Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
January 25, 2008
ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.
My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.
I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.
It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.
I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.
Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."
Dear FK, the difference is that many private interpretations of Scripture do not line up with typology and 2000 years of very consistent teaching through the Martyr's and the Saints.
In order for one to view certain private interpretations as Holy Spirit lead truths, one must dismiss many consistent interpretations of the Saints and typology of Scripture.
In other words... you elevate your own interpretations above the early Christians who made up the Church, gave their lives for a lie in order for God to work through you or your group over a thousand years later to set us all straight on what the truth is.
This type of thought has produced Jim Jones, Smith and Mormonism and various other groups
I wish a Blessed day!
That's probably true. Of course Catholics have done many wonderful and good things throughout history and continue to do so today. For example, many of the strongest pro-life voices in our country today are Catholics.
It was the characterization of us asking people to ignore the bad apples and the expression that our track record stinks that led to my remark, not any suggestion that we should ignore.
Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that because there are bad actors, therefore, Catholicism is invalidated. I wouldn't apply that standard to my own church. :) I was talking about my claim that the Church claims its clergy/hierarchy is set apart and is superior to all other Christian clergy. My only point was that under some guise of "to whom much is given much will be expected" one would expect to see something different in the Apostolic clergy and hierarchy, as opposed to other Christian clergy.
We are portrayed as hag-ridden by guilt. Some of us go to confession at least once every 2-3 weeks, and it is immediately concluded that we are sexually repressed, upset about nocturnal emissions or something equally ridiculous OR just paying another insurance premium.
I don't think anyone on my side thinks you guys sin any more than we do, so I wouldn't agree with that. However, the insurance premium line did catch my eye. :) I guess all I can do is hypothetically transport myself into a Catholic and imagine what I would think after just committing a mortal sin. (I admit this is not fair because I can't "invent" a Catholic mindset.) So, I imagine myself sitting there and contemplating going to hell for the commission of this sin UNLESS .... Of course I would confess to a priest if I thought those were the rules for salvation. To me, it WOULD seem like an insurance premium. I can't imagine anyone not confessing under those circumstances.
Now, none of this is to belittle confessing. God commands us to confess. We can't become believers unless we confess to God. We just disagree on the subsequent confessions being salvific.
It seems unthinkable that we might be trying to "be still and to allow God to order our lives around His peace. The notion that we might actually be aware of the ridiculousness of shame in the face of God's love is not considered.
I can try to consider it thinkable. :) Your above certainly rings a lot of bells for me. We confess to God too, for reasons just like this. I suppose the flip side of what you're saying is that we are told that we have no need to confess because our ticket is already punched. Therefore, confession must be worthless to us. So, I would agree that it is possible that there is great misunderstanding on both sides.
At least I do, right up until I haul out the IRS Form 1040. Then my confidence and peace melt away like spring snow. Darn it!
Righteous anger is still Godly. :)
God gave His children the Holy Spirit to guide us with wisdom and understanding. Pastors and teachers are no better than any saint (which, of course, describes everyone who is in Christ), though we must admit individuals yield to the Lord and gain understanding in proportion to that yielding.
Yes, Scripture and not any man, is the authority on what God has said and means. No pope nor Baptist preacher - none but the Lord.
I would say that some are called to certain works, such as pastor, preacher, evangelist, etc and are especially gifted toward those works by the Holy Spirit. It does not mean, however, that they are immune from sin, as we can all attest to.
Okay, I think I get that. But as for clergy being superior? Not personally. Not at all. (It is to laugh!) Just as there are many quite virtuous atheists, certainly more virtuous than I, so also there are pastors outside the Catholic clergy who are paragons in many respects. Not far from here is a very holy Baptist pastor.
I THINK you'll find that most Catholics view most Catholic clergy with genial contempt, or sometimes sullen contempt. I have been very fortunate in that I know about 4 or 5 who are very good, and even holy, men. But I know at least one that shouldn't be allowed out without a nurse or a warden or something.
My only point was that under some guise of "to whom much is given much will be expected" one would expect to see something different in the Apostolic clergy and hierarchy, as opposed to other Christian clergy.
In all our dreams. But the world as we greet it gives us clergy, especially bishops and popes with whom Dante cheerily litters the floors of the Inferno. The only thing I can say is that the Eucharist is all the more splendid in the hands of one of the bozos, like a pearl in mud.
I'm reading a life and times of Dominic, and I'm impressed that it was very providential that he had a couple of moderately sane and good popes and bishops to work with, who recognized the need for some good old fashioned evangelism. It was by no means a certainty. Some of that was just the slow, painful working out of the place of the Church in the controlled thuggery that was pre-national feudalism.
