logic itself was not a science. He called it the ‘Organon’ or instrument and starter for all science. You have to have logic to be able to understand anything. In fact logic is a half of the scientific method. The other half is inductive where you gather data bits and through experiments. When you try to make sense of a group of data you step into the realm of deduction and the process of logical thought. So Aristotle said that laws of contradiction were a prerequisite for meaningful discourse. For intelligible communication.

You may have listened to an expert and he was speaking mysteries. I may not understand a mystery but I also don’t understand contradictions. We have a similar response because these words have this commonality but the words mean a radically different approach. Unintelligible is not the same as hidden and not known yet. We may discover the meaning of a mystery but we will never get gibberish. Mystery is a legitimate element of knowledge and of the pursuit of truth.

Even God can’t understand a contradiction. Because a contradiction by its inherent nature is not intelligible.

We can embrace and use mystery which Christianity admits to and is stated as such in the Bible but we don’t admit that there are ever contradictions.

Every Effect Must Have a Cause

5th, Defending faith

Law of Causality

We are here again today to study four principles of knowledge that are crucial for any sound defense of Christianity. Principles that are constantly under attack by those who deny the existence of God and even those who do say there is a God but want him in there own image.

We have taken on and isolated four non-negotiable principles that are:
1. necessary to all human knowledge,
2. assumed by all people
3. assumed also, in the texts of the 66 books of the bible.

The four are of the greatest necessity: 1. the Law of non-contradiction, 2. the law of causality, 3. the basic reliability of sense perception and 4. the analogical use of language.

Last time we looked at LNC and found that all denials of it are forced and temporary. We cannot, on a day to day basis, survive without it. Something that at the same time that -- is and isn’t -- is impossible in the same place and in the same relationship.

The Law of Causality (LC) was used in a formidable way throughout all of history of western theoretical thought. Which was used to argue for the existence of God by reasoning by the appearance of this world and back to the “original cause.” An adequate and sufficient cause that would explain this world and all of this universe. So thinkers throughout this long period, reasoned from a causal base, back to God as the originator of the ‘first causes.’ When you go back to Aristotle, he says that God is the ‘first cause because all things, thereafter, require a cause.’

Every effect must have a cause

Since the 18th century considerable skepticism has grown against the Law of cause and effect or LC. If you have read Bertrand Russell’s book “Why I am not a Christian” he gives his own personal testimony to his pilgrimage with respect to theism. As a boy growing up he was deeply impressed with the argument for the existence of God that was based upon the need for a “first cause.” Which is based upon the Law of Causality. And so as a young boy he embraced the idea of the existence of God. Until he read and essay by John Stuart Mill who raised this basic objection against causal thinking. Mill said it this way, “everything requires a cause, then, manifestly, God would require a cause. And so whoever caused God would require a cause.” You, in his mind, cannot reason back to God on the basis of the principle that everything must have a cause. Now, then, when Bertrand Russell read this essay at 17. He said it was an epiphany for him and he realized that the law of cause and effect would not lead you to the conclusion of a first cause but would lead you on a endless regress that would get you, in the final analysis, not to God but to nowhere. So he, therefore, denied the utility of arguing for the existence of God on this basis of this law of causality.

Let me respond to this very briefly, and simply. Mill was a brilliantly and classically trained thinker. But he made a fundamental and foundational error in his thinking with respect to causality. The error was the error of definition. He assumed that the definition of LC was that “everything must have a cause.” And if this were true -- that reasoning back to the very beginning was a cause -- Mill’s thinking would be valid. Let’s put it in simple terms. The example of “two little boys” and they were sitting around and the one boy said, “where did the trees come from?” His friend said, “God mad the trees.” Where did flowers come from? Well, God made the flowers. Okay, he says, where did you come from? God made me. Then he says, Who mad God? His partner said, God made himself. This, seems, so profound. But, no no no no no, God can’t make himself.

The point is we don’t have to have an antecedent cause for God. He is an “uncaused cause.” You don’t have to provide a cause for an eternal being. The problem here is with the definition. Rather than Mills explanation; the definition stated properly, says, “every effect must have a antecedent cause.” If Mills had been working with that definition of causality he would have never got himself into the mess he did. He would not have lead Russell into the same morass of confusion. ( An asides, Russell maintained this till the day he died. That error of thinking. Everything must have a cause then an effect, is wrong. But every effect must have a cause. If we can find something that does not have an effect, something that has the power of being - within itself - is from eternity. That kind of thing would not be an effect. When we define the character of God we say the God is a self-existent eternal being who is independent, underived, non-contingent, and un-caused. If so then, not an effect. Only things that are made are effects.

What is a formal truth?

“Every effect must have a cause“…Is a statement that we say is formally true. What is a formal truth? That which is analytically true. (Oops, he just made it more abstract.) It is that which is true by definition. If you analyze, in this sentence, the words and their relationship to each other, you will see that the whole of the statement is true and by definition, has to be true.

An example would be, a bachelor is a unmarried man. You have the subject which is bachelor. Next in the sentence you say something about the bachelor to describe him. You predicate something about the bachelor. What do you find out about the bachelor that you didn’t already know in the subject? The answer is, in an analytic statement you don’t learn anything else about the bachelor given in the predicate that was stated in the subject. A triangle has three sides. It is true by definition.

What is an effect? Something that was made, produced, happened - or - something that was caused. By definition an effect has a cause by something else.

What is a cause? What does a cause do? It makes an effect. Something cannot both be an effect and a cause at the same time in the same relationship. In this most rudimentary of understandings it is an extension of the law of non-contradiction.

This formal truth or principle doesn’t teach anything directly about reality. It doesn’t say that outside somewhere there aren’t other things that are uncaused. But hypothetically we can say that in all the things outside of us, the planes-birds-trees-cars are effects. Then we know for sure that they have causes.

If something is an effect
It must have a cause

If you can prove that something is an effect then you can establish it had some kind of antecedent cause.

