Reflections on Biblical and
Christian Philosophy

Musings

Introduction and explanation.  My mind is the only one that I have ever experienced!  Obvious, huh.   Well, yes, but my mind is also always associating, reasoning, connecting, analyzing, and concluding (at least somewhat temporarily).  A new connection, reason, or conclusion will come to me, as I read, meditate, engage in conversation, take a shower, or even while jogging.  For a long time, I wrote these out in longhand, filling page after page.  But then, I mused, what are computers for, if not to muse more concretely and extensively.  And, then, what are webpages for, but to post such musings for others to see.

Now, this posting is profoundly both good and bad.  It is good, if these musings, turn out to be true, meaningful, coherent, and useful.  However, musings are just that, musings.  So, I post these with some fear and trepidation.  They may be wrong! But, likely they are not totally wrong.    I may change my mind in the future!  (Not likely, at least completely, as I usually have it mostly right the first time.)  I may modify them in the future with better explanation or understanding.  (I may never even look at them again.)

So, read the following in that light, even as I muse that Augustine said that we only discover what we already know, and it is Christ Himself who is the teacher.  (See his De Magistro.)  But, as is the goal of this site and all that I do, test everything with Scripture.  If you do not test in this way, then you are guilty, also.

Musings differs from Ed's Penseés in that the latter is (I hope) better thought out.

If you want to respond or want to know when these are posted, let me know.

========================================================================

Index of Subject Matter

Determinism: Is it self-refuting when stated by one who believes it?

God as unchanging and truth that varies from person to person (subjectively conditional)

Biblical authority ... what analogy?

The idea of university started with the idea of di-versity

The idea of university found in the 66 books of the agreed-upon Bible

Exclusive beliefs vs. being simply irrational  January 9, 2010

How can the universe be both lawful and irrational?  January 9, 2010

Being and becoming... the not yet becoming the already.  February 6, 2010

God's Common Grace Masks the Complexity of Language.  February 7, 2010  

Does the success of philosophers have to do with the confusion of their work?  February 7, 2010

Ad hominem arguments are “murder intended.” February 12, 2010

Determinism: Is it self-refuting when stated by one who believes it? (Ronald Nash, Faith and Reason, 53-54) That is, if I am determined or pre-determined to believe in determinism, then my stating that fact has no significance.  I agree—if we leave God out.  But in Biblical philosophy, God cannot be left out.  It is clear from Scripture that God does predestine (pre-determine) all things; even the words that I choose here to refute the refutation of determinism.  It is God that causes me to believe in determinism (predestination in Biblical language).  He is the Determiner. 

Now, what is the reason for me to try to convince you that I am right, or you to convince me that I am wrong?  This process is also a part of God’s predestination.  At this point the idea that I am a robot is usually brought up.  Well, a robot is not self-conscious!  Thus, while I may be predestined to think and act, I am conscious that God has predetermined everything.  I am  watching the Great Drama by the Greatest Producer and Director, and I am in the cast from birth to death.  I do not know what is exactly my part, nor my speaking lines, but I will know as I get there.  How exciting!

God as unchanging and truth that varies from person to person (subjectively conditional).  If there is indeed a subjective-objective encounter, that is, a person with his own experience and learned knowledge, and that knowledge varies from person to person, then all knowledge of Scripture is therefore different.  “David was King of Israel” is different in my understanding from that of another Christian, because what I know of David as King of Israel is different from that other Christian.  There is the fact of David’s kingship as simply stated in that simple sentence—objectively it can convey all that God understands of his kingship, but I cannot know it as God knows it.  The simple statement, “David was King of Israel,” is true for all those who believe it, but that statement in the whole of a person’s knowledge is different.  God, however, knows everything about that statement immediately and necessarily.  So, truth within a person can be only partial, and even change, but as he understands Scripture, what he knows about that statement is true.

