Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Do we KNOW Christianity is true?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00

Runner

 
Member
Epistemology keeps rearing its head on threads on which I participate. This is the branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge - what knowledge is and what it means to claim we "know" something.

I keep being told I say things that don't sound very Christian. I keep responding, "This is a matter of epistemology." So here we are.

To claim we have knowledge, we must have some legitimate basis for the claim. A legitimate basis is called justification or warrant. (As we'll discuss, knowledge requires more than mere justification, but it does require that.)

Famed Christian epistemologist Alvin Plantinga says Christians can claim to have justification for their beliefs without any evidence whatsoever. He says we can claim to have justification on the basis of our internal sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine) and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

However, even Plantinga agrees this doesn't mean Christian belief is true, merely that it isn't irrational. "Justified" basically means "not irrational." It doesn't mean "true."

How do we determine if Christianity is true - or can we?

I believe there are threshold truth questions: Is naturalism true? If it is, there is no god. If it isn't, there may be a god of some sort. (Not all atheism is naturalistic - many atheists believe in life after death and some sort of spiritual realm.)

If we decide naturalism isn't true, which ism is then most likely to be true - non-naturalistic atheism, deism or theism? If we decide it's theism, which version of theism? (Christianity, of course, is a species of theism.)

These are all ultimate metaphysical questions. As a finite human being, I'm like a goldfish in a bowl trying to explain the reality outside the room in which the bowl is located. I can never really know to a 100% objective certainty whether naturalism is true or false, theism is true or false, or Christianity is true or false. I can only reach a level of conviction on these matters.

On each of these matters, I believe we reach a level of conviction through experience, observation, study, reflection and intuition. At some point, we reach a level of conviction naturalism is false, theism is true, and Christianity is true. We have a rational, well-justified, defensible conviction. The more diligent our quest, the more solid our convictions will be.

(Obviously, few people address these matters in a tidy order. It's usually more of a jumbled mess, but we do reach convictions on the critical questions.)

Christianity, of course, also includes the notion of revelation by God - in the Bible, in the person of Jesus, in the indwelling of the Spirit. However, I only believe and experience these things as revelations by God after I've reached a conviction Christianity is true. They may strongly reinforce my conviction to the point where I claim to "know" Christianity is true, but a Jew, Muslim or Hindu can make the same sorts of claims and so we're really still talking about a very strong conviction rather than knowledge.

This being the case, I never claim more for my Christian beliefs than I rationally can. I don't play the "pretend certainty" game, even though I've had a startling born-again experience, several other paranormal experiences, and several complex life events I can only attribute to the hand of God. Convincing as they were to me, they all might be explained in other ways - including defects in my own thinking and perceptions. (Significantly, even Plantinga admits his epistemology only works with properly functioning mental faculties.)

Honesty compels me to admit that, remote as the possibility may seem to me, naturalistic atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism might be true. Lots of very intelligent people who have engaged in diligent quests believe these things.

Honesty also compels me to admit my mainstream understanding of Christianity might be only 73% or 48% true.

I thus don't claim any more for my Christian beliefs than conviction. I try to live as though they were true while accepting they might not be. I examine and question them continually, both because it's enjoyable and because my goal is to get as close to metaphysical Truth as I can in this lifetime. I don't think there is anything irreligious or un-Christian about this.

So that's my notion of epistemology.

Many Christians, like other believers, were indoctrinated into their beliefs as children. Many Christians, like other believers, hold their beliefs mostly on the basis of cultural conditioning. Others went directly to Christianity as the result of a single mystical experience of some sort. Perhaps they simple heard the Gospel and had an "A-ha!" moment inspired by the Holy Spirit. Many of these folks have never examined or questioned their beliefs. This doesn't mean they "aren't real Christians" or are somehow "lesser Christians." Many do claim "knowledge" or "certainty" they don't really have - not in any epistemic sense anyway - because they're afraid to confront what they actually do believe and why. That's fine - when they question my Christianity, I realize it's mostly just a defense mechanism.

The traditional formulation in philosophy is, KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF. With metaphysical belief systems like Christianity, it's the "TRUE" requirement that's the problem. As Christians, I believe, we have JUSTIFIED CONVICTIONS.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong.
 
Epistemology keeps rearing its head on threads on which I participate. This is the branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge - what knowledge is and what it means to claim we "know" something.

I keep being told I say things that don't sound very Christian. I keep responding, "This is a matter of epistemology." So here we are.

To claim we have knowledge, we must have some legitimate basis for the claim. A legitimate basis is called justification or warrant. (As we'll discuss, knowledge requires more than mere justification, but it does require that.)

Famed Christian epistemologist Alvin Plantinga says Christians can claim to have justification for their beliefs without any evidence whatsoever. He says we can claim to have justification on the basis of our internal sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine) and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

However, even Plantinga agrees this doesn't mean Christian belief is true, merely that it isn't irrational. "Justified" basically means "not irrational." It doesn't mean "true."

How do we determine if Christianity is true - or can we?

I believe there are threshold truth questions: Is naturalism true? If it is, there is no god. If it isn't, there may be a god of some sort. (Not all atheism is naturalistic - many atheists believe in life after death and some sort of spiritual realm.)

If we decide naturalism isn't true, which ism is then most likely to be true - non-naturalistic atheism, deism or theism? If we decide it's theism, which version of theism? (Christianity, of course, is a species of theism.)