Sproul wrote a book a few years back and there was a written criticism from a philosopher that came back and it detailed one substantive criticism. Sproul will not allow for an uncaused effect. So Sproul wrote him a nice letter back. He said your right I won’t allow for it. I thought this stance was a virtue and not a vice? So he asked him if he could give an example, anywhere in the universe, of where there is an uncaused effect. He didn’t write him back with the answer, as of yet.

Next time I will deal with David Hume’s classic analysis against causality.

That is just one reason for all the avalanche of doubt on these causal principles which are used to try to demolish classical theism. Next time I will deal with David Hume’s critical analysis of causality, the British empirical philosopher. His watershed critique on causality has lead many later thinkers to believe that Hume demolished the very definition of causality. Who want to avoid and deny the enormous power of causal thought that drives people to give a sufficient cause for effects that we recognize to be effects.

Every effect must have a cause = everything must have a cause?
No, they are not equal or the same.

Some of the far reaching and diverse thinking that utilizes LC

1. Aristotle and his Posterior Analytics and Metaphysics
2. Determinism and existentialism in which the universe is no more than a chain of events following on after another according to the law of cause and effect.
3. Using the scientific method, scientists set up experiments to determine causality in the physical world.
4. Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces: gravity the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism are said to be the four fundamental forces which are the causes of all other events in the universe. Causality is hard to interpret to ordinary language from many different physical theories. One problem is typified by the moon's gravity. It isn't accurate to say, "the moon exerts a gravitic pull and then the tides rise." In Newtonian mechanics gravity, rather, is a law expressing a constant observable relationship among masses, and the movement of the tides is an example of that relationship. There are no discrete events or "pulls" that can be said to precede the rising of tides. Interpreting gravity causally is even more complicated in general relativity. Another important implication of Causality in physics is its intimate connection to the Second Law of Thermodynamics Quantum mechanics is yet another branch of physics in which the nature of causality is somewhat unclear
5. Cosmological argument One of the classic arguments for the existence of God is known as the "Cosmological argument" or "First cause" argument. It works from the premise that every natural event is the effect of a cause. If this is so, then the events that caused today's events must have had causes themselves, which must have had causes, and so forth. If the chain never ends, then one must uphold the hypothesis of an "actual infinite", which is often regarded as problematic, see Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel. If the chain does end, it must end with a non-natural or supernatural cause at the start of the natural world -- e.g. a creation by God.
6. Karma is the belief held by some major religions that a person's actions cause certain effects in the current life and/or in future life, positively or negatively. For example, if a person always does good deeds then it is believed that he or she will be "rewarded" for his or her behavior with fortunate events such as avoiding fatal accident or winning the lottery. If he or she always commits antagonistic behaviors, then it is believed that he will be punished with unfortunate events. In Buddhist philosophy, especially Zen, the word karma simply means the law of cause and effect, i.e. Causality.

More on Casaulity

6th, defendingfaith

More on causality which leads into the reliability of sense perception

Welcome again to Christian apologetics. We are in the middle, now, of looking at those elements of knowledge, of the science of epistemology, that are essential to coming to a sound defense of the truth of theism.

Last time we dealt with the Law of Causality and we were careful to show that the proper definition was very important. Which is defined in this way, that for every effect there must be an antecedent cause.
Today we will look at the more critical analysis of this Law that was offered by an 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. In his inquiry into these matters of causality made some important observations.

Customary relationships or relationships of contiguity

What we observe when we see things happening around us are what he calls relationships that he calls customary. Customary relationships or relationships of contiguity. As a property line between to pieces of property are said to be contiguous along that line of the two different properties.

So when we see events take place or transpire in the external world, when one thing follows another, and we assume that the one thing causes that which follows it. Because they follow in sequence on a regular basis. So for example, on a regular basis it rains and when it rains the grass gets wet. So there is a customary relationship between raining and wet grass. It happens in such regular intervals that we come to the conclusion that the causes of the grasses becoming wet is the rain which precedes it.

Now you look at me and think to yourself, Is this guy (Sproul) really raising such an obvious conclusion. Because everybody knows that the rain is the cause of wet grass. In ordinary experience that is the way we think because that it is the way it seems to us with our naked vision. We also are accustomed to thinking in this way.

But how do we know that in between -- the falling of the rain and the dampening of the grass -- some invisible cause comes in and intercedes for the rain and is the real cause for the effect of the grass becoming wet.

Isn't this an utterly stupid assumption to make? Isn’t it obvious?

From a philosophical consideration and in light of 17th and 18th century penetrating questions that were being asked about understanding external reality and the forces that are in effect -- making happen what makes it happen. In regard to Descartes school and his theory of Interactionism or Spinoza or Leibniz in other areas of the world. For they postulated invisible causes that were not seen for that which you observe empirically. There was and is a great controversy, in philosophy, about actual causes.

Let’s try an illustration: What is it that makes us sick from time to time?

When this happens we might go in to get blood tests , throat cultures and such which are placed under microscopes. Where we find that antibodies are at work infecting our well being that are invisible to the naked eye. Without the discovery of microscopes we would of never imagined that the causes for our diseases were what they are presumed to be today. It was not that long ago that people were talking about animal spirits invading our bodies and going up and down our arms and so forth.
The microscope has opened up a whole new world to realities that are truly there and are making an impact on our lives. But is a ‘bug’ we pick up seen by us? No.
What Hume was doing, from a scientific analysis was -- there are all sorts of things going on that we don’t perceive. We don’t ever see from our senses.
So we make assumptions -- because one thing follows another -- therefore that is the cause.

Causal thinking, ladies and gentlemen, is at the heart of the scientific inquiry. It is at the heart of medicine also. We are asking a medical staff, when unknown circumstances hit, to determine and ascertain what is the cause of our illness. We want a determination of the cause so they can come up with a treatment that will cure the disease we have. If we can’t determine what is wrong and don’t have a proper diagnosis it is very difficult to find the proper remedy. This is also the case in biology and chemistry and astronomy.

The principle of Causality is presumed… constantly.

To say it another way, Casual thinking is at the heart of natural sciences. Now you can imagine the crisis that came about in the 18th century when this very learned scholar in Scotland raised questions about scientific ability to determine and isolate causes. Hume used a famous illustration that is called the “pool ball illustration.” Which if you can imagine the flat green table with pockets in the corners and sides and a queball and the object ball. You get this ball in the corner pocket by your arm swinging the stick which strikes the que which strikes the 8-ball which is deposited in the pocket that you aimed for. A sequence of causal actions was necessary for this to happen. Does anybody see the invisible force from stick to ball? Do you see a force when the one ball strikes another? No. What we see is one thing following another. This is what is called a Customary or contiguous Relationship.

What Hume is saying is you don’t see causality. You see actions in sequence. The example you may have heard, which is a fallacy, is when a rooster crows and, then, the sun comes up. The farmer, oddly, thought the sounds of the rooster was the cause of the sun rising. Is the farmer wrong?

post hoc ergo propter hoc

This is the informal fallacy in logic called ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc.’ Which translates, after this therefore because of this. Just because something happens after something else does not mean that the previous thing had anything to do with that which came after. Things seem connected but that doesn’t establish a relationship of causality!

This is a brief analysis of David Hume’s work on the problems with types of causality. Since then, you have had all sorts of people assuming (a leaping and attaching meaning in their minds from the events of Hume; in itself a possible fallacy) what Hume did with his analysis was demolish the very Law of Causality. Which, Sproul states, he did not do. He actually came to the conclusion… It is one thing to say that there are forces that I can’t see or that I don’t know are causing something. But it is another to say that ‘nothing’ caused this thing to happen.

When we apply the Law of Causality to the external world we have to face the limitations of sense perception that David Hume sets forth. We don’t have to jettison the principle of cause and effect because of perception limitations. It still is a fact that if something is an effect then, indeed, it was caused by something other than itself. That has to be true no matter how many experiments you make. This is a formal argument (from the last paper).

On to the third principle: Basic reliability of sense perception

This is the 3rd principle we will talk on, the basic reliability of sense perception. We can show that we don’t have ‘perfect’ perception of reality. This is why machines are used to heighten our senses in perceiving things. Why Sproul describes here what Hume worked out is he shows these very limits of human sense perception and the power of that ability. Hume shows those limits.

So we find we cannot penetrate to the invisible realm. Where, perhaps all sorts of unseen forces are at work. Not the least of which is the power of God. Scripture says in Him we move and breath and have our being. Take the part where “in God we move…” One of the assumptions of Christian truth is the principle that ‘nothing can move in this world apart from the power of God.’ We can say that I, as a human, have the power to drop something out of my hand down onto the floor but I am, at best, a secondary cause. I can’t even open my finger to start my action apart from the power of God. The power of God is invisible.

So this analysis of Hume is compatible to Christian theism in that there are limits to human perception thru the senses. There can be no power except for God, which is the power-supply for all motion and because he is invisible no amount of empirical research will get to the heart of the matter. That’s it , the statement is -- to get to the heart of matter -- to get to the heart of the motion of matter.

So this analysis of Hume is compatible to Christian theism in that there are limits to human perception thru the senses. But he took it to a place where he tried to reduce it to a place where all science that depends on sense perception to a place of outright skepticism. It is said of Hume that he was the graveyard of British empiricism. Hume’s description of the skepticism of perceiving forces went to the demolition of causal thinking.

For if you take away causal thinking, you take away both Christian theism but you take away science also.

These factors made Immanuel Kant spend the latter parts of his life in resurrecting the validity of causality and basic reliability of sense perception as it related to science and theism.

My senses cannot give me a comprehensive view of reality.

BUT, the only link I have, though, from the interior chamber of my mind -- my thinking part -- to the external world, the only transition I have from the mind to you (the external world) is through my senses. My body is the bridge from my body to my mind to the world.

What is Mind?

Dr. Gartner used to answer that question with his quip, “what is mind?…no matter… what is matter, then?…never mind.” This thought says there is a fundamental distinction between materiality or corporal reality and that which is nonphysical. And an idea or thought in mind maybe linked to a physical cause with it’s physical stimulation of synapses’ and the like in the physical part of the brain but it is one thing to say that the physical brain gives rise to thinking it is another to say that thinking itself is physical. We don’t want to do that.

My thinking, my conscious awareness of things is nonphysical. I cannot have any thoughts about you (in the external world) or about the world outside in my mind except through my senses. So as imperfect as my senses maybe that is the only avenue I have to physical reality outside of myself.

I can retreat into my own mind and make deductions about what may or may not be out there. But I have no real contact with the world out there except through my senses. That is why it is axiomatic that in modern science and Biblical studies is to operate with the assumption that our basic equipment, that we have, the faculties of knowing, that God has given us; such as the five we might have in their full abilities, is reliable enough for us to act upon. I might think that this or that caused a yellow light is going to turn red but I trust my senses and their reliability that I well stop for the light, even if I think that a demon turned it red.

This is the way the Bible speaks when Peter refers to the reason not to believe in craftily and cleverly devised myths and fables. But we believe what we have seen with our eyes and heard with our hears. Here is a biblical presentation of this basic reliability of our senses being able to be trusted. Even the assumption, in scripture that we can see causal relationships in this world. It is assumed throughout the entirety of scripture.

These 3 principles, we have discussed so far, are non-negotiable to Christian apologetics.

Addendum: and to use for everyday situations and thinking

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

4th Principle of Knowledge

7th, defendingfaith, 09-26-08

The fourth principle of knowledge: the analogical use of language

Welcome back to our pursuit of Apologetics. There is in this journey, a basic aspect of necessary conditions for knowledge that we haven’t covered yet. Today we will discuss the Analogical use of language. You might think this is a most esoteric term to the lay person as it relates to knowledge and apologetics in our day. So today what is this issue all about. Remember that these studies came out of our inductive study of atheism. The classic arguments that the greatest minds have waged against Judeo-Christianity. And that there are certain elements of their thinking that were consistently present in the critics, which were the denial of one or more of these four principles of knowledge.

Now we come to the last of the four, the aspect of language.

In the 20th century in the contemporary philosophy of this period we saw a shift to a concern with human language. And in the midst of this shift came a controversy that is know as the God-talk Controversy. You may not be familiar with this but what came out of this is was a movement in theology called “Theothanatology “ or the “death of God movement.” All sorts of philosophers and theologians were announcing this death declaration. What was behind this concept was a crisis in the philosophy of language. It had it’s roots, first of all, with a group in Great Britain which was called Logical Positivism. In this movement one of the central theses was the central principle of the law of verification. Well, we all know how to verify something. But this word comes from the word “truth” and it means to authenticate and show that something is true. If I make a claim and I don’t back it up my claim is not verifiable. If I can prove the claim then I have verified it.

This principle stated that only those statements are deemed to be true and can be verified must be done so -- empirically. Or, only statements that can be verified are empirically true statements. Now to show that something is true on can use sense perception to show it is true. So for example, if I say there is gold in Alaska the only way I can prove that this is true is to go to Alaska and find some gold. Then I can demonstrate that it is empirically true. The five senses determine that it so.

This had a tremendous influence on these communities of thinkers. Until somebody said, with what should have been obvious from the out set, that the law of verification, itself, can not be verified empirically. It is simply a gratuitous premise. And with that this school of thought somewhat retreated. But not completely, for in spite of that stumbling block, the guns of ‘verification’ and their criticisms were to take aim on historic theism. With their emphasis to the respect, in their minds, to language about God.

analogy of gold in Alaska

Critics were saying that statements about God cannot be proven in anyway scientifically. Because no one can see or touch God. You can’t subject God to a test either in the laboratory or other analysis. The idea of God remains unprovable, unverifiable, but also un falsifiable. (As an aside; a lot of Christians use this technique also to not have to reckon with logical thinking) Many Christians take comfort in the idea that things that they say they believe cannot be proven false. But something that cannot be proven false does not mean that it is true. For example, if I tell you I believe in ghosts and someone asks me if you have seen some and I say of course. Do we have any scientific evidence for ghosts? You might say no but there is a reason for that, ghosts don’t like scientists. Any time that scientists come around with measuring devices to detect the premise of ghosts the ghosts leave because it is apart of their ghostly nature to flee from scientists. Therefore scientists have never been able to verify them. That somebody deposit’s a believe like this can neither prove or disprove the truth of his premise. But neither can anybody prove him wrong. The impossibility of falsifying his statement is built into the premise. That is what you would call cheating in the theoretical realm of thought. In this vocation it is harder to falsify a statement than to verify one. Let’s revisit our analogy of gold in Alaska. We have stated how we can prove there is gold there. But what if he says there is no gold up there. How would you falsify that claim? Go up there and look around a while? Does that prove that the statement is false? But what does it take to prove the false case; that you must search all of the territory and at every depth. And if you excavated the whole area and said there was no gold, therefore, we (the scientists) falsified the statement that there is gold in Alaska. But they will say you missed a grain in Denali. Go search again you haven’t proven you case. Anyway, it is much harder to falsify than to verify.

However with logic it is an other matter

So this is what they say; since there is no physical prove for God’s existence and following basic rules of verification statements about God are at best emotive. That is, language about God is emotive. When I say I believe in God I am not saying anything meaningful about what exists outside of me all I’m doing is telling you something about me. That I believe and have emotion or passion bound up with the idea that God exists.

There was a discussion Sproul had with a student some years ago who asked him if he believed in God. Sproul said yes and the student went on to say do you pray and sing and read about God? The answer was yes. And all these things are meaningful? Yes Sproul said. The student’s conclusion was that for Sproul, God exists. But I don’t believe in God. And find nothing meaningful about the existence of a God. So for me God does not exist. Sproul says then, this is relativism with a vengeance. He says, to the student we are not talking about the same thing. When I assert the existence of God I am asserting the existence of a being that is apart from me. Outside of me and not apart of my subjectivity and emotional makeup. All my singing and praying and attending does not have the ‘power’ to create him. If it did, I’m simply diluted and wrong. But if the God I’m talking about does exist all of your unbelief and disinterest in him does not have the ‘power’ to annihilate him.

an extremely skeptical approach to the idea of God

Let’s keep this in view. When we talk about God we are talking about the objective existence of God and not my subjective feeling about him. This movement reduced ‘talk of God’ to human emotions. Therefore they claim, statements about God say nothing meaningful about objective reality outside of the people who are making the claims. Now that is an extremely skeptical approach to the idea of God. You have to ask what is behind that. Well, one of the main things behind it was the struggle in the 19th and 20th century to redefine what religion was. With movements having a massive impact in trying to change historic Christianity. In naturalistic terms. Remember, the single most important affirmation of the Enlightenment of the 18th century was, the very key to the Enlightenment, that the God-hypothesis (the idea of God) is no longer necessary to explain the presence and the origin of the universe or the origin of human life. Before the Enlightenment most secular people were very impressed with the classical arguments for the existence of God and as a necessary postulate to explain the universe and human life. The Enlightenment produced a believable alternative for creation and made an impact on western culture and thinking to this day. Not everyone certainly agreed with all these new principles but the emphasis was that they no longer needed to affirm the existence of God. The second key was, science makes known that life and the universe came and come about through a process called ‘spontaneous generation.’ That became the scientifically acceptable alternative to creation. The claim that things just pop into existence on their own. (later in this course we will take a close look at this concept.) But, here, I’m trying to explain how and where this crisis of language came from. The 18th century, following on the heels of this original criticism, sought to accommodate this criticism by reconstructing Christianity in naturalistic terms. Then 19th century liberalism rejected anything supernatural in historic Christianity. They used revision tactics to state that the old testament was written not before an event but after and as an after action report. No real supernatural events just editorial comment. All aspects of intervention were rejected as mythological accretions into the historic documents. The emphasis, then, as it matriculated into society, became for Christianity just the platitudes of love of others and a sociological agenda of humanitarianism. All this taking place on the natural sphere with no need to have a vertical need for believe in a creator. This was the concept of a naturalized religion. This was then married to the philosophy of the 19th century to the rising establishment of evolution or what is called immenetistic. The theology, then, that came to prevail was pantheistic. God is not something that is beyond and distinct from the universe but, if God exists, he exists as a part of this universe. We understand pantheism in it’s simplest form to mean: everything is God, God is all and all is God.

