Throughout Church history, theological controversy has been one of the enduring features. Name any communion or denomination and you will find one which has struggled with this matter. St. Maximus the Confessor was imprisoned, exiled, and lost his tongue and compared to many he got off easy. For that matter, I’d be willing to guess that among those reading this very essay, if they are Christian, have themselves had discussions, often perhaps heated, of this sort. As the title indicates, I’m leading towards a question but to start I’m going to preface that with a few remarks.
Two fragments from Scripture are perhaps relevant. (1 Corinthians 13:12) “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” For the second passage, Romans 2 offers that Jesus not men will be the final judge.
We may argue about our view of the theology, Christology, soteriology, or whatever topic, but we all must admit we only see dimly the truths to which we attest. Who is right in these argument? From the second it might be said that these arguments will only be settled at the eschaton.
My question is to what end are these arguments? What is the core reason underlying our disputes? What is at stake? I’d be very curious to hear a variety of responses to this.
For myself, my answer might be as follows. Trinitarian theology and Christology, the parables and teachings of Jesus, Paul, James and so on are beautiful. They possess symmetry and a poetry have no little impact. Teachings that obscure this beauty … that is what is problematic. Why? Because it hinders others from seeing it. The core problem is not that you will be judged adversely if you’re a Calvinist and if at the eschaton Calvin’s teaching was fraught with error (and no, please don’t take this as a generic attack on Calvinism, the “if” is important there). The problem might be with Calvinism is whether his teachings obscures or conceals some important part of the Gospel. The core problems is whether that which I teach or what you teach hinders our neighbor from seeing and finding that pearl of great price.
July 8th, 2010 | 3:48 am | #1
Perhaps the “end are these arguments? What is the core reason underlying our disputes? What is at stake?” is to find out–as best we can–who’s closest to the truth:
18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.
I Cor 11:18,19 NKJV
Not that often we get anywhere with theological disagreements–but sometimes we do. It seems that clearly these verses are giving some hints of higher meaning to disagreements, or factions–they aren’t always pointless digressions from a greater truth. Sometimes one group really is more correct than another–or approved, and another is…not.
July 8th, 2010 | 6:27 am | #2
I have some hard questions. Please accept them as a positive expression of concern with your statement:
… but we all must admit we only see dimly the truths to which we attest.
I must differ with your premise. If we begin here then all of Christianity is at risk.
For myself, my answer might be as follows. Trinitarian theology and Christology, the parables and teachings of Jesus, Paul, James and so on are beautiful. They possess symmetry and a poetry have no little impact. Teachings that obscure this beauty … that is what is problematic.
Symmetry and elegance do not truth make. And how in the world does Calvinism prohibit you from seeing the beauty of the Trinity, anyway?
The core problems is whether that which I teach or what you teach hinders our neighbor from seeing and finding that pearl of great price.
No. The core problem is not our ineffectiveness. It is our fallenness.
I may have more thoughts tonight. A thought-provoking post. Thanks.
July 8th, 2010 | 8:11 am | #3
… but we all must admit we only see dimly the truths to which we attest.
I must differ with your premise. If we begin here then all of Christianity is at risk.
Hi Collin,
What’s your take on 1 Corinthians 13:8-13? Seems to me that Paul is quite clear, and Mark’s statement is a fair summary: We understand imperfectly and incompletely the truths to which we attest, and thus, love is of paramount importance in our disagreements.
July 8th, 2010 | 9:10 am | #4
Mark, I respectfully think you need to carefully consider that the fact that we see “through a glass darkly” means necessarily that our perception of beauty has itself been compromised by the fall. Hence, I think (with Collin) that to place so much weight upon the perceived beauty of the content of Scripture is to put oneself in a very precarious position indeed.
Further, it bears saying (with C.S. Lewis) that what we perceive to be beautiful in Holy Scripture–specifically the symmetry and poetry that you mention–is NOT something conveyed by the original language. In his introduction for the JB Phillips translation of the epistles, Lewis writes,
“The New Testament in the original Greek is not a work of literary art: it is not written in a solemn, ecclesiastical language, it is written in the sort of Greek which was spoken over the Eastern Mediterranean after Greek had become an international language and therefore lost its real beauty and subtlety. In it we see Greek used by people who have no real feeling for Greek words because Greek words are not the words they spoke when they were children. It is sort of ‘basic’ Greek; a language without roots in the soil, a utilitarian, commercial and administrative language.”