BUT I really don't trouble myself in my day to day life about whether this or that is "mortal". I know that seems to run counter to the whole shtick. I hit the confessional every 2 or 3 weeks and, as I say, for me it's an exercise in putting my claim to trust in God to the test. If I trust God, then surely I can bear the embarrassment of telling father so-and-so not only that but how I messed up.
And I GUESS the point of that is to say that I think, experientially, if my experience is anything to go by, the "theology" of confession is over here and the practice is over there. I do not go to "get into heaven" or even to "restore my relationship with God SO THAT I can get into heaven." I go because I'm minimally less of a difficult scoundrel when I go than when I don't. And I do note a certain comparative ease in my prayers when I'm not chewing over some sin.
Now whethr I would allow myself to use a brieg interview with a priest to "settle" the part of the sin which was agaianst God without the "theology", I don't know. But it's not an "Oh my goodness, I have to confess before I get hit by a train!" thing. How can I say this? When you know God forgives you, it is almost a joy to confess. It's a celebration of forgiveness in which I get to play supporting actor. "Also Starring MAD Dawg, as the penitent sinner! (with film clips form real life!)" I am happy to swagger, almost, into the chapel and spend ten minutes in prayer as my "penance"." Wow, God! I offended you and for my alleged punishment you want me to submit myself to your grace by opening myself to you in prayer! Is that a deal or what?
Now, I DO know one lady who might possibly meet the expectation of being all in a dither because she said, "Drat!" and is afraid she might die before she gets absolution. But that strikes me as a problem more for the psychiatrist or some kind of counselor than for the theologian. I hear Paxil works wonders.
As far as SOME of the pro-forma slams on Calvinists and Babdissts go, you will note I don't play. I dare to say I know how the growing perception that God chose one from before the foundation of the world for no reason other than sheer unmerited love -- how that notion leads one to hope to find ways to "Show forth [His] praise not only with our lips, but in our lives," and to deepen one's relationship (in whatever sense that might be up to one) with so great and amazing a Lover -- and to share, again as much as that is up to one, that Love with others.
So you won't catch me asking why people who feel that God made them for Himself and His love try to lead their lives in response to that Love.
That is no different than saying they are "facts" revealed by the pink uniconrns on Jupiter because a books says so. Who are you kidding?
The a priori lies only within the self-revealing God
That's right, once you a priori accept that there is a God and that He "wrote" the Bible, the rest simply falls in place, by design.
Without the triune God as the starting point all other (natural) theologies must start with man and are nothing more than tail chasing
No, man is still the one who a priori accepts or rejects God. Those who accept God cannot prove it and those who reject Him ca not disprove it. The final arbiter is still man in his mind, no matter what the truth is. The difference is simply in the a priori rejection or acceptance.
If we assume that A is true, then we can draw corrollariess from that "truth." The initial presumption of veracity is a leap of (blind) faith, and becomes a starting point of any theology, within which all things are "true" as long as we stay with the a priori initial assumption.
Kosta: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church that defined Christan God as Divine Trinity, and Christ as one Person, in two natures.***
TC: Ya, that’s an example of tail chasing.
That answer tells me that your beliefs are contrary not only to the Apostolic Church but to all mainline Protestant assemblies.
You seem to have no problems believing that there was always a "core" of patriarchs and prophets who "knew" Jesus before Incarnation. IOW, there was always the orthodox faith. Just because the rest of Israel didn't follow it, doesn't mean it didn't exist. It's not about numbers.
That's right. I don't think that the Apostolic Church "stamped out" the right faith until the Reformers came along. I'm sure there were some all along who had it right. They just didn't get the ink that the OT righteous did. :) My "always and everywhere" comment was directed toward the documented evidence of disagreement within the Apostolic Church over time, and/or to changes being made in dogma throughout time. (I know the Orthodox deserve more of a pass on the latter.)
God wanted man to be virtuous. He doe snot distinguish between denominations. There are virtuous people in spite of their errors of judgment.
That is good to hear, but I don't know that it is the position of the Apostolic Church that one can normally be saved outside of it.
[On John 10:16:] FK, you are ignoring the earlier Gospels that quote Jesus with utmost clarity that He was sent for the "lost sheep of Israel only," [Mat 15:240 and that He sends his disciples only to the "lost sheep of Israel" and specifically forbids them to go to Gentiles and Samaritans [Mat 10:6].