If everything is God and all is God, then, the word God does not refer to anything in particular

Now think of that statement linguistically. If everything is God and all is God, then, the word God does not refer to anything particular. If it refers to everything in general it refers to nothing in particular. The word has no particular significance. This concept of immanence brought a crisis of language. Whether you could speak meaningfully about God at all. This provoked a crisis in theology and philosophy in the 20th century against liberalism and there was an attempt to reconstruct the ascendance of God. A sense in which God is above and beyond the universe and the stream of history. This renewed emphasis of trying to redeem Christianity from liberalism and restore the supernatural. Now when one attempts to correct the errors of your predecessor you can make the pendulum swing too far in the other direction and to an over correction. This is what happened when they came up with the notion of ‘Wholly Other.’ God is so different from the universe we must flee from identifying God at all with the universe, as pantheism does. He exists totally away from nature. God is completely different from the human.

Now as well meaning as this may seem, it paved the way for an even worse crisis of how one uses language about God. So in our next session we will see how this came to pass.

Analogical Language

8th, Defendingfaith

Analogical Language

Our study of analogical language is a chance to break a mental sweat for God's glory and our sanctification. Words to keep in mind:

Analogia Entis, the example of Chairs, Wholly other, univocal, equivocal, analogical

Today we are going to continue our discussion in the crisis of language and how certain people refer to “God talk.” Last time we talked over the problem of pantheism posed about meaningful talk or discourse about God and we talked about the reaction in the 20th century as they tried to reconstruct the “supernatural.” We ended with the introduction of this concept that God was, “Wholly Other.” This was popularized by the theologian Karl Barth which gave a massive critic against “natural theology” which is an attempt to learn something about God from deductions drawn from nature. Barth was opposed to the intrusion into theology of categories of reason. He is one who as we mentioned before with respect to the Law of non-contradiction, said “until a Christian is able to affirm both poles of a contradiction that person has not reached maturity. “ Sproul would revise this to say that, when a person is able affirm both poles of a contradiction that person has reached insanity. Beside Barth’s antipathy against reason and natural theology he also leveled a radical assault on a concept that was deeply rooted in Christian history. Particularly as it was articulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Which concept is called the “analogia entis.” It is a technical term but is critical to this whole discussion. What it means is from Latin to English is ‘analogy of being.’ Barth attacked that by saying their was no such thing as an analogy between God and man because God is ‘Wholly other.’ He completely transcends us. He is totally different from us.

Story about Wholly Other

Let’s illustrate this and what this problem poses to Christianity. Sproul’s favorite story on this happened to him a few years ago when, in Canada, and speaking to a conference there of people who were theologians and opposed to natural theology and rationality. They saw in Sproul’s thinking and theology a heavy influence on Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle and general logic and the like. So the group asked a question stating their problem with Sproul’s view. They believed the God was ‘Wholly other.’ (WO) So, Sproul said, if God is WO then how do you know anything at all about him? And this person responded just as Karl Barth had responded that we know God not thru rational speculation or deduction but we know him through revelation. This transcendent God reveal Himself to us. Yes, Sproul said, but how does He do this revealing? And this person said, through history, the Bible and through Christ. Well, Sproul said, I must not be getting my idea across here. 1. You say there is no analogy between this Being and me, so how can he communicate anything to me or reveal to you and me what he is like? For He is totally ‘other’ than us and therefore has no means of contact between us. Because we are utterly dissimilar beings and what possible ground for communication could there be? Finally the light came on for this person. He literally hit his hand on his forehead and said, “hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t have said that He is “totally other.” Yes, that is good for once you say that He can’t communicate then the skeptic can come in and say that your language about God is meaningless and you don‘t know what you are talking about. Because if there is no similarity between you and God then there is no common ground and no possible forum and avenue for communication.

So, from this example we can say, let’s get rid of ‘Wholly other.’

In the movie ‘Cool hand Luke’ we see Newman as the ‘Christ figure’ and at points in the movie we have this expression, “what we have, here, is a failure to communicate.” Which was one of the key lines in the movie.

Some form of common ground

Well, there has to be in communication some form of common ground for people to have discussion. If you go to Russia and you try to communicate over there and you don’t know this language you are going to have a real hard time getting your thoughts and questions out for they won’t get what you are saying. We have to speak the same language. Churchill was to have said, that “the Americans and the British were two people separated by a common language.” Yes, we like the humor but the simple fact is we have to understand what the other is saying.

You have seen maybe millions of chairs in your life. You have come to know what a C-h-a-i-r represents. Plato called it ‘chairness’ that particular experience of all the chairs that you have come in contact with. So all these chairs that you have come in contact with brings you to understand what a chair is. But no two people have had the exact same experience with regard to particular chairs. A different background from one person to another. So when Sproul says chair, each of us is going to have a different picture or understanding of what that “chair” is. This comes from each one’s personal experience. To the extent that we have different thoughts about chairs then we will have some form of miscommunication. Or differing assumptions. But overwhelmingly we have a greater degree of similarity to what chairs are than to our differences. Even though our ideas are not 100% similar. They carefully approximate each other to an extent that it isn’t significant. Or irrelevant to our ability to dialogue and have meaningful conversation.

What does this have to do with God and apologetics?

What of words and language that we might not be familiar with. Such as transcendence or imminence or immanence? If we don’t know these we can’t talk about them. So these are the type of ways that language can break down because of a lack of common understandings. So if God is ‘Wholly other’ then their in NO common ground for understanding.

When we talk of omnipotence we might not be able to get our thinking around all power but we have a limited ability of power so we have some way of imagining what it might be like. When God says that he is all-powerful we can have some idea of this. This wrestling with language is not new to the 20th century.

3 kinds of descriptive language

Univocal is language that describes things between two parties in an exact, one to one, identification. If your understanding of chair is exactly mine to, then we are in univocal communication.

Equivocal is the idea that a term or word changes in the course of the conversation. In logic there is a fallacy of equivocation. You can demonstrate this with a syllogism. Or you can demonstrate it with the changing of the meaning of ‘no cat’ at the start and making it mean a different idea later. The example of ‘bald’ means no hair on the head. But you stretch it out from its original to mean no pizzazz or boring.

Analogical means that a word changes in proportion to beings that are being described. An example would the statement; Do you have a ‘good’ dog? Or Fred is a ‘good’ guy. Each reference to good means a different thing in each context. So when we say the ‘goodness of God.’ We mean that it is like ours but not exactly the same as ours. And we fill in the ideas where they are different. When we say this we are not using ‘good’ in a univocal sense but an analogical sense. And this is made meaningful because God makes us in His image. He gives to us the very grounds and possibility of having meaningful communication between us, as far as this meaning can go.

Words and their meaning:

Imminence; The quality or condition of being about to occur
Immanence; taking place or remaining within, of the Deity - indwelling the universe and time
Transcendent; going beyond ordinary limits, exceeding, supreme, of the Deity - beyond the universe and time

Some extra reading if you want to seek what language is to mean

1. Was Jesus worshiped? http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5379
2. Proof-texting perils and determining if a statement is univocal or equivocal. http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/11-12_SG_2007.pdf?docID=2381
3. Probably more than you want but you might want to skim over this. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analogy-medieval/
4.

Hearing

I would like you to think through this with me. Because, as we know all to well, ideas have consequences.

It has, as the years have gone on, never ceased to amaze me how powerful the role of a teacher is. Especially for the one's who teach who God supposedly is. For with that role comes the demand to teach what is true and to avoid tales and canards of who He is not. If one has an opinion one can describe it to others but it shouldn't be taught as if it is beyond disrepute. The stakes for the teacher as well as the students are enormous. For ideas about God and His nature which happen to be false will likely be taken by the uninformed and absorbed and ultimately believed as true. And that can't be a good outcome. Bad informational teaching maybe worse than no information at all. Though not by much.

Some prerequisites that we should agree on before I make my points:

1. Each one's theory must fit reality. I mean that universal reality that God holds together by His own decree. We must forbid ourselves from the formula that reality will be rearranged so as to fit ones own working theory. The challenge is for objective and not subjective truth. Where too many sadly take refuge. Are many creating and insulating themselves in their own bubble of reality? Probably more than we would like to know of. So for us, finding Truth is to be about more than each others pet agendas.

2. Communication techniques; such as 'figure of speech', metaphoric intention, prophetic hyperbole, fantasy simile and allegorical stories are about describing what something is 'about.' Using the faculty of language to point to what it is we are defining and making clear some cherished concept. But these guides of language are not the actual thing they are trying to describe but only a literary device and aid to provide the very meaning of the matter.

3. A position one has maybe right or wrong but its veracity has nothing to do with the sincerity or goodness of the person making the claim.

4. Law of non-contradiction is in use all the time:

5. Law of causality: the irreducible definition being; for every effect there must be an antecedent cause. Whether we can perceive by our senses or not. You don’t see causality necessarily, you see actions in sequence. The example you may have heard, which is a fallacy, is when a rooster crows and, then presto, the sun comes up. The farmer, oddly, thought the sounds of the rooster was the cause of the sun rising. Is the farmer wrong? This is the informal fallacy in logic called ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc.’ Which translates, after this therefore because of this. Just because something happens after something else does - does not mean that the previous thing had anything to do with that which came after. Things seem connected but that doesn’t establish a relationship of causality! (This has helped me meaningfully to not be tethered to my pet ideas but if I find that I am loopy and falling into this subtle trap of illogic, I let them go)

6. This is not about ones character for I assume the best of character and intention at Mosaic or The Church at the Beach or The Bed and at large among the many brethren, from the outset.

Wisdom dictates that I should take nothing for granted. We should allow each to fight for the right to bring our case to the other.

So here it goes:

Here are some of my own phrases for what Erwin McManus was trying to communicate Saturday night, in the month of March, from the notes I took directly afterwards of his lesson on his proove for one's ability to hear God: 'intimate relationship of talking to each other… you come to know God by experience….you must have divine words that come to you or also stated as 'assignments' by hearing them.' 'Divine assignments are what one 'hears' from God when one is doing everything right and in His will.' ' The 'hearing' comes in small steps. His will is about waiting and being given instructions.' ' It comes from a selection of places. You cannot discover them they are revealed.' ' You sense god's leading, or you felt the lead of God from your secret place. A failure to receive messages is a failure in one's love relationship with God.' "Once you have an intimate love relationship with God, He will show or tell you what He is doing." "If the Christian does not know when God is speaking, he is in trouble at the heart of his Christian life." I think I can safely say that this was the wording or the intent; including some of his quotes as to what Erwin was trying to get across.

Now, the proof-text that Erwin used as his summum bonum, was that men and women of faith will "hear" God, and was highlighted from the passages contained in John 10. He made this as his only reference to make his case for "the sense and need to hear" and how one should use these 'words we hear' and to its application to one’s life. Though he said there were other references. But he made it clear that no others were necessary. This was his paramount text.