I wonder, Mark–ought we to make your concern to safeguard a perceived beauty that may or may not be part of the original text itself a foundational point for theological discussion, or ought we to be more concerned with what the text itself actually says?
Also: you can find the entirety of Lewis’ essay here: http://www.modernpulpit.com/2008/09/29/embracing-the-esv-translation/
July 8th, 2010 | 9:37 am | #5
Fundamentally, tithing on the mint, dill, and cumin is easy. Dealing with the weightier matters of the Law is hard. Getting embroiled in theological controversies is easy. Actual discipleship is hard.
That’s not to say that theological matters are unimportant, just that I suspect that for the most part people do not attend to them because they are important, but rather because it is easier (for instance) to bash open theology than it is to work out one’s salvation.
July 8th, 2010 | 9:49 am | #6
Adam, how well is a person being discipled if s/he doesn’t have a high regard for theology? If theology is paid short shrift, how capable can a person even BE of working out his/her salvation?
July 8th, 2010 | 10:05 am | #7
csheidler –
It seems to me our theology can get in the way of our following Jesus – as in we get so involved in chasing down every stray bit of esoteric knowledge (and demanding all others agree or be dammed) we don’t spend the time living the clear and direct teaching of the bible – straining at gnats so to speak.
Not that theology is wrong (I enjoy it’s study and am perfectly happy to argue about 4th century heresies), just that it can get in our way of living well and following God’s will for our lives.
July 8th, 2010 | 10:18 am | #8
David,
Thanks for proving my point. It’s precisely theology, isn’t it, that enables us to discern the difference between “esoteric knowledge” and “the clear and direct teaching of the Bible,” isn’t it?
And if God’s will is that we should know Him and love Him and worship Him in TRUTH, doesn’t that mean theology is of paramount importance, rather than a gnat we shouldn’t be worried to strain out? Living well in Scripture is always living in faithful communion with the God Who has made Himself known in Scripture. As such, sound theology is indispensable for “living well and following God’s will for our lives.”
July 8th, 2010 | 10:35 am | #9
Mark,
I’ll take issue with the “glass darkly” premise on biblical and philosophical grounds.
On biblical grounds, Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 is talking about the ultimate and true experience of love found in Christ and his Church. He’s not talking about propositional knowledge but experiential knowledge. This doesn’t apply to certainty we glean in knowing things. I am sitting on a chair. I know this fully, and not dimly.
Which leads to the philosophical point I see missed all the time: there’s a difference between true and exhaustive knowledge. I know God truly. That is, I know God as He is: Creator, Redeemer, personal, Triune, etc. I do not know these truths dimly, I know them truly. However, I do not know God exhaustively, to the extent that he can be experientially or propositionally known.
Chesterton said somewhere in Orthodoxy that men of old were convicted about truth and humble in ambition, and modern men are now humble about truth but convicted about ambition (his quote is much better than mine). And I see a little bit of this modern (or postmodern?) impulse in this post.
Let us be tyrannical in our search for truth, but modest and eager in our discussion with others. The good corrective of this post was to call into question the ambitions of those that perpetually get into theological debates. Why are some people so darn ornery about winning whatever point of minutiae in theological debate? That was a point well taken.
But still, I’ll be tyrannical about the Creeds. And for my tradition, I’ll be firm in my commitment to the Westminster Standards.
July 8th, 2010 | 10:41 am | #10
This is a thought-provoking post. What is at stake, it seems to me, ultimately depends on the specific argument in question. However, since an answer to the question calls for generalization, at some risk, I would say that discipleship and spiritual formation was and is a critical aspect of what is at stake.
The christological debate for Maximus came down to questions surrounding how one conceived of salvation (is it a divine/human syngerism that parallels the two wills of the Incarnate Son? is it about God genuinely entering human terrain?), which of course directs how one pursues the Christian life and thus speaks of discipleship and spiritual formation.
Sometimes it is forgotten that virtually all theology was written by bishops and monks/religious (with a few active lay persons like a Tertullian or an Eriugena) prior to the emergence of the universities. There simply were no professional theologians in the modern sense of that phrase, and thus virtually all theological controversies were generated by pastoral questions.