These are all ultimate metaphysical questions. As a finite human being, I'm like a goldfish in a bowl trying to explain the reality outside the room in which the bowl is located. I can never really know to a 100% objective certainty whether naturalism is true or false, theism is true or false, or Christianity is true or false. I can only reach a level of conviction on these matters.

On each of these matters, I believe we reach a level of conviction through experience, observation, study, reflection and intuition. At some point, we reach a level of conviction naturalism is false, theism is true, and Christianity is true. We have a rational, well-justified, defensible conviction. The more diligent our quest, the more solid our convictions will be.

(Obviously, few people address these matters in a tidy order. It's usually more of a jumbled mess, but we do reach convictions on the critical questions.)

Christianity, of course, also includes the notion of revelation by God - in the Bible, in the person of Jesus, in the indwelling of the Spirit. However, I only believe and experience these things as revelations by God after I've reached a conviction Christianity is true. They may strongly reinforce my conviction to the point where I claim to "know" Christianity is true, but a Jew, Muslim or Hindu can make the same sorts of claims and so we're really still talking about a very strong conviction rather than knowledge.

This being the case, I never claim more for my Christian beliefs than I rationally can. I don't play the "pretend certainty" game, even though I've had a startling born-again experience, several other paranormal experiences, and several complex life events I can only attribute to the hand of God. Convincing as they were to me, they all might be explained in other ways - including defects in my own thinking and perceptions. (Significantly, even Plantinga admits his epistemology only works with properly functioning mental faculties.)

Honesty compels me to admit that, remote as the possibility may seem to me, naturalistic atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism might be true. Lots of very intelligent people who have engaged in diligent quests believe these things.

Honesty also compels me to admit my mainstream understanding of Christianity might be only 73% or 48% true.

I thus don't claim any more for my Christian beliefs than conviction. I try to live as though they were true while accepting they might not be. I examine and question them continually, both because it's enjoyable and because my goal is to get as close to metaphysical Truth as I can in this lifetime. I don't think there is anything irreligious or un-Christian about this.

So that's my notion of epistemology.

Many Christians, like other believers, were indoctrinated into their beliefs as children. Many Christians, like other believers, hold their beliefs mostly on the basis of cultural conditioning. Others went directly to Christianity as the result of a single mystical experience of some sort. Perhaps they simple heard the Gospel and had an "A-ha!" moment inspired by the Holy Spirit. Many of these folks have never examined or questioned their beliefs. This doesn't mean they "aren't real Christians" or are somehow "lesser Christians." Many do claim "knowledge" or "certainty" they don't really have - not in any epistemic sense anyway - because they're afraid to confront what they actually do believe and why. That's fine - when they question my Christianity, I realize it's mostly just a defense mechanism.

The traditional formulation in philosophy is, KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF. With metaphysical belief systems like Christianity, it's the "TRUE" requirement that's the problem. As Christians, I believe, we have JUSTIFIED CONVICTIONS.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong.
If "Honesty compels me to admit that, remote as the possibility may seem to me, naturalistic atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism might be true.", how can you have faith in Christ?
They are the antithesis of one another.
 
Epistemology keeps rearing its head on threads on which I participate. This is the branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge - what knowledge is and what it means to claim we "know" something.

I keep being told I say things that don't sound very Christian. I keep responding, "This is a matter of epistemology." So here we are.

To claim we have knowledge, we must have some legitimate basis for the claim. A legitimate basis is called justification or warrant. (As we'll discuss, knowledge requires more than mere justification, but it does require that.)

Famed Christian epistemologist Alvin Plantinga says Christians can claim to have justification for their beliefs without any evidence whatsoever. He says we can claim to have justification on the basis of our internal sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine) and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

However, even Plantinga agrees this doesn't mean Christian belief is true, merely that it isn't irrational. "Justified" basically means "not irrational." It doesn't mean "true."

How do we determine if Christianity is true - or can we?

I believe there are threshold truth questions: Is naturalism true? If it is, there is no god. If it isn't, there may be a god of some sort. (Not all atheism is naturalistic - many atheists believe in life after death and some sort of spiritual realm.)

If we decide naturalism isn't true, which ism is then most likely to be true - non-naturalistic atheism, deism or theism? If we decide it's theism, which version of theism? (Christianity, of course, is a species of theism.)

These are all ultimate metaphysical questions. As a finite human being, I'm like a goldfish in a bowl trying to explain the reality outside the room in which the bowl is located. I can never really know to a 100% objective certainty whether naturalism is true or false, theism is true or false, or Christianity is true or false. I can only reach a level of conviction on these matters.

On each of these matters, I believe we reach a level of conviction through experience, observation, study, reflection and intuition. At some point, we reach a level of conviction naturalism is false, theism is true, and Christianity is true. We have a rational, well-justified, defensible conviction. The more diligent our quest, the more solid our convictions will be.

(Obviously, few people address these matters in a tidy order. It's usually more of a jumbled mess, but we do reach convictions on the critical questions.)

Christianity, of course, also includes the notion of revelation by God - in the Bible, in the person of Jesus, in the indwelling of the Spirit. However, I only believe and experience these things as revelations by God after I've reached a conviction Christianity is true. They may strongly reinforce my conviction to the point where I claim to "know" Christianity is true, but a Jew, Muslim or Hindu can make the same sorts of claims and so we're really still talking about a very strong conviction rather than knowledge.