This “truth” also seems relevant to the philosophical idea that finite truth is morally wrong in itself.  In fact, we can never know truth the way that God does.  “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” declares that a regenerate person can know the truth.  Thus, partial truth is truth, as it is consistent with Scripture.  That is why the only truth that we can know is Scripture.  Since Scripture was written by God, He knew the “whole truth,” as he wrote it (and still does).  Thus, the only knowledge of which we can have certainty as truth is Scripture.  I know that “David was King of Israel” because it stands in the omniscience of God’s knowledge.  I can only know that Socrates was a man because it was stated by finite men.  Even they cannot know the omniscience of that statement.  Now, that knowledge (and all empirical knowledge) is certainly useful for one’s experience on earth, but it is conditional truth or practical truth, not God’s truth.  Or, perhaps, we can use the philosophical language of “matters of fact,” “statements of fact,” or even “self-evident facts,” but they are not truth.

Biblical authority… what analogy?  Looking through “the lens of Scripture” (Calvin and Belangia).  As “an anchor,” Ed.  Scripture must be the ultimate reference… authority.  We must foremost determine what it says or does not say on a subject.  Maybe there is no adequate analogy.  “Hovering authority” … picturing the Book above the morass of human opinion?  “Background reference?” “The filtering grid.”  “The small gauge sieve" through which all which all opinion must be forced.”  What about "the rock to which we are anchored?"  We could not drift very far if we are moored to the Rock of Ages! What do readers suggest?

The idea of university in the Scholastics had one major flaw: they developed di-versity instead.  Aquinas believed that the cosmological argument proved God’s existence, that some theology (natural theology) was possible without Revelation, and that the empirical method was valid.  Thus, the unifying nature of knowledge never had a chance… it was di-vided from the beginning of modern scholarship and thinking.  And, this di-versity continues to this day, even among Bible-believing, evangelical Christians with such phrases as “all truth is God’s truth” and How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It” (an address given by J. P. Moreland at the Evangelical Society Meeting in 2007). 

In reality, only the Reformed community has the theology that would ground a true uni-versity of knowledge, but they have their own divisions in their battles over their own side issues.  (See John Frame, Machens' Warrior Children.)  One of these battles is over the very philosophy that would make uni-versity possible—that of Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, and Gordon Clark.

Bible-believing Christians have at least narrowed the search for a university to one source: the 66 books of the Bible.  All non-Biblical philosophies and religions can do is point out the flaws in each other’s systems.  Meanwhile, evangelical Christians have at least narrowed their source to the 66 books of the Bible.  Whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, those who actually believe the Bible have agreed upon those 66 books.  While they differ greatly in their interpretations of these books, nevertheless they are consulting the same source.  This unity is cause for great celebration.  If indeed the laws of logic are true, these 66 books are true, and the Holy Spirit is directing the inquiry, then an increasing unity in Christendom is inescapable.  

What about the Quran for Muslims and the Old Testament for the Jews?  The Quran is demonstrably a weak and false derivative of the Bible without coherence of text or its history.  Its culture has proven the disastrous inferences from its falsehoods.  The Old Testament is true enough, but incomplete without the Jews’ Messiah and the clarity that He would bring for them.  Their own narrowness and blindness caused them to miss His coming.

On being narrowly exclusive in one’s beliefs vs. holding inconsistent positions.  Critics of Biblical Christianity often say that it is narrowly exclusive.  “Everyone ought to be more ‘inclusive’ or ‘pluralistic.’”*  But Alvin Plantinga directs us to an unavoidable problem.  Either we become narrowly exclusive or we accept beliefs that are incompatible, inconsistent, and incoherent.  (“A Defense of Religious Exclusivism, in Thomas D. Senor [Ed.], The Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith, 201-205) Which is preferable: to hold to beliefs that are coherent, a well-defined system, or to believe in incompatibilities and violations of the law of noncontradiction?  The answers seem obvious.

Further, if one believes in everything (pluralism), then how can one be passionate about anything.  The only consistent (coherent) attitude about pluralism is “ho-hum,” anything goes.  Who could really want that kind of life?  Practically, no one does because anyone will always get passionate about “some thing” that they believe!

*One wonders from where this “ought” comes.

