Americans are much less sure of the existence of Hell than of Heaven. Hopefully this is because they have had such glimpses of the Divine that Hell seem fuzzy to them. There seems, however, some chance that it is because they have become too nice to believe anyone is in Hell.
In chatting with regular folk, not the sort that teach at colleges, often one only need mention Hitler to convince them that someone must be in Hell. Do we really want to ruin Paradise by potentially having Adolph (and Eva!) as neighbors?
This argument might be effective, but it is not an argument Christians can use. Called to love even our enemies, we know somebody is in Hell, but really shouldn’t root for any particular person to be there. With the exception of Judas, Christians don’t know that anybody is there for sure. It is none of our business and given the nature of Hell there is something inappropriate for wishing for a specific man to go there.
If this is so, then why do Christians believe in Hell?
First, God told us Hell exists and He is in a position to know. You might not want a place to exist, for example Cleveland, but you might be reliably informed it does exist. God told us Hell exists in the Bible and that some humans will be thrown into it, so we accept this as a given.
Second, wicked actions deserve punishment. Hell exists to punish sin that has not been forgiven. Justice demands that if you want the benefits of freedom, you should be willing to pay the price. We have been warned that certain deeds are wicked and are happy to enjoy what pleasures come with them, so we shouldn’t complain too hard when the bill comes due.
Some argue that it is unjust that the pleasures of sin are so short and the wages so long, but this seems a mistake. Sin is a bad deal, but God has done all He could to warn us against making such a deal. God insists on treating us as if our decisions mattered and of course if He did not do so, then people would complain about this!
If we don’t wish eternal torment, we need merely avoid doing the things that will lead to eternal torment.
Given the way humans are, though, we seem very apt to sin . . . to do one of the things that deserve punishment. Is it fair that sin is so easy to commit? It is certainly not fair, but it is the result of our inherited nature. We are not born as a blank-slate; all of us inherit traits or tendencies from our parents. One such trait is settling for what we want instead of what we should want. We settle for passion when we could have true love.
Even a small crime warps the soul of a man further and no warped thing can enter into the Kingdom of God. God is not willing to ruin the perfection and joy of Heaven by ignoring our self-created stench.
This is tough, but that is the way it is. This is why God cannot merely “forget about” our sins. We are broken and we would go on being broken if He did nothing about it. He simply could smite us and start over again, but He loves us and would save all He can of the good work He made in the beginning.
We must be “born again” . . . which will include the “legal” acquittal for our sins, but also will result in the Word of God coming inside us and changing us. The best analogy to the process is being “born again” so that we can start over with a new parent (God) and a new family (God’s church).
God suffered in order to make a way for man to enter this relationship. God came and became fully human; He did not just put on a skin suit like Zeus or the pagan gods. He lived out a perfect life, but then allowed us to kill Him. The God-man could die as a man, but God-man could not stay dead. He came back to life and created a new set of possibilities.
Men and women are separated from God by their actions and their heritage. God will forgive their actions and give them a new spiritual heritage.
When younger, I worried often about those who never got a chance to experience this new relationship. Wisdom finally taught me that I did not know any such people exist. The hypothetical “person who never heard in x” (insert the distant land of your choice for “x”) is a speculative proposition. Name one. Who is that person? What ideas did they hear? What was revealed to them in their dreams? What happens to a man or woman at the moment of their death? I don’t know for sure, but for all I do know all are given a chance to see clearly and to choose wisely.
Given the charity of God, there is no reason to assume that any man is not given a choice. They cannot hear without a preacher, but if those of us who know the truth fail them, there is no reason God cannot preach His own sermon or allow His holy angels to do so.
What of those who lived before the coming of the Christ?
Christians believe that the dead before Christ confronted Christ when He died and the faith of some saved them. This was certainly true of Abraham. What of those not under God’s covenant with Abraham? What of the noble pagans like Plato?
There the mind of the Church has been divided. Scripture says nothing for certain, but there are two big ideas to keep in mind. First, God desires that nobody should perish eternally. Second, some people will perish eternally and those people will perish in punishment for their sins and because they are unfit for Heaven.
Plato cannot go to Heaven simply because he was better than most. Paradise is not gained on a curve. The joys of Heaven are too awesome for us if we have not been changed. The beauty of Heaven would burn us as surely as the fires of Hell, and be unfitting on top of it, if we remained the little souls that dabble in the “pleasures” of sin in this life.
Could Plato have been born again before the coming of Christ?
Justin Martyr put Plato in Heaven, because Plato loved the Word and lived before the Incarnation. He walked in all the light he had been given. Dante put Plato in Hell, because Plato had never been changed from the inside through baptism. If a man is not born again, then he is not fit for Paradise.
Who is right?
A charitable man roots for Justin, but a thoughtful man suspects that Dante is correct. Why?
It is faith and an appeal for mercy that will save us, but Plato may be too sure that his works will be enough. In Republic he accepts that there must be punishment for evil, and even eternal punishment for some badly broken souls, but he does not think his soul is that badly broken.