This being the case, I never claim more for my Christian beliefs than I rationally can. I don't play the "pretend certainty" game, even though I've had a startling born-again experience, several other paranormal experiences, and several complex life events I can only attribute to the hand of God. Convincing as they were to me, they all might be explained in other ways - including defects in my own thinking and perceptions. (Significantly, even Plantinga admits his epistemology only works with properly functioning mental faculties.)

Honesty compels me to admit that, remote as the possibility may seem to me, naturalistic atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism might be true. Lots of very intelligent people who have engaged in diligent quests believe these things.

Honesty also compels me to admit my mainstream understanding of Christianity might be only 73% or 48% true.

I thus don't claim any more for my Christian beliefs than conviction. I try to live as though they were true while accepting they might not be. I examine and question them continually, both because it's enjoyable and because my goal is to get as close to metaphysical Truth as I can in this lifetime. I don't think there is anything irreligious or un-Christian about this.

So that's my notion of epistemology.

Many Christians, like other believers, were indoctrinated into their beliefs as children. Many Christians, like other believers, hold their beliefs mostly on the basis of cultural conditioning. Others went directly to Christianity as the result of a single mystical experience of some sort. Perhaps they simple heard the Gospel and had an "A-ha!" moment inspired by the Holy Spirit. Many of these folks have never examined or questioned their beliefs. This doesn't mean they "aren't real Christians" or are somehow "lesser Christians." Many do claim "knowledge" or "certainty" they don't really have - not in any epistemic sense anyway - because they're afraid to confront what they actually do believe and why. That's fine - when they question my Christianity, I realize it's mostly just a defense mechanism.

The traditional formulation in philosophy is, KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF. With metaphysical belief systems like Christianity, it's the "TRUE" requirement that's the problem. As Christians, I believe, we have JUSTIFIED CONVICTIONS.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong.
My faith is very simple. I believe in the Bible for which there is contemporary evidence relating to both the Old and New Testaments, assuming Jews have the documentation, I would be surprised if they don't. In addition, there are contemporary letters written about Jesus. I also believe the gospels and epistles written by those with first-hand knowledge to be true.
 
Just to add, there is Josephus and the online Jewish Encyclopaedia. Also, I have copies of contemporary letters that talk of Jesus, if I can find them, in other words, I have been there, done it, and am satisfied.
 
Epistemology keeps rearing its head on threads on which I participate. This is the branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge - what knowledge is and what it means to claim we "know" something.

I keep being told I say things that don't sound very Christian. I keep responding, "This is a matter of epistemology." So here we are.

To claim we have knowledge, we must have some legitimate basis for the claim. A legitimate basis is called justification or warrant. (As we'll discuss, knowledge requires more than mere justification, but it does require that.)

Famed Christian epistemologist Alvin Plantinga says Christians can claim to have justification for their beliefs without any evidence whatsoever. He says we can claim to have justification on the basis of our internal sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine) and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

However, even Plantinga agrees this doesn't mean Christian belief is true, merely that it isn't irrational. "Justified" basically means "not irrational." It doesn't mean "true."

How do we determine if Christianity is true - or can we?

I believe there are threshold truth questions: Is naturalism true? If it is, there is no god. If it isn't, there may be a god of some sort. (Not all atheism is naturalistic - many atheists believe in life after death and some sort of spiritual realm.)

If we decide naturalism isn't true, which ism is then most likely to be true - non-naturalistic atheism, deism or theism? If we decide it's theism, which version of theism? (Christianity, of course, is a species of theism.)

These are all ultimate metaphysical questions. As a finite human being, I'm like a goldfish in a bowl trying to explain the reality outside the room in which the bowl is located. I can never really know to a 100% objective certainty whether naturalism is true or false, theism is true or false, or Christianity is true or false. I can only reach a level of conviction on these matters.

On each of these matters, I believe we reach a level of conviction through experience, observation, study, reflection and intuition. At some point, we reach a level of conviction naturalism is false, theism is true, and Christianity is true. We have a rational, well-justified, defensible conviction. The more diligent our quest, the more solid our convictions will be.

(Obviously, few people address these matters in a tidy order. It's usually more of a jumbled mess, but we do reach convictions on the critical questions.)

Christianity, of course, also includes the notion of revelation by God - in the Bible, in the person of Jesus, in the indwelling of the Spirit. However, I only believe and experience these things as revelations by God after I've reached a conviction Christianity is true. They may strongly reinforce my conviction to the point where I claim to "know" Christianity is true, but a Jew, Muslim or Hindu can make the same sorts of claims and so we're really still talking about a very strong conviction rather than knowledge.

This being the case, I never claim more for my Christian beliefs than I rationally can. I don't play the "pretend certainty" game, even though I've had a startling born-again experience, several other paranormal experiences, and several complex life events I can only attribute to the hand of God. Convincing as they were to me, they all might be explained in other ways - including defects in my own thinking and perceptions. (Significantly, even Plantinga admits his epistemology only works with properly functioning mental faculties.)

Honesty compels me to admit that, remote as the possibility may seem to me, naturalistic atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism might be true. Lots of very intelligent people who have engaged in diligent quests believe these things.

Honesty also compels me to admit my mainstream understanding of Christianity might be only 73% or 48% true.

I thus don't claim any more for my Christian beliefs than conviction. I try to live as though they were true while accepting they might not be. I examine and question them continually, both because it's enjoyable and because my goal is to get as close to metaphysical Truth as I can in this lifetime. I don't think there is anything irreligious or un-Christian about this.

So that's my notion of epistemology.

Many Christians, like other believers, were indoctrinated into their beliefs as children. Many Christians, like other believers, hold their beliefs mostly on the basis of cultural conditioning. Others went directly to Christianity as the result of a single mystical experience of some sort. Perhaps they simple heard the Gospel and had an "A-ha!" moment inspired by the Holy Spirit. Many of these folks have never examined or questioned their beliefs. This doesn't mean they "aren't real Christians" or are somehow "lesser Christians." Many do claim "knowledge" or "certainty" they don't really have - not in any epistemic sense anyway - because they're afraid to confront what they actually do believe and why. That's fine - when they question my Christianity, I realize it's mostly just a defense mechanism.

The traditional formulation in philosophy is, KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF. With metaphysical belief systems like Christianity, it's the "TRUE" requirement that's the problem. As Christians, I believe, we have JUSTIFIED CONVICTIONS.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong.
I highly recommend this book ("Is Atheism Dead?" by Eric Metaxas):
It shows that naturalistic atheism or materialism is untenable. IMO atheists heavily rely on peoples' ignorance to further their cause.

It seems to me that the Bible is very clear about how the Christian faith comes to a person, which takes more than mere knowledge of the Bible. It takes a supernatural act of God, which I call Divine Imposition. So, if a person is really seeking the only true God, they will be willing to abandon their own opinion and beliefs in favor of what the only true God says, which takes God revealing Himself and the truth He speaks to that person seeking Him.
 
Epistemology keeps rearing its head on threads on which I participate. This is the branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge - what knowledge is and what it means to claim we "know" something.

I keep being told I say things that don't sound very Christian. I keep responding, "This is a matter of epistemology." So here we are.

To claim we have knowledge, we must have some legitimate basis for the claim. A legitimate basis is called justification or warrant. (As we'll discuss, knowledge requires more than mere justification, but it does require that.)

Famed Christian epistemologist Alvin Plantinga says Christians can claim to have justification for their beliefs without any evidence whatsoever. He says we can claim to have justification on the basis of our internal sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine) and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

However, even Plantinga agrees this doesn't mean Christian belief is true, merely that it isn't irrational. "Justified" basically means "not irrational." It doesn't mean "true."

How do we determine if Christianity is true - or can we?

I believe there are threshold truth questions: Is naturalism true? If it is, there is no god. If it isn't, there may be a god of some sort. (Not all atheism is naturalistic - many atheists believe in life after death and some sort of spiritual realm.)

If we decide naturalism isn't true, which ism is then most likely to be true - non-naturalistic atheism, deism or theism? If we decide it's theism, which version of theism? (Christianity, of course, is a species of theism.)

These are all ultimate metaphysical questions. As a finite human being, I'm like a goldfish in a bowl trying to explain the reality outside the room in which the bowl is located. I can never really know to a 100% objective certainty whether naturalism is true or false, theism is true or false, or Christianity is true or false. I can only reach a level of conviction on these matters.

On each of these matters, I believe we reach a level of conviction through experience, observation, study, reflection and intuition. At some point, we reach a level of conviction naturalism is false, theism is true, and Christianity is true. We have a rational, well-justified, defensible conviction. The more diligent our quest, the more solid our convictions will be.

(Obviously, few people address these matters in a tidy order. It's usually more of a jumbled mess, but we do reach convictions on the critical questions.)

Christianity, of course, also includes the notion of revelation by God - in the Bible, in the person of Jesus, in the indwelling of the Spirit. However, I only believe and experience these things as revelations by God after I've reached a conviction Christianity is true. They may strongly reinforce my conviction to the point where I claim to "know" Christianity is true, but a Jew, Muslim or Hindu can make the same sorts of claims and so we're really still talking about a very strong conviction rather than knowledge.

This being the case, I never claim more for my Christian beliefs than I rationally can. I don't play the "pretend certainty" game, even though I've had a startling born-again experience, several other paranormal experiences, and several complex life events I can only attribute to the hand of God. Convincing as they were to me, they all might be explained in other ways - including defects in my own thinking and perceptions. (Significantly, even Plantinga admits his epistemology only works with properly functioning mental faculties.)

Honesty compels me to admit that, remote as the possibility may seem to me, naturalistic atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism might be true. Lots of very intelligent people who have engaged in diligent quests believe these things.

Honesty also compels me to admit my mainstream understanding of Christianity might be only 73% or 48% true.

I thus don't claim any more for my Christian beliefs than conviction. I try to live as though they were true while accepting they might not be. I examine and question them continually, both because it's enjoyable and because my goal is to get as close to metaphysical Truth as I can in this lifetime. I don't think there is anything irreligious or un-Christian about this.

So that's my notion of epistemology.

Many Christians, like other believers, were indoctrinated into their beliefs as children. Many Christians, like other believers, hold their beliefs mostly on the basis of cultural conditioning. Others went directly to Christianity as the result of a single mystical experience of some sort. Perhaps they simple heard the Gospel and had an "A-ha!" moment inspired by the Holy Spirit. Many of these folks have never examined or questioned their beliefs. This doesn't mean they "aren't real Christians" or are somehow "lesser Christians." Many do claim "knowledge" or "certainty" they don't really have - not in any epistemic sense anyway - because they're afraid to confront what they actually do believe and why. That's fine - when they question my Christianity, I realize it's mostly just a defense mechanism.

