“Ever since the creation of the kosmos,[1] God’s…eternal power and deity has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” (Romans 1:20)
The Bible rightfully claims the last word and final authority in matters of eternity: with respect to our existential[3] needs and pertaining to the array of philosophical concerns and moral demands. Indeed, this must be the case for reason of the absurdity of expecting mere humans to create ultimate answers to our deepest needs; and fallen sinners such as we are (James 4:1f) to both be righteous and instill justice for all, excluding none. Yet Jesus declared both, “I came that you may have abundant life” (John 10:10) and “I AM the first and the last …the living one, I died and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades” (Rev. 1:17-18). Even so, however, the Bible, with both its declaration[4] and also its practices, points us not only to itself; but also submits itself to the scrutiny of truth.
Whenever
the question arises whether a given assertion concerning factual matters is
true, there are two disparate strategies for seeking assent. The assertor might on the one hand baldly apply
the de jure
ploy[5]
by stating, “My assertion is true because I say so!” In this case no reasons are offered for
justifying the claim; it is instead made solely on his/her own personal so-called
authority. On the other hand the assertor
might employ the de facto
method by which rational reasons are offered that can be publicly-known and
which correspond with the claims asserted.
Now I ask you which of these methods qualifies as establishing
the truth of the claim being made. Only
the latter means. By this claim I am NOT
hinting that God errs or deceives! Nevertheless,
even granting (as I do) that God has perfect knowledge about absolutely
everything; the de jure
mode can never qualify as substantiation for the simple reason that it entails
a tautology, which means it is true only by definition. In other words, it does not bolster the claim
with independent verifiable grounds. The
only way to advance from assertion to substantiation is by giving
independent grounds (or reasons) which ensure it to be true. Of course Christians are entitled to hold,
by faith and intuition, that biblical claims are true. I too do this, conditionally.[6] Yet these terms differ categorically from factual
knowledge and so cannot legitimately be the basis for demonstrating the
facticity of the claim under consideration.
[1] In the Greek text, it can refer either to the world, the
entire universe, or the whole created order.
[2] Romans 1:20, boldface mine.
[3] That is, both urgent and a matter of life and death
with ramifications extending into eternity.
[4] Romans 1:18-21.
[5] I will argue in this paper that even God doesn’t
employ that tactic. For example, even
the frequent Old Testament declaration, “Thus says the Lord,” doesn’t
directly serve to demand confidence in its truth so much as it does to clarify,
in the midst of confusion, that source of the words of the speaker is no less
than Yahweh, the maker of the heavens and the earth and also its redeemer. Obviously,
it logically follows that His words are utterly trustworthy and consequently
must be heeded!
[6] If the notion of the resurrection of Jesus was
overthrown, my faith in Christ would be shattered.
No comments:
Post a Comment