I am inferring that you are saying that the earlier Gospels are in conflict with John and that we should follow the earlier ones. Is that right? I see no conflict at all. The lost sheep of Israel are the elect, Gentile or Jew, just as Paul explained. Matt. 10:6 was the practice run. It was not a final sending, obviously (Great Commission). See, in two sentences John and Matthew agree, if one wants to see it. Your core of scripture now appears to be whittled down to three books. :)
The Great Commission, if it hadn't been added at some latter date, can just as well be taken to apply only to the Jews. The word "nations" is tribes, as in tribes of Israel; why would He have chosen 12 Apostles if not one for each tribe of Israel?
The 12 Apostles CORRELATE to the 12 tribes, but you can't build into that the conclusion that Jesus only meant for Christianity to be preached only to the Jews. That's like saying that 40% of all people who eat peanut butter get cancer, therefore..... There's no link.
Plus, if your interpretation is right, then the Bible is wrong, since they obviously did wind up preaching to the Gentiles. That would have Jesus making a mistake, or having the Apostles sinning by disobeying Christ's orders. I don't think the Bible actually says that happened.
[Re: Matt. 15:] And the way the story goes, it doesn't look like He "knew" that she believed when she approached Him.
Is that what you believe, that Jesus was surprised by this woman's faith? He knows all about the Passion that is before Him, but this woman was a complete shock? Come on.
Until we are completely purified, soul-wise, between particular and final judgment, we cannot be restored to immortality. The only question I have is what will stop us from doing, again, what Adam and Eve did!?
Once we are given glory in Heaven there will be no more sin. From the website "Got Questions":
Question: "Will it be possible for us to sin in Heaven?"
Answer: The Bible describes Heaven in great detail in Revelation chapters 21-22. Nowhere in those chapters is the possibility of sin mentioned. There will be no more death, sorrow, crying, or pain (Revelation 21:4). The sinful are not in Heaven, but the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). Nothing impure will ever enter Heaven (Revelation 21:27). Outside of Heaven are those who sin (Revelation 22:15). So, the answer is no, there will be no sin in Heaven.
Thanks for the ping and your many worthy comments.
I don’t recall anything like what you are describing. If you find a link, please let me know.
I'm sorry, that was a gag. :) It was a reference to the movie "The Omen". In it, whenever the photographer happened to take the picture of one of satan's next victims, a dark, unexplained line appeared in the picture indicating the manner of death to come. In this case, hanging. :)
And who would say otherwise?
Amen.
***God gave His children the Holy Spirit to guide us with wisdom and understanding. Pastors and teachers are no better than any saint (which, of course, describes everyone who is in Christ), though we must admit individuals yield to the Lord and gain understanding in proportion to that yielding.
Yes, Scripture and not any man, is the authority on what God has said and means. No pope nor Baptist preacher - none but the Lord.***
Just a comment to the above, nothing special, not starting an arguement :>)
You: That is no different than saying they are "facts" revealed by the pink uniconrns on Jupiter because a books says so. Who are you kidding?
Me: No, my statement did not state that the only way God revealed himself was through Scripture but that Scripture backs up what has already been revealed and is known by all men. So for example, I could use the teleological argument for the existence of God and prove that God exists independent of Scripture. Scripture is the supporting evidence that proves the only true God. This is precisely what Paul did on Mars Hill.
That's right, once you a priori accept that there is a God and that He "wrote" the Bible, the rest simply falls in place, by design.
True enough. But that does not necessarly preclude that sense experience or even subjective states are not functional within a rationalist way of knowing. One can know by a priori and still use sense experience and subjectivism to complement the a priori. What is for certain is that both empiricism and subjectivism are meaningless without an a priori principle.
No, man is still the one who a priori accepts or rejects God. Those who accept God cannot prove it and those who reject Him ca not disprove it. The final arbiter is still man in his mind, no matter what the truth is. The difference is simply in the a priori rejection or acceptance.
This is good news! I think we are making progress here. I'll take that as a tacit acceptance of the a priori way of knowing. We can now dump empiricism as a stand-alone way of knowing as has been so thouroghly demonstrated by the likes of Thomas Kuhn who showed in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), that the claim of being able to come to the facts in an objective and neutral fashion is all an allusion because everybody brings their own cultural experiences, group loyalities, prejudices and precommitments. There is no such thing as brute, uninterpreted facts.
As far as man being the final arbiter, I mean, c'mon man, haven't we had enough of Kantian subjectivism with it's disassociative dualism? It is rather fascinating watching those advocating natural theology through a postori reasoning falling into inner-subjectivity as they must necessarily complaining about our spiritualist friends who base their knowledge almost exclusively on subjective states. You each start in a different starting point but end up in the same place.