The traditional formulation in philosophy is, KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF. With metaphysical belief systems like Christianity, it's the "TRUE" requirement that's the problem. As Christians, I believe, we have JUSTIFIED CONVICTIONS.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong.
First, Plantinga is deeply wrong. There are millennia of Christians who have justification for what they believe. They even died horrible deaths rather than change their mind.

The reasons for our faith are both rational and experiential. The mind provides the strongest support. The modern church is taught to emphasize experience but you won’t find this as the basis for the faith of those described in the Bible. They wrote books of understanding matters, not how to have spiritual experiences. Those they had too but those who seek experiences will likely have them but if the mind is turned off, any spirit can give them what they seek. My observation is that those who seek experiences jettison discernment. I’ve seen flattering “prophesies” willingly embraced that could have only come from the Enemy. But this is deviating.

More later…train arriving
 
Last edited:
If "Honesty compels me to admit that, remote as the possibility may seem to me, naturalistic atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism might be true.", how can you have faith in Christ?
They are the antithesis of one another.
I'm sorry, but that is simply your mistake. There is nothing antithetical about having faith in Christ and recognizing the possibility you could be wrong. Quite the opposite. It would be closer to the truth to say "certainty" is antithetical to faith.
 
My faith is very simple. I believe in the Bible for which there is contemporary evidence relating to both the Old and New Testaments, assuming Jews have the documentation, I would be surprised if they don't. In addition, there are contemporary letters written about Jesus. I also believe the gospels and epistles written by those with first-hand knowledge to be true.

Just to add, there is Josephus and the online Jewish Encyclopaedia. Also, I have copies of contemporary letters that talk of Jesus, if I can find them, in other words, I have been there, done it, and am satisfied.
You have given legitimate reasons why you have strong Christian convictions, precisely as I described. They are not reasons why you have knowledge or certainty.
 
I highly recommend this book ("Is Atheism Dead?" by Eric Metaxas):
It shows that naturalistic atheism or materialism is untenable. IMO atheists heavily rely on peoples' ignorance to further their cause.
Yes, I've read it and heard Metaxas many times. The parts of the book relating to the archaeological reliability of the Bible were excellent. By the end, he had gone pretty far off the rails and the content really didn't match the title.
It seems to me that the Bible is very clear about how the Christian faith comes to a person, which takes more than mere knowledge of the Bible. It takes a supernatural act of God, which I call Divine Imposition.
Yes, the standard formula is God calls, the Spirit convicts, the individual responds. The route to faith can be this simple. But it's a very epistemically weak and shaky faith if that's where it remains. That faith is not epistemic certainty or knowledge.
So, if a person is really seeking the only true God, they will be willing to abandon their own opinion and beliefs in favor of what the only true God says, which takes God revealing Himself and the truth He speaks to that person seeking Him.
I 100% completely disagree.
 
First, Plantinga is deeply wrong. There are millennia of Christians who have justification for what they believe. They even died horrible deaths rather than change their mind.
This shows a complete misunderstanding of Plantinga. It's Plantinga's position that all Christians can rightly claim justification (which he calls warrant). As one of the acknowledged greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, he understands that justification isn't knowledge and doesn't mean the justified belief is true. You're the second person on these forums in three days who has assured me Plantinga, a Christian giant of the first magnitude, is a dummy.
The reasons for our faith are both rational and experiential. The mind provides the strongest support. The modern church is taught to emphasize experience but you won’t find this as the basis for the faith of those described in the Bible. They wrote books of understanding matters, not how to have spiritual experiences. Those they had too but those who seek experiences will likely have them but if the mind is turned off, any spirit can give them what they seek. My observation is that those who seek experiences jettison discernment. I’ve seen flattering “prophesies” willingly embraced that could have only come from the Enemy. But this is deviating.

More later…train arriving
I agree the mind is essential to Christian faith. I also agree that those who seek after spiritual experiences are treading on dangerous ground. I counsel against this all the time with those who are so inclined. I have never sought any paranormal experience - they have all come to me. None was the least bit disturbing or frightening. They are important to my belief system, but not central to it.
 
This shows a complete misunderstanding of Plantinga. It's Plantinga's position that all Christians can rightly claim justification (which he calls warrant).

You said his claim was justification without evidence. In the above statement, what if the christian claims justification without evidence and God doesn’t agree? Whose opinion counts?
As one of the acknowledged greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, he understands that justification isn't knowledge and doesn't mean the justified belief is true.
So he claims the claim might indeed be false and the one who claims this justification, we assume, can end up in hell, right?
You're the second person on these forums in three days who has assured me Plantinga, a Christian giant of the first magnitude, is a dummy.
I didn’t say that. But I have evidence for justification that he claims isn’t a part of it.
I agree the mind is essential to Christian faith. I also agree that those who seek after spiritual experiences are treading on dangerous ground. I counsel against this all the time with those who are so inclined. I have never sought any paranormal experience - they have all come to me. None was the least bit disturbing or frightening. They are important to my belief system, but not central to it.
Amen! I agree!
 
OK, a question for you. How would God convince the sceptic if He returned today?
If God returned today, that would take the issue out of the metaphysical realm and into the physical. Everyone would then have direct objective knowledge of God the same way I have direct objective knowledge my Ford is in my garage.

Whether I can even have direct objective knowledge my Ford is in my garage is a longstanding debate in philosophy. Everything we observe is filtered through our senses - and how reliable are they? That's why Descartes decided the only thing he could really know was "I think, therefore I am."

A diehard sceptic confronted with God in the physical realm might keep insisting "It's a holographic projection by aliens" or "It's a creature from another dimension" or whatever, but at some point that would become irrational.
 
You said his claim was justification without evidence. In the above statement, what if the christian claims justification without evidence and God doesn’t agree? Whose opinion counts?

So he claims the claim might indeed be false and the one who claims this justification, we assume, can end up in hell, right?

I didn’t say that. But I have evidence for justification that he claims isn’t a part of it.

Amen! I agree!
Plantinga's "Reformed Epistemology" (as it's called) is a revolutionary defense of the Christian faith. The standard atheist objection is that there is "no evidence" of the existence of God (theists disagree, of course) and that belief is "irrational" or "delusional" rather than justified. Plantinga says no, some things are "properly basic." We don't demand evidence that the past actually existed and isn't a present-day illusion that just sprang into existence. We don't demand evidence that other minds actually exist; we accept it and take it for granted.

Similarly, Plantinga says, belief in God is properly basic. It arises out of what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis common to all people. Plantinga then goes beyond this and says even Christian belief may be warranted based solely on the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. For obvious reasons, Plantinga's epistemology is controversial, but it's respected and very influential.

My point in citing Plantinga was that even he, a premier defender of the Christian faith, emphasizes that a justified belief may well be false. "Justification" doesn't equal "truth."

Certainly, I believe I have mountains of justification for my Christian beliefs beyond the bare-bones justification Plantinga is talking about. The more justification we have, the stronger our convictions. But they still remain convictions. I may be 99.99% convicted that naturalism is false, but I can't claim 100%. All naturalists aren't irrational. They have justification too, and many of them would claim 99.99% conviction.

Regarding Plantinga and the esteem in which he is held. see https://www.templetonprize.org/laureate/alvin-plantinga/.
 
One more long post, which I realize people don't like, and then I'll stop. One-liners simply don't do justice to some issues.

I've posted similar "epistemology" thoughts on other Christian forums, and the responses are often knee-jerk ones. People immediately conclude I'm challenging their understanding of Christianity or that my own understanding relies too much on my own "worldly wisdom."

To be clear, it's possible to be a perfectly good Christian with no understanding beyond Vacation Bible School or bumper sticker theology ("God said it, I believe it, that settles it"). No one is challenging your faith.

In my pretty considerable experience, this sort of faith predominates on forums such as this, throughout the evangelical community, and probably throughout much of Christianity. Despite all the Bible says about wisdom and knowledge, there is a deep vein of anti-intellectualism.

"Simply believing" is seen as a virtue. "Thinking about and questioning things" is seen as darkly suspicious and perhaps even an insult to God. (In my opinion, this often results in Bibliolatry - worship of the Bible as though it were some fourth member of the Trinity.)

I have two issues with this sort of faith: (1) Because it's an unexamined faith, it's prone to collapse (not always, of course) in the face of life's challenges), and (2) those who hold this sort of faith have difficulty defending it and may not fare well when challenged by nonbelievers.

I once had this sort of faith. I had a startling, unexpected born-again experience and almost immediately became a campus leader with Campus Crusade for Christ and a divinity student at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. Not too far in, I had an epiphany: "I don't really believe any of this stuff. I'm mostly pretending. I'm placing way too much reliance on an experience that might be explained in other ways. I need a better foundation than this."

So I went back to square one and embarked on a genuine spiritual quest. I wanted to be a Christian who genuinely believed there was a god and that Christianity was closer to the truth than atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism. I wanted a faith that was something more than pretending, mouthing platitudes and clinging to a cosmic security blanket.

I just finished the massive 1400-page Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by preeminent Christian philosophers J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Probably 85% has nothing directly to do with Christianity. The "philosophical foundations" are the foundations for any worldview, including atheism. They concern issues, largely ones of epistemology, that must be confronted to reach any set of convictions on ultimate metaphysical issues such as the existence of God or the truth of Christianity.

The basic concern is "faith seeking understanding." There is a reason Christian philosophers interact with non-Christian ones, Christian apologists attempt to defend the faith with reasoned arguments, and every branch of Christianity is swarming with theologians and scholars. There is a reason that Paul in Romans and the author of Hebrews attempted to explain the faith in an organized way.

If you're content with a Vacation Bible School or nothing-but-the-Bible version of Christianity, be my guest. Just don't patronize me with your advice as to how I should approach or understand Christianity. Epistemically, we both have convictions - not knowledge, not certainty. If you claim more than this, you only play into the hands of those who want to ridicule you. A VBS approach would not suffice as justification for me, not by a long shot. I would always have in the back of my mind, "Do I really believe this - and if so, why?" But if it suffices for you, hallelujah.
 
Epistemology keeps rearing its head on threads on which I participate. This is the branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge - what knowledge is and what it means to claim we "know" something.

I keep being told I say things that don't sound very Christian. I keep responding, "This is a matter of epistemology." So here we are.

To claim we have knowledge, we must have some legitimate basis for the claim. A legitimate basis is called justification or warrant. (As we'll discuss, knowledge requires more than mere justification, but it does require that.)

Famed Christian epistemologist Alvin Plantinga says Christians can claim to have justification for their beliefs without any evidence whatsoever. He says we can claim to have justification on the basis of our internal sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine) and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

However, even Plantinga agrees this doesn't mean Christian belief is true, merely that it isn't irrational. "Justified" basically means "not irrational." It doesn't mean "true."

How do we determine if Christianity is true - or can we?

I believe there are threshold truth questions: Is naturalism true? If it is, there is no god. If it isn't, there may be a god of some sort. (Not all atheism is naturalistic - many atheists believe in life after death and some sort of spiritual realm.)

If we decide naturalism isn't true, which ism is then most likely to be true - non-naturalistic atheism, deism or theism? If we decide it's theism, which version of theism? (Christianity, of course, is a species of theism.)

These are all ultimate metaphysical questions. As a finite human being, I'm like a goldfish in a bowl trying to explain the reality outside the room in which the bowl is located. I can never really know to a 100% objective certainty whether naturalism is true or false, theism is true or false, or Christianity is true or false. I can only reach a level of conviction on these matters.

On each of these matters, I believe we reach a level of conviction through experience, observation, study, reflection and intuition. At some point, we reach a level of conviction naturalism is false, theism is true, and Christianity is true. We have a rational, well-justified, defensible conviction. The more diligent our quest, the more solid our convictions will be.

(Obviously, few people address these matters in a tidy order. It's usually more of a jumbled mess, but we do reach convictions on the critical questions.)

Christianity, of course, also includes the notion of revelation by God - in the Bible, in the person of Jesus, in the indwelling of the Spirit. However, I only believe and experience these things as revelations by God after I've reached a conviction Christianity is true. They may strongly reinforce my conviction to the point where I claim to "know" Christianity is true, but a Jew, Muslim or Hindu can make the same sorts of claims and so we're really still talking about a very strong conviction rather than knowledge.

This being the case, I never claim more for my Christian beliefs than I rationally can. I don't play the "pretend certainty" game, even though I've had a startling born-again experience, several other paranormal experiences, and several complex life events I can only attribute to the hand of God. Convincing as they were to me, they all might be explained in other ways - including defects in my own thinking and perceptions. (Significantly, even Plantinga admits his epistemology only works with properly functioning mental faculties.)

Honesty compels me to admit that, remote as the possibility may seem to me, naturalistic atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism might be true. Lots of very intelligent people who have engaged in diligent quests believe these things.

Honesty also compels me to admit my mainstream understanding of Christianity might be only 73% or 48% true.

I thus don't claim any more for my Christian beliefs than conviction. I try to live as though they were true while accepting they might not be. I examine and question them continually, both because it's enjoyable and because my goal is to get as close to metaphysical Truth as I can in this lifetime. I don't think there is anything irreligious or un-Christian about this.

So that's my notion of epistemology.

Many Christians, like other believers, hold their beliefs mostly on the basis of cultural conditioning. Others went directly to Christianity as the result of a single mystical experience of some sort. Perhaps they simple heard the Gospel and had an "A-ha!" moment inspired by the Holy Spirit. Many of these folks have never examined or questioned their beliefs. This doesn't mean they "aren't real Christians" or are somehow "lesser Christians." Many do claim "knowledge" or "certainty" they don't really have - not in any epistemic sense anyway - because they're afraid to confront what they actually do believe and why. That's fine - when they question my Christianity, I realize it's mostly just a defense mechanism.

The traditional formulation in philosophy is, KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF. With metaphysical belief systems like Christianity, it's the "TRUE" requirement that's the problem. As Christians, I believe, we have JUSTIFIED CONVICTIONS.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong.
Based upon what you have written I think you are correct that an unfulfilling fireless semi-belief in Christ is your present state .
The good news is that you are still questioning and grasping.
Quite telling to me that in all you wrote you never say according to your understanding what specific belief Christianity is supposed to completely satisfy for you ?
Interesting to me that you do mention beliefs of " Children" :

" Many Christians, like other believers, were indoctrinated into their beliefs as children. " ( Runner )

One of the most distressing & disturbing things a loving & caring parent can ever have happen is for their small child look them in the eyes and say , for no apparent or known reason , :
" mommy / daddy . do you love me ? "

Can an already loving & caring parent perplexed by a child who feels there is only a 47% or possibly an 72% chance that their parents love them is "true", then " Indoctrinate " the child into believing that their love for them is true ?

To make application here the essence of Christianity , for me , is God's Love.
The physical expression of God's Love being manifested in His only begotten Son yielded up to a hostile, sinful & selfish world that it might be saved .
For the joy that was set before Him bringing many to glory .
It is God's Love realized that makes fellowship with Him " true " .
By His Love we truely KNOW that we have been transformed into His image and made a citizen of heaven.

Unchecked Copy Box
Luk 18:17
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
 
Based upon what you have written I think you are correct that an unfulfilling fireless semi-belief in Christ is your present state .
The good news is that you are still questioning and grasping.
Ah, yes, the inevitable ad hominem attacks! The good 'ol "Too bad you're not really a Christian - like me."
Quite telling to me that in all you wrote you never say according to your understanding what specific belief Christianity is supposed to completely satisfy for you ?
That's not the subject of this thread. The issue isn't whether Christianity "completely satisfies" me. It's whether I am able to hold a conviction it's true.
Interesting to me that you do mention beliefs of " Children" :

" Many Christians, like other believers, were indoctrinated into their beliefs as children. " ( Runner )

One of the most distressing & disturbing things a loving & caring parent can ever have happen is for their small child look them in the eyes and say , for no apparent or known reason , :
" mommy / daddy . do you love me ? "

Can an already loving & caring parent perplexed by a child who feels there is only a 47% or possibly an 72% chance that their parents love them is "true", then " Indoctrinate " the child into believing that their love for them is true ?
You're mixing apples and oranges. A child directly experiences parental love. If a child seeks reassurance from a parent, that's fine. If a child repeatedly does this, I as the parent would begin to question whether my treatment of the child actually looks like love.

Indoctrinating a child into religious belief is a completely different matter. The parent is simply indoctrinating the child into the parent's own convictions. This doesn't mean it's improper - it's perfectly understandable - or the convictions are inevitably false. But it does short-circuit the process of the child's own spiritual quest. I was blessed - truly blessed - to have no parental indoctrination in any direction. I have relatives who were indoctrinated into Mormonism; even though they now think it's nonsense, they can't quite get out of their heads.
To make application here the essence of Christianity , for me , is God's Love.
The physical expression of God's Love being manifested in His only begotten Son yielded up to a hostile, sinful & selfish world that it might be saved .
For the joy that was set before Him bringing many to glory .
It is God's Love realized that makes fellowship with Him " true " .
By His Love we truely KNOW that we have been transformed into His image and made a citizen of heaven.

Unchecked Copy Box
Luk 18:17
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
OK, that's what the essence of Christianity is for you. I wouldn't disagree. But this is what Christianity means to you because, on some basis and for some reason sufficient to you, you have reached a conviction Christianity is true. You really aren't using the terms "true" and "know" in an epistemic sense. It's an "internal knowing" that carries no weight with anyone but you and fellow Christians. An atheist would say it's all delusion, and a Buddhist or Hindu would say he has the same knowing about the truth of his religion.

You're clearly feeling threatened by what I have said, so let it go.
 
If God returned today, that would take the issue out of the metaphysical realm and into the physical. Everyone would then have direct objective knowledge of God the same way I have direct objective knowledge my Ford is in my garage.

Whether I can even have direct objective knowledge my Ford is in my garage is a longstanding debate in philosophy. Everything we observe is filtered through our senses - and how reliable are they? That's why Descartes decided the only thing he could really know was "I think, therefore I am."

A diehard sceptic confronted with God in the physical realm might keep insisting "It's a holographic projection by aliens" or "It's a creature from another dimension" or whatever, but at some point that would become irrational.
Some would believe, others would say he was a fake, and others would say he was Satan. Your answer would be torn to shreds in a court of law. You have not offered proof.
 
One more long post, which I realize people don't like, and then I'll stop. One-liners simply don't do justice to some issues.

I've posted similar "epistemology" thoughts on other Christian forums, and the responses are often knee-jerk ones. People immediately conclude I'm challenging their understanding of Christianity or that my own understanding relies too much on my own "worldly wisdom."

To be clear, it's possible to be a perfectly good Christian with no understanding beyond Vacation Bible School or bumper sticker theology ("God said it, I believe it, that settles it"). No one is challenging your faith.

In my pretty considerable experience, this sort of faith predominates on forums such as this, throughout the evangelical community, and probably throughout much of Christianity. Despite all the Bible says about wisdom and knowledge, there is a deep vein of anti-intellectualism.

"Simply believing" is seen as a virtue. "Thinking about and questioning things" is seen as darkly suspicious and perhaps even an insult to God. (In my opinion, this often results in Bibliolatry - worship of the Bible as though it were some fourth member of the Trinity.)

I have two issues with this sort of faith: (1) Because it's an unexamined faith, it's prone to collapse (not always, of course) in the face of life's challenges), and (2) those who hold this sort of faith have difficulty defending it and may not fare well when challenged by nonbelievers.

I once had this sort of faith. I had a startling, unexpected born-again experience and almost immediately became a campus leader with Campus Crusade for Christ and a divinity student at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. Not too far in, I had an epiphany: "I don't really believe any of this stuff. I'm mostly pretending. I'm placing way too much reliance on an experience that might be explained in other ways. I need a better foundation than this."

So I went back to square one and embarked on a genuine spiritual quest. I wanted to be a Christian who genuinely believed there was a god and that Christianity was closer to the truth than atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism. I wanted a faith that was something more than pretending, mouthing platitudes and clinging to a cosmic security blanket.

I just finished the massive 1400-page Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by preeminent Christian philosophers J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Probably 85% has nothing directly to do with Christianity. The "philosophical foundations" are the foundations for any worldview, including atheism. They concern issues, largely ones of epistemology, that must be confronted to reach any set of convictions on ultimate metaphysical issues such as the existence of God or the truth of Christianity.

The basic concern is "faith seeking understanding." There is a reason Christian philosophers interact with non-Christian ones, Christian apologists attempt to defend the faith with reasoned arguments, and every branch of Christianity is swarming with theologians and scholars. There is a reason that Paul in Romans and the author of Hebrews attempted to explain the faith in an organized way.

If you're content with a Vacation Bible School or nothing-but-the-Bible version of Christianity, be my guest. Just don't patronize me with your advice as to how I should approach or understand Christianity. Epistemically, we both have convictions - not knowledge, not certainty. If you claim more than this, you only play into the hands of those who want to ridicule you. A VBS approach would not suffice as justification for me, not by a long shot. I would always have in the back of my mind, "Do I really believe this - and if so, why?" But if it suffices for you, hallelujah.
Jesus and the little children, come unto me... that is all it takes to be a Christian. Faith.
And now we are back where we started. Christ knows our heart and at the end of the day, that is all that matters.
 
Back
Top