And this is still the case for so many. Just last night after my discipleship class, a woman in her 70s approached me and asked about a relative whom she said was a better moral person than she was, and yet her relative was not a Christian. How, she wondered, was this possible? And, what does this say about her status before God and her relative’s status? Did it simply come down to one confessing Jesus as Lord and one not? At that point, we were off talking about the Spirit and moral formation, the status of other religions and the claims of Christ, and whether and how the Spirit might be at work in non-Christians, etc., etc. In other words, a genuine pastoral issue opened up an entire world of theological questioning that required some heavy lifting.
I was only thankful that this issue has been a live one in Christian discourse since at least Justin Martyr in the mid second century. And I could draw on that rich conversation of Christian history to deal with her genuine concerns rather than shut down her questions with a yes/no answer. While the glass through which I see God is still somewhat dark, the saints of the ages, in their theological wrestling, have peered over the portals of glory in ways that now enlightened me.
July 8th, 2010 | 10:49 am | #11
“The core problem is not that you will be judged adversely if you’re a Calvinist and if at the eschaton Calvin’s teaching was fraught with error (and no, please don’t take this as a generic attack on Calvinism, the ‘if’ is important there). The problem might be with Calvinism is whether his teachings obscures or conceals some important part of the Gospel. The core problems is whether that which I teach or what you teach hinders our neighbor from seeing and finding that pearl of great price.”
The core problem is not that you will be judged adversely if you’re Eastern Orthodox and if at the eschaton Eastern Orthodoxy’s teaching was fraught with error. The problem might be with Eastern Orthodoxy’s is whether its teachings obscure or conceal some important part of the Gospel. The core problem is whether that which Mark Olson is teaching hinders our neighbor from seeing and finding that pearl of great price.
July 8th, 2010 | 10:50 am | #12
well-played, steve hays. well-played indeed.
July 8th, 2010 | 10:55 am | #13
Several things seem to be at stake, but the most important might be this: within a given theology can people love God and one another rightly and worship Him “in spirit and in truth?” The “rightly” and “truth” are important to both those activities. Also, to be in communion with one another and with God is to “be one as the Father and [Jesus Christ] are one” — which is not a “just tolerate each other’s errors” kind of oneness. I don’t believe that we begin that communion and love and worship only in the eschaton, either with God or one another.
July 8th, 2010 | 10:59 am | #14
csheidler
Well, yes and no. Of course we need to study and apply the bible. It is our guide and reference. The concern is to what end we take that study. I would argue the Hammites have taken it to the point of insanity, to the determent of believers all over the world. Others have taken it not all, to the same end.
If theology is faith seeking understanding, I think some use theology not to understand, but control and dominate.
July 8th, 2010 | 11:01 am | #15
Also… I can rarely bring myself to mention this in “ecumenical” sorts of conversations, but probably should… it matters if sacraments are true. And if they are true (and I believe them to be) it matters if one believes that, and how one’s church responds to that.
July 8th, 2010 | 11:28 am | #16
I am with Collin here. I do not think that verse from First Corinthians refers to how real and true Christ is. I think it refers to how we will be seen and how we will see Christ in the afterlife. And once again, Collin is right that our fallen nature is what creates problems not our ineffectiveness. Because really when we teach others about the faith and a conversion occurs, we take a very small part in it. Such a conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit.
July 8th, 2010 | 1:27 pm | #17
Paul, who gave us the image of seeing through a glass darkly, was hardly hesitant to commit to the truth that he knew. As David Strunk said in different words, we do not know everything, but what we know, we know, even before the eschaton.
There are some matters on which we can practice cautious conviction, so to speak: “this is my firm belief, yet I recognize there are learned, godly Christians who think otherwise.” I might be wrong about baptism. I fervently hope the pre-tribbers are right and I’m wrong about the rapture. The same caution does not, however, apply to Trinitarian theology and Christology.
As to the parables of Jesus and the teaching of James and Paul, are they not beautiful because of what they mean? Strip the theological significance from the Good Samaritan story, and what do you have left? The sower and four soils parable isn’t even much of a story apart from its meaning, which by the way is not necessarily just what it appears to be on the surface; it calls for theological reflection. And how beautiful is Romans 9-11, apart from its theology?
July 8th, 2010 | 4:48 pm | #18
[13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
(Ephesians 4:13 ESV)
Theological discussions do not get in the way of loving God or of loving each other. Pride and selfishness does. We are called to work out our faith, just as we are called to rebuke a brother if he stumbles into error. Please don’t downgrade our ability to know God. We have enough of that out in the world, we don’t need that here.