All we Scripturalist are saying is that the God who revealed himself through Creation and our conscience has more fully revealed himself through Scripture and he revealed that he is the Creator of all facts and that all facts must be interpreted based on the creator and determiner of all facts. So no, there is no "leap of faith" since all men know there is a God even though they might repress that knowledge in unrighteousness. Faith merely hears the evidence and it is confirmed by Him who is the ground of all facts. Without that a priori your either lost in relativity or an artificial construct that gives the a priori to a human institution.
Finally, as to your attempt to mischaracterize my analysis of your statement by cutting a portion of your own quote, I'll leave that to your conscience.
So what happens if you don’t? What are the works essential for? How are they essential?
If we don't then we never had faith in the first place, as James said. That's pretty essential, but it is not independent. No one can have true faith and then not do works. Works are an echo of faith, but faith alone is what saves. Per my above, specifically, one example of fulfilling God's plan by works is evangelizing. Another is loving my neighbor, etc.
FK: *** That is, I could ask why shouldn’t Catholics feel they can sin all they want to during the week, and then simply clean it up with a confession and a couple of “Hail Mary’s”. ***
Because that is not true repentance; if you intend upon committing the same sins over and over again, then one remains in that state of sin.
But I thought that the Catholic position was that through Apostolic succession any priest had the authority to absolve sin based on John 20:23. I have been told that Heaven accepts the decision of the priest (even one who has wrongly been fooled). That doesn't match what you are saying.
But if the Reformed have every action in their lives dictated and controlled, there is no free will and the works are mechanical only.
That is the classic difference between God's POV and man's. Men fully experience free will, so it is fully real, for us. On a higher plane, God is in control. Some of the time, we are only intellectually aware of it, but many other times we can witness it first hand, like witnessing the birth of a child.
In so many words? Across the board superiority? I really don't think so.
Actually, "yes" in so many words, and virtually across the board. :) Here is an excerpt of some words from a Catholic source: Catholic Church alone is one, true church, says Vatican congregation .
Noting that churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church “suffer from defects,” the doctrinal congregation acknowledged that “elements of sanctification and truth” may be present in them. (emphasis added)
FK: Other Christian faiths MAY have an element of truth. It must have taken true Christian courage to go that far. :) Continuing:
“........ These ecclesial communities [Protestant churches] which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called churches in the proper sense,” it said.
FK: I don't worship in a Church of God (God's Church). Continuing:
In a “commentary” issued with the document, the congregation said that “ecumenical dialogue remains one of the priorities of the Catholic Church.”
FK: Obviously. :) Continuing:
The congregation noted that, while "Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical,” [FK note: understatement of the year :)] the Second Vatican Council has sought to “try to harmonize two doctrinal affirmations” that, despite existent Christian divisions, “the church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church” and that “elements of sanctification and truth do exist … in ecclesial communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church." (emphasis added)
Remember, all of the above is from a Catholic source, thinking it was reporting a positive story. That whole episode last summer sealed my opinion, which I expressed. The Church's efforts, which I'm sure were heart felt, at ecumenism were at best patronizing and condescending. At worst, I'd rather not say. The claim by the Church of literal superiority is set in stone.
I used to say to myself, "Don't confuse the salesman with the product." Now I'd add, and don't confuse the customers with the product either.
Yeah, but the above comes with the blessing of the Pope himself. Given the organizational structure, I have to conclude that this is the "official" position of your Church. In essence, the Pope IS the product in the sense that he holds all earthly authority to define the product, and what Catholicism is "selling" is very different from what we are "selling".
But seriously, it would be nice if our adversaries more often took the trouble to hurl back at us what we really do say, and not paraphrases which, intentionally or not, end up being tendentious. It is especially remarkable since there was a great deal of Protestant outrage over the "clarifications" to Dominus Iesus when they came out. I can't find the thread now.
I had thought of and quoted my above before reading this part, so I hope I have accommodated here. :) Although I didn't break any windows or anything, I was among the "outraged" when that came out. :) It confirmed what I already thought.
I THINK what we say is there IS only one Church, period. The "fullness" of that one Church and her benefits (for example, all the sacramental means of grace) is available in the catholic Church (NOT just the RCC). Other ecclesial assemblies have access to a hindered communion with the catholic Church and similarly impeded access to the sacramental means of grace. ...
But that one Church is only you guys and no one else (except the Orthodox). To my understanding you all do not believe in God's invisible Church, the Church of all believers. Here again we see the claim of superiority in that the only measure of anything to be of value FOR us is to what extent we can glom on through your Church.
