Great post, Bethel—your comments at the end about how important statements of belief are, might be a modest corrective tonic to the kind of aversion that JBP has when talking about “belief”.
“What Christians have staked themselves on has historically been a matter of life or death. The words of the Creed are not “just words,” or “just propositions.” Words are living and active. Words wound and heal. Words kill and give life.”
Peterson talks like “just saying something“ is not enough and of course that’s true in the widest sense. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t SAY IT. We are instructed more than once in the Scriptures to CONFESS our faith, to be witnesses as followers of Christ, to be willing to be identified with Him. JBP is talking a lot about the Bible and the gospels, so he’s thrashing around the whole territory. But ultimately, there’s no substitute for very clear statements.
Yeah, and I also always thought that idea of Peterson's wasn't even very Petersonian, given all the weight he places on THE LOGOS, MAN! Like, his whole brand is the sanctity and world-shattering significance of *speech*!
“On free will, divine foreknowledge, and predestination, I think the point belonged to Craig, who nicely articulated the Molinist view that God has perfect knowledge of what we might do, but we are the ones who choose what we will do.”
Independent of who’s right, I’d have thought the debate point went to Goff — he raised an objection, Craig hadn’t heard of the objection and so didn’t answer it (though he restated that he didn’t think molinism had any problems), and then the debate moved on
There's a sort of safe word that I've seen many atheist debaters resort to every time they feel cornered: "I don't know." Some add somewhat smugly "and I'm comfortable not knowing." They sound like they want to differentiate themselves from a certain kind of Christian apologist that seem to feel duty bound to answer every single question. I'm strongly inclined to view Dr. Craig as one of them and I think it's a theologically unhealthy attitude in an area where every subject involves a "mysterium fidei." I fancy a sort of litmus test to find out these type of apologist: the doctrine of divine simplicity. I suspect there's nothing like this doctrine to decidedly put God beyond our rational grasp, and sometimes I wonder if Dr. Craig has fallen prey of the rationalist temptation to bring God down to our level so we can better understand "Him." I rather have theologians humbly admit that they do not know. Or, at least, that they don't look so uncomfortable with not knowing.
Well actually, Craig's epistemology *is* functionally fideist. A lot of people who are only familiar with him through his debates don't realize this but he thinks we know Christianity is true chiefly by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.
By the way, I once saw a really good presentation about the authorship of the Gospels, and I vaguely remember that the name of the presenter was McGrew. Is that your dad?
Well, if by "internal witness of the Holy Spirit" he means that faith is a gift that can't be "gained" by the sole power of natural reason, I can't argue with that. But if he means that the gift bypasses reason then, of course, that's what I would regard as fideism. I think Luther was a fideist too, wasn't he? Aren't most Protestants fideists?
Bethel, the following remarks are not a criticism of you or your writing. You have fallen into the same use of an often misused phrase. “Having your cake and eating it too,” makes sense. However, the correct saying is, “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.” Think about the logic of the statement. Small quibble about an otherwise well written piece.
Wonder if it might be time to start communally reciting the Athanasian creed more than once per year.
Great post, Bethel—your comments at the end about how important statements of belief are, might be a modest corrective tonic to the kind of aversion that JBP has when talking about “belief”.
“What Christians have staked themselves on has historically been a matter of life or death. The words of the Creed are not “just words,” or “just propositions.” Words are living and active. Words wound and heal. Words kill and give life.”
Peterson talks like “just saying something“ is not enough and of course that’s true in the widest sense. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t SAY IT. We are instructed more than once in the Scriptures to CONFESS our faith, to be witnesses as followers of Christ, to be willing to be identified with Him. JBP is talking a lot about the Bible and the gospels, so he’s thrashing around the whole territory. But ultimately, there’s no substitute for very clear statements.
Yeah, and I also always thought that idea of Peterson's wasn't even very Petersonian, given all the weight he places on THE LOGOS, MAN! Like, his whole brand is the sanctity and world-shattering significance of *speech*!
"Has God really said..." remains a most consequential question.
“On free will, divine foreknowledge, and predestination, I think the point belonged to Craig, who nicely articulated the Molinist view that God has perfect knowledge of what we might do, but we are the ones who choose what we will do.”
Independent of who’s right, I’d have thought the debate point went to Goff — he raised an objection, Craig hadn’t heard of the objection and so didn’t answer it (though he restated that he didn’t think molinism had any problems), and then the debate moved on
Goff sounds a bit like D.B. Hart, who also is definitely not orthodox.
Easier to listen to though.
I confess I am a fan of Hart's writing style, even if I disagree with its content.
There's a sort of safe word that I've seen many atheist debaters resort to every time they feel cornered: "I don't know." Some add somewhat smugly "and I'm comfortable not knowing." They sound like they want to differentiate themselves from a certain kind of Christian apologist that seem to feel duty bound to answer every single question. I'm strongly inclined to view Dr. Craig as one of them and I think it's a theologically unhealthy attitude in an area where every subject involves a "mysterium fidei." I fancy a sort of litmus test to find out these type of apologist: the doctrine of divine simplicity. I suspect there's nothing like this doctrine to decidedly put God beyond our rational grasp, and sometimes I wonder if Dr. Craig has fallen prey of the rationalist temptation to bring God down to our level so we can better understand "Him." I rather have theologians humbly admit that they do not know. Or, at least, that they don't look so uncomfortable with not knowing.
Well actually, Craig's epistemology *is* functionally fideist. A lot of people who are only familiar with him through his debates don't realize this but he thinks we know Christianity is true chiefly by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.
By the way, I once saw a really good presentation about the authorship of the Gospels, and I vaguely remember that the name of the presenter was McGrew. Is that your dad?
Well, if by "internal witness of the Holy Spirit" he means that faith is a gift that can't be "gained" by the sole power of natural reason, I can't argue with that. But if he means that the gift bypasses reason then, of course, that's what I would regard as fideism. I think Luther was a fideist too, wasn't he? Aren't most Protestants fideists?
Bethel, the following remarks are not a criticism of you or your writing. You have fallen into the same use of an often misused phrase. “Having your cake and eating it too,” makes sense. However, the correct saying is, “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.” Think about the logic of the statement. Small quibble about an otherwise well written piece.
Thanks Lynn. :)