He says to obey your sense of what your private message and assignments are. He exhorts us to be faithful to the storyline one 'hears'; to surrender to it, have faith in this process and follow Christ in this message of 'private hearing' even when we don't understand all the normal rationales of this assignment. Erwin goes on to say, that regardless of the chaos, the price, the difficulty, and the hardship it brings, we must follow our private inner talking points from God. Our very own personal 'hearing' and private revelation from God. This hearing mode, he claims, is the capacity to listen to the correct voice from a selection of competing voices that may drown the real one out. He went on a while in how you might go about deciding which one is the right voice to hear. Some knack or developing sifter will be required from each one of us to do this he said.

Here is my response:

My question in lieu of this is simple. According to the very big Bible we read, the measuring rod and canon of divine authority, does experiencing God's voice in our lives depend on this sole characteristic of receiving personalized assignments from Him? Does intimacy with God depend on our ability to "sense by our ear" His "leading"? Is this taught commonly in Scripture? Is hearing and being able to say that I heard from God, modeled by the apostles or the early church in general or the men and women captured therein in the first 50 or 159 years after the close of the New Testament? Is there any reference to the process in all these writings? If so, it should be well established in the 4 gospel's, Acts which spans over 30 years of time and the doctrine proscribed in the epistles by the apostles.

There is only one way to answer these questions. The way the scores of regional Councils did in the formation of scripture and afterwards also. Head to head and within the Church of Christ where reason and evidence were highly regarded. Where they described, explained and refuted strongly blatant heresy. Doctrine, truth and deeds were serious business back then. They all argued and said all Scripture will be your source of authority for faith and practice. You cannot depend on pet human traditions, your esoteric experience, mysterious utterances or the supposed experience of others to be accurate authorities on God's will and ways. Is their method something we can agree to?

Is Jesus the model for us to mimic and be like? That is where many will go to draw their ideas of how to conduct themselves in this issue I bring up. Is this what John wanted to convey in his book? I think, to a great extent, the apostle would say no. Because the whole context of John’s chapters 1, 5, 4, 8 and 10 and more, are statements that have to do with the divinity of Christ. His very Deity publicly being revealed. He is solely unique as the incarnate Son of God and therefore had unique obligations, unique abilities, and a unique relationship with the Father. For they are One which is the motif John brings out. John 5:17-23 and John 8: 26-28 bear out some of this.

John 10 is frequently, even today in our time without so much as blinking, is misapplied as the legitimate source for a real ability of 'hearing' the shepherd. It is important to know precisely what Jesus has in mind when He uses these terms. John records four mentions by Jesus of His sheep hearing or knowing His voice (10:3, 4, 16, 27). Verse six is key to understanding this passage. Here John explicitly states that Jesus’ remarks about hearing His voice are a figure of speech. And, elsewhere, the sheep know each other (14). When His other sheep hear His voice, they also become part of His flock (16). The Jews fail to completely understand (v. 19-21). What is the problem? Jesus’ answer is crystal clear: "You do not have faith and it's subsequent believe because you are not of My sheep."

In context, Jesus’ meaning is unmistakable. He says, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me and I give eternal life to them" (v. 27-28). Note the sequence: They hear His voice. They follow Him. Then He gives them eternal life. Hearing Jesus’ voice results in salvation, it is not the result of salvation. We can't assume that the drawing of the Holy Spirit which leads to saving faith is the same precise idea of hearing about what you are assigned to do today, and in the evening and on some special topic you are thinking on.

What "voice" is it that draws us to Jesus and results in our salvation? Most likely, and I’m communicating here by my insight, it is the ineffable drawing by the Father through His Spirit of those who are His, a concept John has already introduced and developed in earlier chapters of his Gospel (5:25, 5:31-34, 5:37-38, 6:35-40, 6:44-45, 6:65, 8:18, 8:47). It is a figure of speech, a manner of analogy for clarity, for the inner working of the Holy Spirit that leads to our salvation and becoming alive in Him and sealed spiritually. The Jews, here, know what He’s saying. They hear His instructions just fine. Their problem is responding. The voice being referred to here is not the whispers of private direction given by God to your heart, but the effective call of the Holy Spirit bringing us to Christ. Jesus tells us plainly, they do not "hear" because God is not "speaking" to them. They are not among the sheep the Father has given to the Son. That is Jesus' unambiguous teaching. The task of hearing God is to bow the knee not hear the deepest mysteries.

Erwin claims, "Knowing God's voice comes from an intimate love relationship with God", and again, "As you walk in an intimate love relationship with God, you will come to recognize His voice. You will know when God is speaking to you." But Jesus never suggests such a thing. Jesus says the Father is the cause and is Sovereign enabling those sheep He has given to Jesus to hear and respond. This "hearing" representing what John is trying to convey is not for believers after salvation for growing in grace, but for non-believers prior to salvation. It is not dependent on the quality of our love relationship with God, as many claims are made today but here in this particular message it is the Father’s choice of drawing. We don’t have to be quiet for the Father to work this to completion.

There is another damaging consequence of misreading this text. According to Jesus' comments, hearing His voice is essential to salvation. Those who do not hear are not His. Rather they are outsiders, bereft of eternal life, lost. I am not the type to like this kind of outcome to the story. But there it makes its presence clear anyway.