That is not the same as, it's different in important ways from, saying that we are the ONLY Church and you are no church at all.
Unfortunately, as the "clarifications" plainly spell out, that is PRECISELY what your Church says, that we are no church at all.
You (remarkably, at least to me) suggest that WE make a too hard distinction between works and faith! But to me, it is the heirs of Reform who set down so strict a distinction that when Trent says "not faith alone" they say that MUST mean that we think works save us -- and call us idolatrous and proud. As I tried to suggest last night, why, we even see Faith as a kind of work, a kind which comes with merit, even though it is also a grace and gift. Do WE separate faith and works? I don't think so.
I think you guys have a works-based salvation because the Church denies the totality of the atonement on the cross. If Christ really truly died once and for all for the sins of the elect, then further human atonement would not be necessary. Since the Church teaches that after belief future works are required to be saved, then the threshold of salvation being certain for all time will only be crossed based on a work of a man.
To me that means that the Church believes that faith and works are totally different, or at least totally independent, things. Supporting my supposition is that the Church believes a man may have true faith but lose his salvation. That could only be through a lack of man's action, and it MUST mean that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient to truly save permanently. The bottom line on salvation being certain, according to the Church, is always with men and works.
That's a false, sweeping generalization because not all men believe God revealed himself through your scripture and what you believe is God's revelation through (your) scripture is not known to all men.
So for example, I could use the teleological argument for the existence of God and prove that God exists independent of Scripture. Scripture is the supporting evidence that proves the only true God.
Nonsense. You cannot prove the existence of God. You can assume it based on man-accepted a priori postulates, or you can simply believe it (blindly). In either case, it is a man-made construct based on an a priori belief. Whether you assume that your postulates are true and then "prove" God based on those assumptions, or whether you simply assume there is God and then retro-prove His existence amounts to the same thing. But it proves nothing.
Paul's authority is presumed. You assume that God exists; you assume that the Bible is God's own word; you assume that Paul is God's mouthpiece because he appears in the Bible.
You take his word that Christ spoke through him on faith and nothing but faith alone. That is your a priori acceptance of postulates; the rest simply fall in line by design, as I said in my earlier post. It is made to fit.
Once you accept that Paul is a mouthpiece of Christ, then everything he says is "true." Trouble is: Paul did not prove that he is a mouthpiece of Christ. We believe that he is. There is a big difference.
But that does not necessarly preclude that sense experience or even subjective states are not functional within a rationalist way of knowing
That's too broad of a generalization to mean anything, really.
One can know by a priori and still use sense experience and subjectivism to complement the a priori
The problem is with the a priori "knowledge." It is not knowledge; it is a belief, or an assumption. It is an anthropomorphic construct. In other words, it starts within us and is projected outward. It originates in us. Man-made.
Of course, they would have no starting point without an a priori postulate. Empiricism doesn't prove anything in absolute terms any more than subjectivism. Empirical models are just that: working models. They are subject to our a priori assumptions (imagination), as you say, just as your subjective models are. Neither can prove anything absolute.
The difference is that empirical models work, they work repeatedly and predictably, on demand. Subjective models don't; they work "on hope," and "mystery."
A priori assumptions are not knowledge; they are assumptions of knowledge.
We can now dump empiricism as a stand-alone way of knowing
Next time you are sick and in need of empirical medicine, why don't you rely on your subjective models and put the health and lives of your loved ones in the realm of hope and miracles instead?
As far as man being the final arbiter, I mean, c'mon man, haven't we had enough of Kantian subjectivism with it's disassociative dualism?
The problem with the Age of Reason and the whole western approach to rationalism as a substitute for subjectivism is that, like subjectivism, rationalism aims to prove the absolute through reason instead of subjective experience.
Neither offers an absolute working model; both are based on human assumptions and a priori postulates originating in human perceptions and interpretations.
When we see a building, it is not unreasonable to assume there was a builder. However, implying anything about the builder does not follow logically.
Thus, if we look at the Universe and say "something" created it doesn't mean we know a great deal about that which created it, or that we are created in the "image" or "likeness" of that which created the Universe. It also does not say anything about the actual process of that creation.
The Scripturalists as you call them assume an awful lot based on the conclusion that something made all this, by filling in the information based on their subjective imagination.
Now, we can believe that it was God who created the Universe and who created us in His image, and who wrote the Bible, but we cannot "know" it or prove it.
Those who advocate "natural theology" are equally forced to believe rather than know. So, they are simply hiding behind a different belief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.