Yes I think those who are significant in our lives can have a big effect on us, either good or bad. One of the most depressing things in recent years was to see how many American Christians thought Trump was great. One can understand the cynicism of the younger generation.
1 Like
He was the sinless offering. A corrupted being could not have accomplished anything by his death.
Truly like us in being tempted, but not like us in succumbing. If Jesus is both God and man, as is the traditional understanding of Him, then He is by definition unique.
1 Like
Thank you so much! I knew that others have had the same experience. Before it happened to me, I read a book wherein the author described it as happening to him. He also, knew it was God. At the time I made no bibliographic record of the book and I have been unable to find it again. That was in the 1990’s, so the book is probably out of print. So, your story is very helpful to me.
Of course, He was the sinless sacrifice. The point that I am making doesn’t deny any of that. However, when does scripture say that He was tempted without succumbing. Isn’t it after the Holy Spirit descended upon Him following His baptism by John?
When I read the scriptures - especially the New Testament - I experience the gospel message as self-evidently the truth about God from God. I don’t mean that every single assertion has this character, but that there is a cluster of teachings that is self-evident and the cluster includes (or presupposes) God’s existence and his incarnation in Christ. This experience, along with other experiences, are experiences of God speaking, and are often also accompanied by a strong sense of his presence.
The grounds of belief in God is the experience of God: God is not the conclusion of an argument but the subject of an experience report.
Roy Clouser
3 Likes
Is this the same Roy Clouser who sought to “plant an oasis around the oak so as to diminish the wonder that it’s there, and thus allow the reader’s attention to be focused where it belongs: on the most original philosophical theory since Kant”?
It is. Guilty as charged.
1 Like
And Phil Yancey’s was way different than Maggie’s (the second account in the tl;dr OP ; - ), but both were determinative!
What an incredible pleasure this is! I wish I could say I read your book! But I love where I see it going and if time permits I shall get to it.
I tried reading Kant’s CPR as a philosophy undergrad but it was too much for me. I did get pretty far with his critique of the ontological argument. Wrote a paper about how the argument works, that Kant did not consider the possibility for the existence of nothing, and that the argument doesn’t prove a necessary being apart from oneself.
That paper on Kant was born out of a moment where I thought I could know God through a philosophical argument apart from Jesus. What I found wasn’t theism though.
Pursued the next couple years of my undergrad thinking often about the rational possibility of solipsism, and continuing to work out the argument against atheism. And then decided I wasn’t cut out for an academic career. That was around 2005.
There are a few more things I’d like to chat about if you are interested.
I love that.
But if your mindset disallows the existence God as a discrete being, then no experience can be from that God, “…even if someone rises from the dead.” Might arguments still have their place perhaps in God’s providence, by hopefully lending to persuade some to at least allow for his existence? There are of course resolute Sadducee1 ‘nons’ whom no amount of good reason or cordiality will help spiritual blindness or soften a stony heart. We should maybe pray for a crisis on the road to Jericho and a Christlike Good Samaritan for such a one.
1(Is there an adjectival form of that like there is for Pharisee? ; - )
You are right that a convinced pantheist or other sort of unbeliever may be resistant (not open) to an experience of God. Arguments may help in that case - or not. The decisive issue is whether the Spirit of God converts the person’s heart via the experience. Without the work of the Spirit no one truly believes; with the work of the Spirit no one fails to believe.
2 Likes
I can’t think of a worse introduction to philosophy than Kant’s CPR. Without guidance it’s virtually unintelligible. Once I saw a little booklet designed to give students a 4 page summary of the major thinkers starting with Plato. I turned to the chapter on Kant, and it began: “Confirms your worst fears…”
1 Like
It was a class on late modern philosophy and we were using Kant’s Prolegomena. I about fell out of my chair when I heard what the goal of history was for Hegel.
I do wonder what happens when people begin to consider what it means if the cause of the universe is unaware of its action.
I believe the NT calls this the testimony of the Spirit. Or what Jesus referred to as the blessing by which those who have not seen him, believe in him.
1 Like
That’s the right reaction!
2 Likes
It was reading Heidegger’s Letter on Humanism and seeing through the plural pronouns that brought me to my knees. Other stuff was going on, but the double meaning of the text was more than I could stomach.
No argument there. ; - )
Yes. That is what was behind my “Might arguments still have their place perhaps in God’s providence…”
John the Baptist explains this.
John 1:32 And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”
This was a sign to John identifying the messiah. So clearly this did not happen with others who were baptized – at least, not so John could see, otherwise this would not have worked, and God would not have told John to look for such a thing.
1 Like
Possibly. However, if the arguments fail to address the concerns of the one subjected to them in a meaningful and convincing way, then the arguments are ineffective.
An apologist cannot expect someone simply to change their mind after the same argument that was ineffective in the past is repeated many more times.
Likewise an apologist who does not respect the other person cannot build trust with them. People tend not to be convinced by people they don’t trust, much less feel comfortable giving them a hearing.
And if the person remains unconvinced after all of the apologist’s efforts, what is the appropriate way to treat the person, that is, the apologist’s neighbor?
1 Like