Trouble

There is an unavoidable consequence of blending the wording of John 10 with Erwin's and others in the definition of hearing Jesus' "voice" and all that is ‘read’ into this assumption. For I say that it says, "Those who do not have this relationship sequence (do not belong to God) and do not hear what God is saying to them (John 8:47)". In the verse it quotes that, Jesus is castigating the Jews for unbelief, calling them the sons of Satan (8:44). Yet on the Saturday I heard there was placed a tremendous burden on the listening believer sitting there, the young and tender one at that, who must, Erwin said, question his spirituality and even his salvation if divine messages are not forthcoming. He used the word 'trouble'; that whoever you are, you are in deep doo-doo if you are not 'hearing' these messages. Erwin made another condition to his claims, making the case that the Spirit will have a hard time speaking loud enough if we are not quiet and still. It is on us to tune in and not on God for the transmitting quality. As if He has problems getting our attention. People pontificate and spin the yarn that He, you know that Creator guy, he wants to, it is His intention is reach us, but if we are busy He can‘t get through. So from that notion there is a flaw in God for He is not capable to proceed with his created beings who are inattentive [I can hear the notion coming, ‘oh, it is about free will’ but that is a red herring and rabbit trail because you must say then that God cannot do what he chooses and cannot override that which He creates]. So a modern teacher of this particular view will use counter punches to muddy the already muddy waters, saying, we human beings have to strain to hear Him, night and day, be mystically silent in heart and do what is necessary to 'hear.' But if you can’t hear then it is your own fault. For God is speaking, but the teaching goes, He is speaking quite softly or at the wrong pitch. Fix it is Erwin's defense and go find the right pitch.

This is not Jesus' meaning in anyway shape or construct. This understanding of 'hearing the voice' of God is completely foreign to the text of John 8 and 10. To Jesus, hearing God is not a skill to be developed. It is not an advanced discipline opening the lines to personalized assignments from the Father. It is not a fruit of a deepening love relationship with God. It is a figure of speech to refer to some other truth. John says this explicitly. He refers to a communication device to stand in as a parabolic metaphor for the real intention of what he is trying to convey. And as I said earlier about devices in literature: of prophetic hyperbole, fantasy simile, etc. they are about describing what something is 'about'. Using the faculty of language to point to what it is we are defining by the analogy of something one more easily can understand. But these guides are not the something they are trying to describe but only a literary device and aid to the true meaning.

Hearing Jesus' voice, here in John 10, is not about getting an inner message about His will; it's getting 'the Kingdom of Heaven', saved and unlost. It's the result of the Father drawing the bearer of his own sin, a non-believer as to God‘s intentions, into Jesus' arms (onnother of the many figures of speech I used writing this).

If you have another story line in the New Testament that supports your view of 'concisely hearing as equal to the canonical messages' then bring it forward. I'm all ears. But John 10 is absolutely not the passage to bring. It can't be. Even John says it is not about the real hearing of God for your own personal needs but it is figurative and about something else Jesus is referring to.

The worst statement I heard, maybe, was that he used the counter measures of ad hominum to his audience in trying to nullify the biblical record as the measuring stick for what is right and how to solve for the answer. He said that if you use the Word (the Bible) to critique his notion of "hearing" you are in a great deal of slippery trouble. Trying to establish a hedge around himself and projecting a palpable fear or 'trouble' for those who doubt him. As if he was saying he can't be in error but those who find his thinking substandard are automatically in danger of losing out and stinking in their own thinking. In this day and age one can hear a recording of his speech on this night on a podcast.

Is there more to say and convey in Acts about ‘hearing‘? Is that where we can find a plentiful supply for this endeavor of whispered ideas from the Spirit? Does Paul and Peter and John's epistles bring this idea to bear of personal messaging? What of the Old Testament? The Old testament has a couple of dozen in the course of a 1,000 plus years that God did have direct conversations with. But there was no requirement that they be quiet and still, it wasn't necessary that they be self disciplined in some way, it wasn't taught that you have a prerequisite test that you love people in some magnanimous way. One example is Moses which after he stopped a guard from abusing a slave and ultimately killing the gurard, he fled. Not including his before life of priveledge, Moses heard nothing for 40 years. He was intimately involved in his family and tribe, the floral and fuana and every water source. When he was walking he saw a bush which he probably had passed before burning. Moses had nothing to do with the hearing. But even when Moses went through this experience he didn't, and we shouldn't, conclude that if these things happened to someone you knew - then - everyone else around should think that they should have that same access. So I conclude that John’s gospel doesn't provide any evidence for this as well as Mathew and Luke. You can look to see if Mark does. Therefore 3 of the gospels are silent on this.

What effective arguments can be marshaled against these I offer? If I have given a solid case for where not to find a green light for believing what is not explicitly stated does not force me to stand against God reaching toward us, because I stand for God making known who He is, communicating what should be known, upholding our spirits, strengthening our resolve, letting us taste that He is good, providing insight, bearing in us wisdom, imbibing truth and knowing and worshiping His presence, being individually alert to what others need from us, being with us in sorrow and in pleasure, etc. and etc.

Extra sources:

1. Here is an excellent compilation of decision making and divine direction in the book of Acts
2. What the meaning of hearing means, Greg Koukl


Thanks for your time to read my position. The hosts of Heaven garner in me from time to time, to keep your passion, increase your curiosity, renew your mind, take all steps possible to hear total truth, make it a very part of your bones. I am prodded, almost wrestled, to ask the difficult questions -- the answers, if and when they come, will speak to the true nature of our new nature. I hope we possess these faculties of discernment in the most difficult of times.

To close, I believe in your sense of the Spirit and what it is bearing on you. I take you at face value that when you are pulled strongly or subtly in what you think is being heralded spiritually, I will take it fairly and with much esteem. So don’t take this defense as against all the battles and the various victories of what we have come to know of the God who made all and who knows all.

I thought I would sign off with a nod to 2 of my favorite tales, To Kill a Mockingbird; of Atticus Finch, his kids, 'Boo' their neighbor, Tom Robinson, his family and their allegorical story and the metaphors it describes for universal morals in life..…and also to Les Miserables and the historical fiction Hugo pens about the early 1800’s with Jean, Cosette, Fantine, Javert and to Bishop Myriel. In these 2 we hear either acute ecclesiastical wisdom or - the other perspective - of just plain undirected random chance in life for all who travel this human highway,

I speak as a friend and with the deepest regard,

Bruce