Takeaways: Don’t be stupid. Love your brother while disagreeing with him, but feel free to disagree robustly!
July 8th, 2010 | 4:49 pm | #19
Your post is provocative but at what level do you think that we are seeing through a glass darkly? The truth concerning the Incarnation? The death of Jesus Christ as an atonement, whatever our view may be on this? The resurrection? Do we not confess this because of the revelation of Scripture? Now of course we do not understand all there is to understand about, e.g. the death of Jesus, but we do know he died for sin. There seems to be some obfuscation about what is dimly known?
July 8th, 2010 | 5:28 pm | #20
Many recognize a distinction between belief and knowledge, as well as between faith and knowledge. Is it really crucial that believers know that, e.g., Jesus rose from the dead, or is it enough that they simply have faith that this is so?
Affirmations of belief or faith lend themselves to a level of humility and reasonableness not available to the person who insists that he also knows all such things. So, even with respect to the essentials, or to the “Creeds,” or to the so-called “experiential” stuff, is it really necessary to insist upon knowledge (much less “fully” or “clearly” knowing)?
July 8th, 2010 | 7:09 pm | #21
The ESV online Bible returns 527 responses to a search for words containing the root “know” in the New Testament alone. Click on some of these:
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Luke+5%3A24
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Luke+8%3A10
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+10%3A14-15
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+14%3A4-9
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+20%3A30-31
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+1%3A19
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+6%3A9
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Corinthians+4%3A6
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Corinthians+4%3A6
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Corinthians+4%3A6
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Corinthians+4%3A6
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Colossians+1%3A9-10
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Timothy+2%3A4
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=2+Peter+1%3A16
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+John+2%3A21
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+John+5%3A20
There is, as you say, some discussion in philosophy of a distinction between belief and knowledge. We could get into abstruse discussions of how the two relate. Or we could see that however they relate, the New Testament calls on us to attain to both.
July 8th, 2010 | 7:23 pm | #22
Ah, the old “argument-from-concordance.” How would one say that in Latin?
July 9th, 2010 | 4:49 am | #23
Janice,
You could mock what I wrote, as you have done. Or, if you’re actually interested in an answer to your own question, you could click the links and see in just what manner the NT emphasizes knowledge. What is your real interest here?
BTW, obviously not all references to “know-” in the NT are about our knowing the facts of the faith. I’ll grant that if I had given the word count as an argument it would be weak. The reason I included it was to introduce the idea that knowing is a major NT theme. The point for which I was arguing is in the closing of the comment, and the evidence is in the links. Suppose, then, the “argument from concordance” was weak (and possibly it was). Still, it’s hardly all that I offered.
My question remains: Janice, what is your real interest here: your own question, or poking fun?
July 9th, 2010 | 11:22 am | #24
csheidler-
I didn’t say that theology was unimportant, or that it was irrelevant to discipleship.
I said that people often focus on theology because it’s easier to do that than to live a holy life.
Some convinced Calvinist or Arminian (whoever is right) doesn’t gain much sanctification by arguing the point by arguing with the mistaken brother, but he does gain a lot of self-satisfaction. This is what I’m talking about.
July 9th, 2010 | 4:06 pm | #25
Tom Gilson,
I guess I didn’t realize that you were actually addressing my question. Does your proof-texting method lead you to a position on the question I raised in #20, or is your real interest in something else?
July 9th, 2010 | 5:06 pm | #26
Janice, I have a position on your question. I stated it at the end of my comment #21. And that’s all I’m going to contribute to the game you’re trying to play. It’s quite enough now.
July 9th, 2010 | 5:37 pm | #27
Tom Gilson,
It’s one thing to say that “the New Testament calls on us to attain to both” belief/faith and knowledge; it’s quite another thing to answer the question I originally asked: whether knowledge (that, e.g., the Creeds are true), as opposed to merely faith in the same, is actually essential (for salvation; membership in the body of Christ, etc.).
Let’s make this as simple as possible for you: it’d be one thing to call a Christian to “attain to” Christlike perfection in his behavior; it’d be quite another thing to say Christlike perfection in behavior is essential to that person’s salvation, or to that person’s status as a Christian in the first place. Can you see the difference?
Therefore my question:
July 9th, 2010 | 6:47 pm | #28
You’ve introduced a new distinction in this post, and taken me to task for not having addressed it, as if I should have known that was the question. It ought not require much reflection for you to see the illegitimacy in that.