We are badly defaced, monstrous, according to Plato, but he hopes the dialectic might save us from doom. Sadly, there is not time enough and even following the Word as closely as possible cannot fix the rot. It goes too deeply.
But perhaps, just perhaps, the end of the Republic indicates that Plato knows this. He appeals to religion and myth in the end and might (if one reading of the text is followed) combine a hope in God with the dialectic. If so, then Plato may have seen what needs to been seen: we need mercy and not just good works.
In any case, Plato is where he is and my worry about him may be a false one. It might distract me from working out my own sanctification with fear and trembling. Plato will stand before the judgment seat of Christ, but so will I. I can do nothing for Plato, but I must realize that my problems, my sin, goes so deep that I can do nothing that matters for me.
I fear Hell. I fear separation from all that is good, true, and beautiful. I fear the end of the dialectic in the static narcissism that is the fate of the damned. I would not lose the good of the intellect for the glories of this present age.
I must daily pray: Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.
October 4th, 2010 | 1:28 pm | #1
“I fear Hell.”
Me too. Jesus spoke and preached about Hell more than anyone else in the New Testament. He died on the cross so that I could have an eternal relationship with God in Heaven instead of suffering interminably in Hell.
“I must daily pray: Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.”
Amen. And amen.
October 4th, 2010 | 2:27 pm | #2
If the only possibilities are (a) the existence of Hell, and (b) Hitler going directly to eternal reward after his suicide, I can sympathize with the idea of Hell. But these are not obviously the only two possibilities.
If we assume the eternal afterlife of Hitler, other possibilities include (c) simple incarceration (so that Hitler cannot do more mischief); (d) memory and perspicuity (so that Hitler must see and acknowledge his past wickedness); (e) psychological self-corruption (perhaps to the point that Hitler eventually loses his agential faculties); (f) eventual redemption (after Hitler’s acknowledgment of the gravity of his sins); (g) truth and reconciliation (with all those who suffered from Hitler’s sins).
And we could probably think of a lot of other possibilities and combinations thereof, which, once on the table, would make the classic idea of Hell (i.e., the idea of eternal torment which is in some way similar to burning alive and consciously for all of eternity) seem a lot less appropriate.
October 4th, 2010 | 2:53 pm | #3
“And we could probably think of a lot of other possibilities and combinations thereof, which, once on the table, would make the classic idea of Hell (i.e., the idea of eternal torment which is in some way similar to burning alive and consciously for all of eternity) seem a lot less appropriate.”
C. Ehrlich, what’s appropriate is what Scripture and Jesus taught about Hell.
Did Jesus ever speak about the eternality of Hell?
October 4th, 2010 | 2:55 pm | #4
C. Ehrlich, do you hold yourself out as an educated, thoughtful, honest, adult Christian?
Second, do you believe that the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea as recounted in Scripture is historic fact-narrative?
Would you please answer these straightforward questions?
October 4th, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #5
Ehrlich,
Anything other than redemption is Hell.
October 4th, 2010 | 4:09 pm | #6
Here’s an interesting excerpt:
“the author of this apocalypse [of Peter] paints a graphic portrait of hell’s population, which includes this scene:
“And near that place I saw another gorge in which the discharge and excrement of the tortured ran down and became like a lake. And there sat women, and the discharge came up to their throats… And these were those who produced children outside marriage and who procured abortions.”
Such texts are important for their powerful presentation of the destiny of aborters and the aborted. It is evident that this picture is drawn, even with apocalyptic imagination, from deep ethical and emotional convictions. The theological basis for the entire text must be seen as an understanding of abortion as the culpable murder of a human being. Unborn children are viewed as living beings destined for immortality, and both men and women responsible for aborting them are guilty and worthy of eternal punishment.
Read it all at Abortion and the Early Church.
October 4th, 2010 | 5:33 pm | #7
I’d suggest that millions of people who now inhabit hell (or will after judgement, depending on how you interpret the intermediate state) will have realized that the world is a mess and needs to be fixed.
We are condemned, of course, for ours and Adam’s sin, not for rejecting Christ per se.
Also, we are told in Hebrews that the old testament saints were saved because they looked ahead to the promised messiah.
I suspect that the whole world has always been like Plato. Everyone sees the world as broken. No one sees themselves on the lower half of the brokeness scale, do they?
Dante was closer than Plato in his understanding I think.
Great ending to your post John Mark.
Echoes of “Who shall deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
October 4th, 2010 | 5:35 pm | #8
C. Ehrlich,
It’s not about appropriate, its about what God has said.
And if it were about appropriate, you and I are hardly in a position to tell God what may or may not be considered appropriate.
By definition, anything God does is appropriate, right and holy.
October 4th, 2010 | 6:38 pm | #9
The same Christians who want to deny the existence of hell or claim that it destroys the nature of God as a ‘good’ God, in many cases are the same ones who put physical death before the fall, not seeing the hypocrisy and duplicity of their views. In both cases, Scripture is either ignored and comprised, or twisted out of context.
October 4th, 2010 | 7:24 pm | #10
Physical death of humans only?
October 4th, 2010 | 8:03 pm | #11
Orthodoxdj,
Physical death as an entity entirely within the created order.
October 4th, 2010 | 8:17 pm | #12
Nice post on Hell.
“Given the charity of God, there is no reason to assume that any man is not given a choice. They cannot hear without a preacher, but if those of us who know the truth fail them, there is no reason God cannot preach His own sermon or allow His holy angels to do so.”
I shall chew on this a bit.
My first thought is that God doesn’t owe nay of us the right to wisely chose. He could actually harden all of us, and be just as righteous, if He had mercy on us all.
Sinners are guilty, and deserve to give an account for their sins. I have hundreds of thousands of sins that I would need to give an account for, but Christ took each and every evil thought, word, and deed upon His broken body, and he washed my soul clean in His precious blood.
He did this for the glory of His Father, and the praise and honor of His grace, for all eternity we shall glory in this most awesome and gracious Lord and God.
October 5th, 2010 | 3:55 am | #13
“Our God is a Consuming Fire.” Hebrews 12:29
In the Finale’, we all go into the Fire of the Triune YHWH- purification & glorification for those who will surrender in love & trust to God thru Jesus, torment & destruction for those who will never do so, if any exist. Those who die outside of Christ now go into the Hold (Sheol/Hades) to endure the rewards & punishments of the Temporal Love & Justice of God- until eventually the Hold is turned inside out & enveloped in the Eternal Love & Justice of God, Which is both Glory & Gehenna.
I am not Eastern Orthodox, but when it comes to this issue, they have nailed it! Google up “The River of Fire”.
October 5th, 2010 | 11:18 am | #14
The use of Hitler is a very poor example. If he had won he war no one would question that he would be in heaven because they would have been brainwashed into it from birth.
But the thought of spending eternity in the same place with that crazy old bore Plato? Egad, give me Hell! Besides, with Adolf and Eva next door, at least the house would get painted.
Ok, I’m having fun, but one of the problems with arguments like this is that they presuppose that the hearer has the same evaluation of people in the past as the speaker. To someone who has actually read Plato, the notion of him being let anywhere near Heaven makes the place truly seem unliveable. One can make a pretty good case for Hitler not being in Heaven and he probably would not like it there given that there would be so many Jews, but also given that the people who are normally assumed to be there were such self-righteous, pompous and arrogant folk whom no one would actually want next door, Heaven does not seem a very hospitable place for anyone.
October 5th, 2010 | 11:45 am | #15
Steve,
That seems scientifically untenable.
October 5th, 2010 | 12:59 pm | #16
Orthodoxdj,
Possibly, but what does Scripture say? Or are you implying that science trumps Scripture when it comes to origins? Thus epistemologically, your presuppositional starting point is the words and deliberations of science and then you go to Scripture to see if it fits? We can have this discussion, I’m certainly willing to continue, but I’d like to see one of the masthead bloggers here at FirstThings delve into the philosophical basis for knowledge with all it entails. I’m fairly new here, only a couple months, so maybe this has been done before and I haven’t seen it, but wouldn’t it be worthwhile as ‘evangelicals’ to have a discussion from a philosophical standpoint on where our source of ‘knowledge’ comes from epistemically?
October 5th, 2010 | 1:44 pm | #17
You seem to have people pegged with where they’re supposed to fit. The problem is that things are often more complicated and nuanced.
As for what Scripture says, nowhere are we told that animal became carnivores only after the fall or that no animals died prior to the fall.
October 5th, 2010 | 2:25 pm | #18
Orthodoxdj,
You said that no death before the fall was scientifically untenable, but on that basis alone, you cannot account for a man once dead to come back to life. So if ‘science’ is your epistemological starting point, then you’re left with trying to convince yourself that your belief in Jesus’ resurrection has meaning to you in contrast to the scientific evidence that proves otherwise.
On the one hand you dismiss science when it says the resurrection was impossible, yet on the other hand you embrace science when it says that God couldn’t possibly have prevented death before Adam sinned and that carnivory, predation, disease, animals red in tooth and claw were the ‘norm’ pre-Adam and his sin.
So what is this called? Inconsistency? Hypocrisy? Duplicity? You choose the word that fits, brother, but all I’m saying is that you can’t have it both ways in an epistemological sense.
Do you care to discuss your epistemic certainty for knowledge or are you simply going to tell me I seem to have people ‘pegged’ in a certain way?
October 5th, 2010 | 2:30 pm | #19
Show me the texts that say there was no death before the fall.
As for the Resurrection, science does not say man cannot be resurrected. Science has observed that it doesn’t happen on a regular basis. Suppose it is scientifically untenable, then it’s a miracle. I believe in miracles. I have experienced one. If you are saying that prior to the fall of man everything happened by miracle, then I want your scriptural reasons why. If your arguments are along the lines of, “Why would there be death?”, then it’s clear you simply have a presupposition, not an argument. Scriptural evidence would be great. If you can’t provide it, then you might want to reconsider how you approach people because saying someone doesn’t believe in the Resurrection is a very rude thing to do.
October 5th, 2010 | 2:55 pm | #20
Orthodoxdj,
Now don’t get your dander up brother, and let’s not start making demads either. I am attacking your argument that ‘science’ must show you that there was no death before the fall, or to reverse this, that ‘science’ has proven there is no death before the fall, and challenging your epistemic certainty for either of these claims.
You said:
“As for the Resurrection, science does not say man cannot be resurrected. Science has observed that it doesn’t happen on a regular basis. Suppose it is scientifically untenable, then it’s a miracle. I believe in miracles.”
You basically answered your own question here. Creation ‘ex nihilo’ by God by definition is scientifically untenable and a miracle. You believe in miracles, you say, so you believe in the miracle of the resurrection of Christ. You have placed your trust in this miracle for the salvation of your soul, correct?
But your denial to the contrary, science does proclaim that the cessation of life is it, ‘finis’, the end. There’s no coming back, from a naturalistic materialistic (matter is all there is) standpoint.
So since you believe in miracles when it comes to Christ’s resurrection, where is the disconnect from believing that God created his creation ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31)? What does ‘very good’ mean to you? What does the command in Genesis 2:16-17 mean to Adam if he was already going to die sometime later anyway?
What is the significance of verses such as:
Romans 5:12ff
Romans 8: 18ff
Romans 6:23
I Corinthians 15:21-22
I Corinthians 15:56
Lots of others, so let’s see your defense from Scripture my friend that there was death before the Fall. Please provide your Scripture references.
October 5th, 2010 | 3:16 pm | #21
Orthodj,
The trouble with arguing about what happened before the fall, is that we have no idea how long that time span was.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that they were there for weeks or even days before the fall, rendering all the question of death and decay moot by just about any standard.
We know that carnivores can live well on a vegetarian diet in a zoo, why not before the fall?
And, of course, Genesis 1:30 does say this:
“And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.”
There is no corresponding, pre-fall verse about God giving animals each other for food.
Consider the terror of a gazelle in a lion’s jaws. Does that seem like a curse to you or a blessing?
So there’s your “animals weren’t killing each other before the fall” verse.
October 5th, 2010 | 5:19 pm | #22
A verse that seems to imply that animals did not eat each other is not a verse that says unequivocally that animals did not die. If there is no clear verse, and if the study of the past indicates that animals did in fact die, then I side with what science tells us.
October 5th, 2010 | 5:37 pm | #23
orthodoxdj,
So then you start epistemologically from science and what science tells you and interpret Scripture in light of science, correct? Science is the ultimate arbiter of truth, in other words. You seem to want to ‘believe’ that a ‘study of the past’ (your words) is conclusive epistemic certainty for a belief that animals did in fact die before Adam sinned (all other considerations left to the realm of secondary possibility).
You also fail to deal with the text and show both Daryl and I exegetically what that text means. In other words, you fail to use the science of hermeneutics to break apart the Hebrew and describe the author’s original intent with regard to his audience.
A failure to treat the text with integrity, one is left to devise any sort of fanciful meaning.
October 5th, 2010 | 5:56 pm | #24
Orthodoxdj,
In other words: A non-verse that does not proscirbe that animals shall eat each other, shall always preempt a verse that proscribes that animals shall eat only plants.
October 5th, 2010 | 7:50 pm | #25
God, in his infinite mercy, and kindness, rejects no one. The passages, in the new testement, where Jesus discusses “Hell” can be interpreted metaphorically, or as a mere temporary place where people learn the error of their ways.
Gos’ mercy extends to all of life.
October 5th, 2010 | 8:28 pm | #26
John Mark Reynolds,
Thanks for a thoughtful reflection. Two thoughts from an Eastern Orthodox reader:
1) You write:
“I can do nothing for Plato…”
Orthodox Christians, and Roman Catholics as well, pray for the dead. This practice is ancient, well-established, and well-verified. In one instance, an Orthodox monk (a nun) had her brother commit suicide. This is a serious offense in the Orthodox Church, since it reneges God’s very gift of life. Such a person cannot receive an Orthodox burial. Distraught, the monk kept the strict fast and offered an akathist (a prayer service) on behalf of her brother for 40 days. At the end of this period, an angel appeared to her and revealed that her brother had been pardoned on account of her supplications.
2) St Ephrem the Syrian (or is it St Isaac the Syrian?) writes that the soul who loves God loves all things, and prays for all things, even the demons. To my knowledge, most priests and Bishops do not advocate such a practice. But more than one account exists of holy ones praying for or pleading with demons for their salvation. I’m not sure whether or not they can receive it (I believe the Church would say ‘no’), but nonetheless, the stance engendered by such accounts, of boundless concern for and love even of one’s enemies, and of prayer for their salvation, is instructive. And, at least for me, inspiring.
October 5th, 2010 | 10:49 pm | #27
“..a mere temporary place where people learn the error of their ways.” -Bret
Jesus said to Judas, “It would have better if you had never been born.”
The temporary place thing is ridiculous. You’re simply changing the meaning of Scripture and our Lord’s words. Take heed my friend.
Jesus will say to many, “Depart from Me, for I never knew you.”
Those are incredibly frightening words from the King of glory.
October 6th, 2010 | 11:37 am | #28
Steve,
Hermeneutics is not on your side. Or do you place hermeneutics above God?
There are no verses that say “Animals did not die prior to the fall of man.” None. Plants died. Are you okay with that?
When did I ever say science is the only avenue to truth? All I’m saying is that the best science we know of (and btw, science is a subset of the rational method, a gift from God. Hermeneutics is also a science.) shows that animals died prior to the existence of man. Dinosaurs died. Hominids died. The Bible nowhere says otherwise. Science is a broad body of knowledge, in its denotative form is merely a method. When you say that a verse implies something, i.e., hermeneutics, you are using the science of hermeneutics. Or do you think hermeneutics is simply an art?
October 6th, 2010 | 12:44 pm | #29
Orthodoxdj,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am glad that we can continue our discussion, although on this thread it is far removed from the topic of the existence or non-existence of hell and heaven.
I think I would have to disagree and say that hermeneutics ‘is’ on my side. From the verses I listed, one can see that
1) physical death came as a result of man’s sin, 2) the whole creation groans today as a result of the curse that followed man’s sin,
3) the commandment to Adam that he not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest he die has no significance if he was not created perfect and eternal,
4) the barring by God in placing the cherubim with flaming swords at the entrance of the garden of evil to prevent Adam from eating of the tree of life and living forever (Gen.3:24) carries no meaning if he was not also already created perfect and eternal before he ate of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
5) the proscriptive statement by God that every plant yielding seed and every tree which has fruit yielding seed shall be food for you to every beast of the earth, every bird of the sky, and to everything that moves on the earth which has life (Gen.1:29-30),
6) the pronouncement of the curse on the serpent, Eve, & Adam in Gen. 3:14-20 and the implication of this that follows Paul’s statements in Romans 8,
7) God’s statement in Gen. 1:31 that He saw all that He had made, and behold, it was ‘very good’,
8) Paul’s statement in Romans 5:12 that just as sin entered through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all men…
9) Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:21 that since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead (a clear reference to physical death, not just spiritual death)
From these, one can conclude using a historical-grammatical hermeneutic that both physical and spiritual death in the animal kingdom and with Adam and Eve was not present before Adam sinned. This has been the historic position of the Church for millenia and it is you who have the burden of proof to show otherwise.
What you have failed to do, my brother, is list your Scriptural texts to prove that there was physical death before sin in the created order. Since you are unable to do this, you want to bring in extra-Biblical considerations to bolster your argument, and I have asked you several times now to discuss your epistemic certainty for using these extra-Biblical considerations and your reliance on them for knowledge.
In other words, you are saying “that the best science we know of shows that animals died prior to the existence of man”. And I am asking you politely I hope, to give epistemic justification for that claim. Do you care to discuss this?
October 6th, 2010 | 1:54 pm | #30
Wow. Good stuff, and yet, the blogosphere is such a strange place for “dialogue”
Take Chuck for instance: “To someone who has actually read Plato, the notion of him being let anywhere near Heaven makes the place truly seem unliveable.”
I suppose he thinks John Mark only quotes Plato to sound educated. Instead of, for instance, the possibility that he has a PhD with a specialization in Plato and teaches Plato every year.
Also, only in the blogosphere would an Orthodox brother lecture another Eastern brother on what it means to be EO… All the while assuming that the other brother isn’t EO and couldn’t admit to another possibility.
Ok, so this sounds really critical, but my point is that this blog/forum/comment situation seems to facilitate madness and discourage generosity.
What to do?
October 6th, 2010 | 7:38 pm | #31
Steve,
Why do I need a verse to prove what science shows is true? Do I need to prove to you that gravity is real by appealing to Scripture? Do you concede that hermeneutics is a “science”? What does the perfect state of man have to do with animals dying? Do you honestly believe that dinosaurs were wiped out because of man’s sin?
I think it’s possible that no animals died prior to the fall. In fact, I think your view is possible in its totality. However, in light of what science tells us, and in light of the fact that Scripture nowhere says that no animals ever died prior to the fall (or that it was impossible to do so, etc.), then I’m going to trust what science teaches because it DOES NOT contradict Scripture. It simply contradicts YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture. Those are two different things.
October 6th, 2010 | 9:07 pm | #32
Orthodoxdj,
You said: “Why do I need a verse to prove what science shows is true?”
This is the exact question I am asking you to provide epistemic justification for. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t understand what I’m asking here, otherwise, I can only conclude that you are intentionally avoiding my question.
I guess we’ve gone as far as we can go here on this topic.
October 7th, 2010 | 11:45 am | #33
I teach philosophy. I’m familiar with epistemology. How I know what I know varies from the types of knowledge involved. Scripture is only one avenue.
October 7th, 2010 | 1:39 pm | #34
Steve Drake:
5) the proscriptive statement by God that every plant yielding seed and every tree which has fruit yielding seed shall be food for you to every beast of the earth, every bird of the sky, and to everything that moves on the earth which has life (Gen.1:29-30),
That verse quite neatly proves that physical death did occur before the fall. Try eating a carrot without killing it.
October 7th, 2010 | 5:11 pm | #35
Nickp,
Try finding a carrot with the “breath of life”, as Genesis calls it.
If you can find that carrot, I can eat it without killing it.
October 7th, 2010 | 5:54 pm | #36
I don’t think the ancient Hebrews considered plants as “living things” that could therefore be killed. Genesis 1 speaks of the animals as “living creatures, but it does not speak of plants like that. Animals were considered to have the “breath of life” in them. We should not expect that the ancient Hebrews would have categorized things according to modern taxonomies ~ that would be anachronistic.
October 7th, 2010 | 6:03 pm | #37
On Hell or: is Plato There?
If Plato is in Hell, what is that to me?
I’m responsible for responding to the Light that God has graciously made known to me.
October 7th, 2010 | 6:06 pm | #38
Orthodoxdj,
So then you know what I’m talking about when I ask for the ultimate epistemological basis for knowledge. Philosophers have debated this for years and have come to no conclusive decision on it.
If I read you correctly, you are saying that there are several sources of knowledge. I don’t have an argument with you there. As a Christian, I hope you would say, ‘Scripture’ is the ultimate stopping point, end point, beginning point, for knowledge, but I hear you, you’re not saying that. You have written above that Scripture is ‘one’ source of knowledge, but not the final ultimate source of knowledge. At this point we disagree, don’t we?
I can only ask if there are competing sources of ultimate knowledge that you rely on, how are you as a ‘finite’, ‘limited’, creature, within yourself, to determine which source is correct on any one thing? Are you not left with saying, ‘Well, I take science for this bit of knowledge, but I take Scripture for that? You’re picking and choosing by your limited finite autonomous self to determine which you will accept and which you will reject.
Thus, my point earlier about the resurrection. It seems to me that you want to hold to the resurrection as a true bit of history and knowledge, despite what science tells you is impossible, and yet reject what Scripture says about creation because science tells you that it happened ‘another way’.
Since you say you teach philosophy, then you are obfuscating in our discussions here, because you understand mankind’s search for ‘ultimate knowledge’ and the different philosophical schools and ideas, and yet don’t want to tell me what your ‘ultimate, final’ presuppositional (belief) basis for that ultimate knowledge is. As a philosopher, I am asking you for the ultimate epistemic certainty and justification for you knowing anything.
October 7th, 2010 | 6:30 pm | #39
Does science say the Resurrection of Jesus never happened? If you say it does, then you have a bad definition of science. Do you believe the Resurrection was in spirit only? If you believe that the Resurrection of Jesus actually happened, then you believe that science is on its side and not the other way around. Jesus said he had flesh and bones after the Resurrection. Thus, His existence was empirically verifiable, which means it fits the definition of science. What science cannot explain is how Jesus came back from the dead. “Science” never says the supernatural isn’t real. Science simply observes and interprets the natural world.
Multiple passages explicitly say the Resurrection happened, but not even one passage explicitly says that animals did not die prior to the fall. Sure, you can make inferences, but those inferences are what we are debating. I don’t infer that the Resurrection happened. I don’t have to because it’s clear.
What you are proposing is essentially that ALL that happened prior to the fall was such that it was not natural but rather supernatural. If that’s the case, then science is meaningless in this realm. I can just as easily claim that there was no gravity prior to the fall and you could not argue against me. You can say that it’s obvious that gravity existed, but I can respond by saying, “It was the power of God that kept them walking upright and kept them from floating way.” I can claim that animals talked prior to the fall and make my case (as some do) by saying, “Eve wasn’t taken by surprise that a snake talked. Don’t you think she would’ve been freaked out if animals couldn’t talk? But since she wasn’t surprised, it’s clear that animals could talk.” Thus, I have a claim based on an inference. No Scriptures explicitly deny it. Science is of no help here because it was before the fall.
Did every fish live off of plankton?
October 7th, 2010 | 6:30 pm | #40
Not only could the carrots regenerate, they often conversed with the snakes.
Or, if Jeff is correct and trees weren’t regarded as living things that could be killed, how might the ancient Hebrews have regarded a zygote, or a frozen blastocyst?
October 7th, 2010 | 6:57 pm | #41
Orthodoxdj,
Yes, the naturalistic, materialistic philosophical basis that modern science is built on says that a man once dead does not come back to life again. You are trying to bring in the realm of the supernatural in regards to the resurrection, claiming that science has nothing to say about this, or that science doesn’t preclude this because it has never been observed, yet hoping that no one notices your equivocation.
Quite disingenuous I think.
October 7th, 2010 | 7:07 pm | #42
It’s not disingenuous and it isn’t equivocation. I guess I can simply say that all you have left are ad homs, but I’ll respond to your arguments instead. Will you please answer me with regard to the Resurrection? Was Jesus able to be observed via the five senses after the Resurrection? If you believe He was, then science verifies its reality.
If anyone is equivocating, it’s you. You have defined science as
“the naturalistic, materialistic philosophical basis that modern science is built on”.
This reveals your ideological bias. When I say “science”, I’m talking about a method and/or a generally accepted body of truth.
If science to you is all one big conspiracy to discredit Christianity and the Bible, then this conversation needs to get down to brass tacks and hammer out what science actually is and what is knowable by it and what isn’t it. Personal attacks won’t cut it.
October 7th, 2010 | 7:09 pm | #43
Orthodoxdj,
I’ll answer your question when you choose to answer mine. I’ve asked it several times.
October 7th, 2010 | 7:28 pm | #44
You’ve asked about epistemology. I’ve answered. I’ve said that I know some things some ways and other things in other ways. I know the Bible is true instrumentally and not intuitively. I must have a certain body of knowledge prior to ever even being able to claim I “know” the Bible is true. I trust it for different reasons. The most compelling reasons are the Christian tradition behind it and the ways the content of the Bible has changed my life.
I do not accept a hermeneutical method that says that science is irrelevant. Science is a subset of the rational method and the rational method is a facet of being made in God’s image. Science is meaningful. If I observe something and God says what I have observed is not true, then I will trust God. If science gives me reasons to believe something and Scripture does not deny it, then I am going to trust the mind God has given me. If I can’t trust the mind God has given me, then epistemology doesn’t matter to me at all because if my mind cannot be trusted, then it cannot be trusted with the knowledge of it untrustworthiness.
October 7th, 2010 | 8:35 pm | #45
Orthodoxdj: “I must have a certain body of knowledge prior to ever even being able to claim I “know” the Bible is true.”
Spoken like a Calvinist.
October 7th, 2010 | 11:45 pm | #46
Steve Drake writes:
Orthodoxdj responds:
I think Orthodoxdj is raising a good point here. I’d rephrase it slightly (perhaps making a different, but related, point):
Steve Drake, wouldn’t you agree with this point, as I’ve stated it? Or, would you rather insist that one can gain knowledge from Scripture prior to knowing any language, and prior to knowing anything about any language?
(By focusing on this one issue, I don’t mean to neglect your other fine questions; I’m just thinking that perhaps we might first find agreement on this one minor point.)
October 8th, 2010 | 12:00 am | #47
TUAD,
Calvinists are right sometimes. Their Calvinism gets in the way of a lot of things, but it’s a start.
October 8th, 2010 | 6:40 am | #48
Orthodoxdj says:
“I must have a certain body of knowledge prior to ever even being able to claim I “know” the Bible is true.”
C.Ehrlich says:
“The very ability to gain knowledge from ‘Scripture’ presupposes that one already has quite a bit of knowledge. E.g., it presupposes that one knows quite a bit of language.”
The quotation marks are in the wrong place in the first quote above, they should be around the “I”.
In the same sense C.Ehrlich your statement about presupposing that one (again an “I” here)
already has quite a bit of knowledge and must understand language before gaining knowledge from Scripture in is the same vein and with the same presupposition that Orthodoxdj states.
Your arguments stem from the same root. It’s not ultimately about me, I, I, I, I, it’s about Him, isn’t it? The self-authenticating, sovereign and omnipotent God of the universe has spoken in His self-attesting, inerrant, and infallible Word. I either choose to believe that (presuppose it), or I don’t. It’s that simple in an ultimate epistemological sense. If God is not who He says He is in Scripture, and if His Words are not accurate when they touch on fact; if all facts are not pre-interpreted by God, created by God, revelatory of God, and handled in such a way that they bring glory to God, then epistemic certainty and justification are illusory at best and rely solely on man by himself trying to reach out and grab a bunch of facts and try to make teleological meaning of it all.
Telling me that science helps you answer those questions as it relates to origins belies the presuppositions inherent in the method, considerations, conclusions, and interpretations. This is where we disagree gentlemen, science can never be the final arbiter of ultimate truth, that role is left to God.
October 8th, 2010 | 7:25 am | #49
“TUAD,
Calvinists are right sometimes.”
Calvinists are right when they say that the Arminians are wrong.
October 8th, 2010 | 11:45 am | #50
Either there is a real me that exists or there isn’t. If there is, then there must be knowledge that is logically prior to me understanding Scripture. I know that Scripture is trustworthy because I know the concept “trustworthy.” If I don’t know that concept, then I don’t know if Scripture is reliable.
October 8th, 2010 | 1:12 pm | #51
I know that Scripture is trustworthy because I know the concept “trustworthy.”
God exemplifies the concept of “trustworthy”.
October 8th, 2010 | 1:19 pm | #52
Steve’s last reply is a real gem. I’ll make one parting remark. Maybe should object to one thing Steve says:
In response, perhaps we should just quote Steve again:
I mean, if this response worked for Steve before, why shouldn’t it work against him now?
October 8th, 2010 | 1:34 pm | #53
Orthodj says:
“The very ability to gain knowledge from ‘Scripture’ presupposes that one already has quite a bit of knowledge. E.g., it presupposes that one knows quite a bit of language.”
That’s a complete non-starter. All you’ve said is that to gain knowledge from Scripture one must be human, because humans, by virtue of being alive, have been given the gift of language by God Himself.
I find it quite troubling that you’ve put Scripture in quotations. That comes across not unlike C. Ehrlich snapping off about carrots regenerating to speak with talking snakes.
Do either of you actually believe the Bible, or were those just unfortunate typos?
October 8th, 2010 | 1:38 pm | #54
I didn’t write what you’re saying I wrote. Yes, I believe the Bible. In order to believe, I must have requisite knowledge of life and innate abilities. Those are logically prior to Scripture. I cannot trust God if I do not know Him. I cannot believe the Bible is reliable if I don’t know what reliability is. I reject fideism; so should you.
October 8th, 2010 | 1:58 pm | #55
The quotes around “Scripture” follow Steve Drake’s usage–his claim is the one’s being challenged here. Read #46 for clarification. I expect that everyone, with the exception of Steve Drake, will agree with my point there, as it is quite trivial. My idea in putting it out there was to see if we could at least come to agreement with Steve on this minor point. Apparently we cannot.
I think this tells us something about the prospect of reaching agreement with Steve Drake on the more substantive issues.
October 8th, 2010 | 2:35 pm | #56
Orthodj,
That makes sense I think I also reject fideism, if by that you mean believing something just because.
That said, when God makes someone alive in Christ, the then of a necessity believe the Bible to be wholly true, even if they’ve not had the chance to prove it.
When the gospel is preached, people are saved because God does a miracle, not because they’ve come to understand that it makes no sense not to believe the Bible.
Understanding flows from that, not the other way around.
October 8th, 2010 | 2:39 pm | #57
C Ehrlich,
I see your point about comment #46.
That said, this presupposition that people have such and so a body of knowledge is a bit off in my mind.
Partly because the knowledge you speak of, everyone has already, Scripture is clear on that.
Also, it seems to ignore that salvation is a miracle, following which belief in and understanding of Scripture flows.
I think we’re forgetting that here.
October 8th, 2010 | 6:02 pm | #58
God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living. For he fashioned all things that they might have being; and the creatures of the world are wholesome. And there is not a destructive drug among them nor any domain of the nether world on earth, for justice is undying. For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it. Wisdom 1:13-15; 2:23-24
October 9th, 2010 | 8:11 am | #59
Gentlemen,
Ah, yes, I wondered when the accusation of fideism would pop up. Now we’re gettin’ somewhere, aren’t we?
Was Augustine a fideist? For it was Augustine who said, ‘I don’t understand in order to believe, I believe in order to understand.’
What did he mean by that?
October 9th, 2010 | 7:22 pm | #60
“What did he mean by that?” Not sure.
“True faith is not only sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also firm confidence which the Holy Spirit works in my heart by the gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.” Heidelberg Catechism, “What is saving faith?”
October 9th, 2010 | 9:24 pm | #61
C.Ehrlich said:
“Maybe should object to one thing Steve says:
‘I either choose to believe that (presuppose it), or I don’t. It’s that simple in an ultimate epistemological sense.’
In response, perhaps we should just quote Steve again:
‘Your arguments stem from the same root. It’s not ultimately about me, I, I, I, I, it’s about Him, isn’t it?’
I mean, if this response worked for Steve before, why shouldn’t it work against him now?”
Touche. Let me state my position a little better and ask a few questions then for you and Orthodoxdj, but first:
C. Ehrlich said:
“My idea in putting it out there was to see if we could at least come to agreement with Steve on this minor point. Apparently we cannot.
I think this tells us something about the prospect of reaching agreement with Steve Drake on the more substantive issues.”
Ah, the sole arbiter of who can reach agreement and who can’t, speaks. Is this like a poison the well strategy Mr. Ehrlich? I would have thought you might be above this kind of approach. Are you a team, that decides whether the ‘us’ can reach agreement with someone? I guess you speak for the team then? But I digress.
To continue, Orthodoxdj said:
“Either there is a real me that exists or there isn’t. If there is, then there must be knowledge that is logically prior to me understanding Scripture. I know that Scripture is trustworthy because I know the concept “trustworthy.” If I don’t know that concept, then I don’t know if Scripture is reliable.”
The unsaid assumption of course here that apriori knowledge that you speak of using your rational mind ‘can’ be trusted. This begs the question. You’re assuming the very thing that is in question. It’s also an infinite regress, for one can ask you how you ‘know’ the concept ‘trustworthy’? And on and on.
C. Ehrlich said:
“The very ability to gain knowledge from ‘Scripture’ presupposes that one already has quite a bit of knowledge. E.g., it presupposes that one knows quite a bit of language.”
How does one gain knowledge from Scripture unless one knows a language and can use his/her reason to decode it. The issue of language is only an issue if it doesn’t come from God, yet it did, in propositional and verbal form to Adam in the garden. Or are you saying that Adam could not speak on the day that he was created?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact