Indeed, God the Father has revealed Himself in several ways - in Jesus Christ first by whom for for whom all that is "is" (Col 1) - in the indwelling Spirit - in the Scriptures - and in the Creation (Psalms 19, Romans 1:20).
To take one piece of the fourth revelation and elevate it on par with the first revelation makes no sense to me.
We run into this phenomenon of assuming a greater knowledge domain from a smaller observer vantage point all the time on science threads where the correspondent insists that randomness exists and yet one cannot say that randomness exists in a system unless he knows what the system “is.”
My testimony is that God alone is Truth. Reality exists according to His will – His direct will or His permissive will. There is nothing else of which anything can be made but His will. He is the uncaused cause of "all that there is." (Genesis to Revelation)
In my epistemology, looking for Truth anywhere except in Him leads to error. Putting confidence in material things of any kind leads to error. Putting confidence in other men leads to error.
Thus my personal epistemology is as follows:
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another; i.e., Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
Caveat: Many Christians of good conscience are quite comfortable relying on the doctrines and traditions of faithful spiritual leaders, but I personally eschew the doctrines and traditions of all men (Mark 7:7) which includes all mortal interpretations of Scriptures, whether by the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith, or whomever. The mortal scribes (Paul, John, Peter, Daniel, Moses, Isaiah, David, etc.) do not fall in this category to me since the actual author is the Spirit Himself and He authenticates the Scriptures personally by His indwelling. Thus I make a hard distinction between the Living Word of God and mere musings — such as the geocentricity interpretations of the early church or any of my own similar musings.
3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I’m happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that …
11. Determined facts: I accept something as fact because of a consensus determination by others, positive (affirmation) or negative (veto); i.e., I trust that these fact finders collectively know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:13
In my view, the differences between us usually boil down to either (a) a believer’s epistemology or (b) his emphasis within the revealed words of God – whether the emphasis is on a particular apostle, a particular gift of the Spirit, election or free will, etc.
I confess that I relate much more to the apostle John than to any other apostle - and to the church of Philadelphia than to any other church in Rev 2-3.
Imagine a die with 100,000 sides. You get one roll. Would you bet your life on landing on 56,433? And yet, you seem to be willing to bet your eternal life that you indeed have the Spirit and the truth, even though thousands upon thousands of other persons claim think that they too have the Spirit and the truth, and yet disagree with you.
-A8
If this were uniformly tossed then no Scripture would ever be taught. As there is no private interpretation of the scripture, (2 Peter 1:20) and faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God (Romans 10:17), Christianity would cease to exist.
As for all reality being an illusion, actually, according to the bible, it is not. You have the seen world, in which we live, and exist through laws, in an orderly manner, and you have the unseen world, the invisible (Romans 1:20, Col: 1:15,16, 1Titus 1:17, Hebrews 11:27 ) all created at the same time and both worlds are the Creation.
The pull and flow of the quantum fields may perhaps look like illusion, but the world is still the same world that was created by God, and a Buddhist or a Hindu contemplating his own mind, and thinking that all is illusion, does not disappear, and more importantly he does not "find" God, only his own mind's vain imaginings. God cannot "be found".
Of course there was divine revelation before Christ was enfleshed, God spoke to the prophets throughout the Old Testament. But the indwelling Spirit, the Comforter of Pentecost had not yet been given. (John 14 through Acts 2)
INDEED!
My entire point of raising the scientific issues concerning matter was that I do not put confidence in matter. Matter is just one part of the creation – it is not the full revelation of God.
Indeed, God the Father has revealed Himself in several ways - in Jesus Christ first by whom for for whom all that is "is" (Col 1) - in the indwelling Spirit - in the Scriptures - and in the Creation (Psalms 19, Romans 1:20).
To take one piece of the fourth revelation and elevate it on par with the first revelation makes no sense to me.
INDEED. MUCH AGREE.
My testimony is that God alone is Truth. Reality exists according to His will – His direct will or His permissive will. There is nothing else of which anything can be made but His will. He is the uncaused cause of "all that there is." (Genesis to Revelation)
INDEED.
In my epistemology, looking for Truth anywhere except in Him leads to error. Putting confidence in material things of any kind leads to error. Putting confidence in other men leads to error.
ABSOLUTELY. That has been my abundant and painful educational experience as well as my reading of Scripture.
If you think that "reality is an illusion", then how can you affirm that Jesus Christ came in the flesh?
Angel-Gal: I know Him personally and have known Him personally for nearly five decades. He has confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit all that is written in the Scriptures – and a number of things outside of the Scriptures as well.
The same is true, for me. Well put. Thanks.
And you don't have authority to determine for the Church either the canon or the interpretation of Scripture.
Angel-Gal: I never claimed that authority. The sole authority for revealing Truth to Christians is the indwelling Spirit Himself:
God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:13
A-G: For the record, A8, half of my family is Catholic. One of them is a deacon. All are Christian and I expect to see every one in person in the life to come. Likewise I expect to see you and many other believers of a variety of confessions.
A-G: In my view, the differences between us usually boil down to either (a) a believer’s epistemology or (b) his emphasis within the revealed words of God – whether the emphasis is on a particular apostle, a particular gift of the Spirit, election or free will, etc.
INDEED. WELL PUT. MUCH AGREE.
Thanks. Guess there's not much to add except to cheer! YEA!
We run into this phenomenon of assuming a greater knowledge domain from a smaller observer vantage point all the time on science threads where the correspondent insists that randomness exists and yet one cannot say that randomness exists in a system unless he knows what the system “is.”
Great points, Alamo-Girl. Especially thank you for your "little epistemological list." It bears close study!