How can the universe be both rational and irrational?  How can the universe be “lawful” (that is, consist of inductive laws), and yet those laws not apply anywhere in the universe?  How can the universe exist if it is now running down?  How can imperfection begin in the first place?  Does not the presence of imperfection require perfection?   This conclusion was that of Descartes.  No thing that a man creates is perfect, yet it is functional … highly functional.  Eventually, it will wear out and break … be no longer functional.  Functionality does not require perfection, only a state in which its imperfection will not destroy itself for some useful period of time.  

Does an imperfect universe imply that at one time it was perfect?  No, but the existence of the universe for 6000 to 14 billion years requires a degree of precision that is almost infinitely beyond the ability of humans.  The Creator was incredibly precise … at the least.

Or, He created perfection which has since been altered in some way … the Fall.  The Big Bang is not an option.  The bigger the bang, the bigger the destruction.  There is no way … no way … that a Big Bang could have created a zillion atoms and molecules, as well as one organized solar system.  That possibility requires a faith that exceeds comprehension!  

Being and becoming... the already and the not yet.  How is it that a person "is," and yet "not is" what he will be?  I was once a little boy, trying to catch tadpoles in a muddy creek.  Now I have completed a medical and writing career, but still have 10-20 years left, q.v.  Who am I?  We forget that God is not subject to time.  For Him, all history is now.  He sees us in our totality ... our completed lives as a composite.  We do not have this perspective.  Then, in a real sense we are becoming what we are ... as He sees us.  So, actually the phrase "the already and the not yet" is backwards.  It should be "the already is the becoming of the not yet."  "Already" cannot exist until we have drawn our last breath, and even then the "already" will include our eternal destinies.  The real mystery is how does God keeps one mind separate from another, since the spiritual is the substratum of the physical, and we are able to make the transition from our earthly, bodily existence into our eternal existence with our minds intact and whole ... He preserves that which has "become" now and forevermore!

God's Common Grace in Language.  Language seems simple.  I talk to you, you understand me, and vice-versa.  I talk to a group, and they mostly understand me.  I write a book, and most people understand it.  Communication in language works!  (Most of the time ... that is not to say that misunderstanding do not occur.)  But the simple act of communication masks its extreme complexity.  The differences in opinion over methods and grounding of epistemology define the complexity.  Philosophy of language, philology, and analytic philosophy add further dimensions of complexity.  Words are made of individual symbols (letters).  Each word is a symbol of something simple, like dog or cat, or something much more complex, like logic and mathematics.  Further, it is impossible fully to translate one language into another, e.g., Greek and Hebrew into English.  (Thus, preachers go to seminar to learn these languages.)  Formal logic is the most precise method of reasoning, but it depends upon words and definitions and copulas to make propositions.

How many have considered that the seeming simplicity of language and communication is one of the great, perhaps the greatest, manifestation of God's common grace to all men.  I say, "common grace," because most communications between believer and unbeliever are effective, yet their worldviews (properly understood) are "light and darkness" and "truth and foolishness."  If God did not give the human race the innate structure and faculty to manipulate language, no communication would ever take place.  One might be able to make the case that communication is more complex than cells, tissues, organs, and physical bodies!  Yet, we take it for granted, and when misunderstandings occur, we wonder why.  Let us praise God that He has given us the wonderful gift of language that allows one mind to communicate with other minds, and with His Great Mind.

Does the success of philosophers depend upon the confusion of their writings?  It almost seems that those philosophers who have achieved fame and study for the past 400 years have been those who are most loquacious, vague, and even confused in their writings.  Hegel dominated the 19th century and seemed to vary his definitions from context to context to the extent that his followers split into right and left groups after his death—how much more confused can that situation be?  Kant will make your head spin, trying to following the difference between intuition, understanding, judgment, inference, and antinomy.  Then, there is the early and later Wittgenstein—will the real one please grow up and be definite?  And, on and on.  Before you react, just consider whether there might be some truth to my view.

Ad hominem arguments are “murder intended.”  Jesus said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22).  When a person resorts to an ad hominem argument, he has essentially said, “I cannot answer your argument.  Therefore, I will kill you!”  “All who hate me, love death” (Proverbs 8:36).  “The fool who has said in his heart, ‘There is no God,’” has already rejected the highest reason for morality.  Why not kill all those with whom he disagrees!