Your question had been whether it was necessary to insist on knowing, and whether it is crucial that believers know that … . The answer to both is yes. It is essential for fulness of life in Christ. Whether it is essential for salvation or not, it is nevertheless part and parcel of being a Christian and living the Christian life. This is the context in which Mark Olson raised the original question.
Now you’ve introduced a new question: whether knowledge is essential for salvation (membership in the body is roughly equivalent to salvation). You’ve treated it as odd that I didn’t answer that question, before you had even asked it—which is odd.
If I thought your interest was in gaining understanding through dialogue, I would answer your question. But your condescension (“Let’s make this as simple as possible for you”) and pedantry (“Can you see the difference?”) lead me to conclude you have not changed your ways from two prior threads (here, starting at about #26, and here, starting at about #89). It makes it too hard to believe you’re here for good faith dialogue, which is the kind I’m interested in, so I’m bowing out. Now that your pattern is so clearly established, I’ll resist the temptation to take your bait in the future.
July 9th, 2010 | 7:43 pm | #29
Tom, it surprises me that you are assuming that the whole discussion is about what is “essential for fulness of life in Christ.” That almost seems like a post hoc rationalization of what you’ve been trying to say. After all, knowing the full truth regarding “theology, Christology, soteriology, or whatever topic” may quite plausibly add to “fulness of life in Christ.” Mark’s suggestion was that, until the eschaton, we may only be able to see such things dimly. Certain of the commentators, however, suggested that the passages Mark appealed to didn’t refer to the essentials of the faith, the Creeds, etc.–the implication being that we can have full knowledge of these latter things. While not disputing that, I suggested that it may only be necessary to insist that one has faith, or belief, in such things, rather than “full knowledge.”
Now it seems–and perhaps just in retrospect–that you had a very specific interpretation of what I meant by “necessary.” Given the context, however, the more natural interpretation would be to interpret me as asking whether it was necessary to insist upon knowledge of such elements of one’s faith, or whether, it would suffice to concede (in the interest, perhaps, of humility, reasonableness, and ecumenical harmony) that, even for these more seemingly essential elements of the faith, that they are in fact simply objects of faith. In other words, must a believer insist that she knows that her religious creeds are true?
That question, of course, is very different from the question of whether the full knowledge of the things of God would in fact lead an individual to more “fulness of life.” I’m happy to let you try to settle that question with your concordance. But seriously: you really thought your concordance was needed for such a question?
July 9th, 2010 | 8:08 pm | #30
But seriously: although I could point to misrepresentations of my position beginning with the first sentence of your most recent comment, and continuing through to your closing condescension, I have decided not to continue in dialogue with you, Janice. See above.
July 9th, 2010 | 8:40 pm | #31
Tom, I think we’ve been here before. Let me suggest that what you really want is for me to treat you with the deference due to a wise man, that you feel my little barbs as painful spikes in your vanity, and that, after suffering from a couple of these little barbs, you find yourself almost psychologically incapable of conceding error. But shame on me, as I have–and more than once–exploited your lack of modesty, enticing you to defend the ever-so-minute beanfields of your ideas with comically misplaced zeal.
So, seeing at least these things clearly, perhaps we can call a truce. We’ll start with a clean slate. I will present again my original question, and–knowing what you now know about its interpretation–you can let us know if you have something to say in response:
July 9th, 2010 | 8:44 pm | #32
See above.
July 10th, 2010 | 1:52 am | #33
Hi Janice,
With regards to your first question, just about everyone I know affirms that faith alone is necessary and sufficient for salvation.
Does that answer your question?
July 10th, 2010 | 2:24 am | #34
Interesting. But does having this faith require a person to also have knowledge that particular religious or theological propositions are true, or would you say that (mere) belief in any such things would suffice? (Or do you distinguish between “faith” and “belief”?)
July 10th, 2010 | 2:45 am | #35
What is the difference, do you suppose, between a person saying “I believe Jesus atoned for my sins and has justified me” and his saying “I know Jesus atoned for my sins and justified me”?
July 10th, 2010 | 3:05 am | #36
This is a good question Charlie.
Let me here give you a sort of overview-style answer, relating it to the topic of this thread.
I would first observe that knowledge (of this kind) entails belief (of this kind); in that sense, the knowledge claim is the stronger claim. But, perhaps more importantly for the topic of this thread, the belief claim, but not the knowledge claim, is compatible with a sort of provisional commitment to the truth of the claim. And this, in turn, relates to the idea that a there is level of humility and reasonableness accessible to the person who makes a belief claim which isn’t as accessible to the person who also makes the knowledge claim. So, when we also consider the other sorts of religious and theological claims that Christians often make, this distinction may also be help Christians towards the goal of ecumenical harmony.
July 10th, 2010 | 3:07 am | #37
By “would suffice” I presume you mean “would suffice for this person’s salvation”. Am I correct?
July 10th, 2010 | 3:13 am | #38
You said that before, Janice, which is why I am responding to you. You refer again to reasonableness and humility as though one who claims to have knowledge lacks this. Why do you claim that to be the case? Does a person lack humility and reasonableness to say “I know that the earth orbits the sun”?
The person who believes something believes that thing to be true and cannot say “I believe this, but it is not true”.
Neither can the person who says “this is true” also say “I don’t believe it”.
So I see only a distinction here and no difference.
It seems you are only talking about the manner of communication. Why do you think this might affect his salvation?
July 10th, 2010 | 3:14 am | #39
That’s correct, Charlie.
July 10th, 2010 | 3:16 am | #40
“” But, perhaps more importantly for the topic of this thread, the belief claim, but not the knowledge claim, is compatible with a sort of provisional commitment to the truth of the claim. “”
I think either claim, one of knowledge or of belief, is provisional. Any knowledge claim is provisional upon such things as reliability of the senses, access to reality, proper functioning of the mind, etc.
July 10th, 2010 | 3:20 am | #41
re: #38:
Rather: “there is level of humility and reasonableness accessible to the person who makes a belief claim which isn’t as accessible to the person who also makes the knowledge claim.”
Well let’s take this slowly then. First, would you agree that “knowledge that” entails “belief that”? (Do you understand this question?)
July 10th, 2010 | 3:26 am | #42
I do indeed.
July 10th, 2010 | 3:27 am | #43
Let me take this less slowly and jump ahead and also go at this from the other direction, presuming we have a functional definition of knowledge, such as “justified true belief”.
In order for one’s belief in Jesus’ atonement, etc. to be salvific, it is necessary that that belief be true. If Jesus did not really atone for my sins and give me access to salvation then my believing He did so will not provide me with salvation.
So the stated belief must, in fact, be true, in order to suffice for salvation.
So the first of the criteria is covered.
Now, is that true belief justified (different use of the word here, obviously, than in use when talking about the legal relationship to God)?
Since it is true, then
July 10th, 2010 | 3:28 am | #44
Good. Now, supposing that you also agree that “belief that” does not entail “knowledge that”, do you understand why a claim to know that something is true is a stronger claim than a claim to (merely) believe that something is true?
July 10th, 2010 | 3:31 am | #45
Since it is true, arguendi causa, then how was this true belief acquired?
Biblically, it comes from God.
So if God gives the Christian his true belief then the Christian is warranted in holding that belief. Therefore, it is knowledge.
So, if the belief is sufficient for salvation it is, in fact, knowledge.
July 10th, 2010 | 3:36 am | #46
Charlie, I think we need to take this slowly, as I want to make sure we address, in an orderly way, all the important questions you’ve raised. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. :)
We’re discussing your difficulty of seeing “no difference” between a belief claim and a knowledge claim. What is your answer to #44?
Rest assured, we will make progress this way.
July 10th, 2010 | 3:37 am | #47
I do not see the connection you have made between entailments and strength.
As I have shown, a statement about belief as compared to a statement about knowledge describes the same mental state and merely represents a different way of communicating the same conviction.
July 10th, 2010 | 3:38 am | #48
Thanks for your assurance, Janice. Rest assured I am not ahead of myself.
July 10th, 2010 | 3:44 am | #49
Since a person can have belief without knowledge, but not knowledge without belief (this is just what the entailments mean), claiming to have knowledge is claiming to have more than claiming to have belief. The belief claim is always true if the knowledge claims is true, but not vice versa. For all these reasons, it is typical to say, the person who makes the knowledge claim is making a “stronger” claim than the person who makes the belief claim.
Do you follow this?
Compare these two claims, which have analogous entailments:
(1) “I am at least 5 feet tall.”
(2) “I am at least 6 feet tall.”
Do you see how (2) entails (1) but not vice versa? Do you also see why (2) is the stronger claim?
July 10th, 2010 | 3:52 am | #50
What you are saying is obvious, Janice, but I don’t agree with it. I have demonstrated why neither is stronger and why, in reference to mental states, they are the same thing.
And why, in reference to salvific sufficiency, they are the same thing.
That one requires the other does not make one stronger or weaker than the other. The word “stronger” has no meaning here. This is evidenced by your putting it now in scare quotes.
July 10th, 2010 | 3:59 am | #51
I am going to sleep now, Janice.
Unfortunately, as you have tried to give and overview and have now attempted to show relatives strengths of each claim, it turns out my question to you, which focuses on your own concern, is unanswered.
It was, again,:
What is the difference, do you suppose, between a person saying “I believe Jesus atoned for my sins and has justified me” and his saying “I know Jesus atoned for my sins and justified me”?
Goodnight.
July 10th, 2010 | 4:00 am | #52
Ouch.
Sorry for the typos.
I am going to sleep now, Janice.
Unfortunately, as you have tried to give an overview and have now attempted to show the relative strengths of each claim, it turns out my question to you, which focuses on your own concern, is unanswered.
It was, again,:
What is the difference, do you suppose, between a person saying “I believe Jesus atoned for my sins and has justified me” and his saying “I know Jesus atoned for my sins and justified me”?
Goodnight.
July 10th, 2010 | 4:21 am | #53
Again, let’s take this very slowly Charlie. If we can’t agree these basic things, we shouldn’t even try to discuss the complex stuff.
Let me know if you understand and agree with everything here:
Now carefully consider claims (1) and (2) below, with analogous entailments (and do you understand how their entailments are parallel to a belief claim and a knowledge claim?):
Now let me also know if you understand the following claims:
Finally, and after carefully considering everything above, let me know your answer to this last question: do you understand why someone might say that claim (2) is stronger than claim (1)?
July 10th, 2010 | 6:42 am | #54
Well .. 2 necessarily entails 1, true. But, depending on one’s application, the reverse may not be a null set, but a subset. 1 can entail part of 2 given the proper construct being addressed. If the subject is two sticks, one 5 ft and one 6 ft, an exclusionary approach would reject the 5ft for 2(1), but one is just as easily justified in accepting 5/6 of 1(2), as it is roughly 84% valid.
And for me being 6 ft 1, both are equally warranted and justified. There is no real difference. Taking each independently (examining each on its own merits), both entail the same amount of material as they each address a simple basis (of measurement) as their respective points. That is, they are equals in their truth claim. The truth value may differ (depending on what each is applied to), but the content of the claim is identical.
And a belief claim may have as much foundation in knowledge as does a knowledge claim.
July 10th, 2010 | 8:35 am | #55
Janice,
Have you ever had a conversation about a religious question with a thoughtful, intelligent, orthodox religious believer who followed your argument carefully and correctly, understanding you at every step along the way, who still disagreed with you at the end? If so, did you accept their position as reasonable and intellectually respectable, even if you could not agree? If you haven’t had such a conversation, why do you suppose it hasn’t happened?
July 10th, 2010 | 8:55 am | #56
Charlotte, I’ve had a great many such conversations, having the pleasure of knowing several highly reasonable and intellectually respectable religious people. Have you also had the reverse pleasure of enjoying such a conversation with, for example, an atheist?
Collin, you might find the Wikipedia entry on “entailment” illuminating:
Charlie, I now suspect that our latest difficulty is arising because the notion of a strong claim, or of logical strength, is something like a term of art. But it’s not an unusual usage. Compare, for example, how the notion is used in these two papers (the first from philosophy/logic; the second from psychology):
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/Entailment.htm
http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/ReassessingPredictiveValidityoftheIAT.pdf
July 10th, 2010 | 9:12 am | #57
Charlotte, I’ve had a great many such conversations, having the pleasure of knowing several highly reasonable and intellectually respectable religious people. Have you also had the reverse pleasure of enjoying such a conversation with, for example, an atheist?
Collin, you might find the Wikipedia entry on “entailment” illuminating:
Charlie, I now suspect that our latest difficulty is arising because the notion of a strong claim, or of logical strength, is something like a term of art. But it’s not an unusual usage. You can google around a bit and find plenty of examples in academic writings. It’s probably not the sort of point, anyway, that you want to get hung up with here.
July 10th, 2010 | 9:47 am | #58
Janice,
“Have you also had the reverse pleasure of enjoying such a conversation with, for example, an atheist?”
Of course. Even after I quit being one.
July 10th, 2010 | 10:10 am | #59
[...] I do think this rubric goes a long way in explaining why ecumenism is so controversial in itself. Mark Olson’s recent post is a paradigm example in how the two approaches conflict. Those that seek to participate in broad [...]
July 10th, 2010 | 10:45 am | #60
Hi Collin,
Yes, that is what I say. The two are, in fact, the same depending upon the case.
In this discussion, Janice has already stipulated to the case that nullifies the difference between knowledge and belief.
—————-
Hi Janice,
I’m sorry if this keeps going too fast for you but my case was made from my first comments so your desire to slow it down is not necessary.
Thank you, though, for your continued concern for my understanding and whether or not I am careful enough.
Your wikipedia reference, for instance, while not adding any new information or clearing up any misunderstandings was very thoughtful.
From your very first comment you have been very concerned with the issue of knowledge and belief in terms of their sufficiency in the salvation equation.
The question was about salvific sufficiency and not grammatical entailment. The question was focused upon insistence of belief language versus knowledge language. But as far as the person’s state of mind goes, there is no difference. This has been shown you.
If it has come too fast that’s okay, I’ll leave you to ruminate on it for as long as you need.
In your latest iteration of the same comment I already answered you said:
“”"(1) “I am at least 5 feet tall.” (2) “I am at least 6 feet tall.”
Now let me also know if you understand the following claims:
(2) entails (1) but not vice versa. Claim (2) claims more than claim (1).”"”"
No, I do not understand that (2) claims more than (1). In what way does it make “more” of a claim? Yes, the truth of (2) logically entails the truth of (1) but in what way is that claim “more”? You’ve not changed anything here, you’ve merely substituted “more” in for “stronger”.
Neither is stronger or more than the other.
If “more” and “stronger” are supposed to do any work here you are going to have to show how they do that.
You also asked:
“”"”
Now carefully consider claims (1) and (2) below, with analogous entailments (and do you understand how their entailments are parallel to a belief claim and a knowledge claim?):”"”"
No, I do not understand either that this case is a parallel to ours. In fact, they are not parallel and we have discussed why above.
You are trying to draw a parallel by mixing categories. In one case you have statements about physical quantities and in the other a statement of an epistemological/ontological relationship.
The manner in which the entailments obtain is not the same.
Here’s another another demonstration of why.
Whereas you can not be at least 6 feet tall without being at least 5 feet tall you can be 5 feet tall and not be 6 feet tall.
Likewise you can not have knowledge without also having a belief. So far so good, but it fails on the second comparison. You can not have a belief sufficient for salvation without having knowledge of the same proposition. Whereas a person stating the belief/knowledge claims is necessarily describing the same mental state in our case, the person describing the height is not necessarily describing the same quantity.
The two categories are not sufficiently similar enough for you to draw knowledge from the making of the comparison.
Finally you ask:
“”"Finally, and after carefully considering everything above, let me know your answer to this last question: do you understand why someone might say that claim (2) is stronger than claim (1)?_______”"”"”"”"”
As I said the last time you presented it, it is all obvious. I think Tom rightly referred to your statements as “trivial”. That applies here as well.
Yes, I can see why someone might say one claim is stronger than the other. But neither can you quantify (one claims “more”) or qualify ( one claim is “stronger”) these claims. On this topic the person who might say this would be making a meaningless distinction which does not represent a difference. Remember, you are asking your questions in the context of salvific sufficiency. You weren’t asking about grammatical entailments.
The person who says “I believe Jesus …” is not claiming less than the person who says “I know Jesus…”. Nor is his claim “weaker”. His claim is the same.
This is all apparent when one tries to directly answer the question I’ve posed to you twice.
July 10th, 2010 | 10:48 am | #61
Collin said:
“The truth value may differ (depending on what each is applied to), but the content of the claim is identical.”
Exactly.
July 10th, 2010 | 1:30 pm | #62
Charlie,
I tell you what. If anyone wants to join you in your insightful objections to my unusual claims about logical entailment, I will be happy to then continue discussing your important objections. But let’s let at least Collin have the opportunity to catch up with us.
July 10th, 2010 | 1:44 pm | #63
Important and insightful. I should learn to smoke a pipe.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact