It simply means accepting something beforehand. In otherwords, an assumption.
I looked at several online dictionaries for the definition of "a priori" and one thought I believed to be in consensus was this: "not in accordance with previously established fact". Wow, for these purposes, that's pretty loaded.
You bet it is. And people who depend on this presumption as the starting point don't even realize it how blatant it is.
when the Bible speaks over and over again, from God's lips
My point exactly. Assuming, as a matter of fact (whereas it is blind faith) that the Bible speaks form the "lips" of God is a perfect example of the a priori acceptance. Instead of saying "We believe the Bible speaks ...from the lips of God," it is stated as a mater of fact, when factual proof cannot be established, but rather rests on one's a priori conviction.
can you really put such things in the category of "a priori"?
Of course I can. I just did. :)
No, you can't because with regard to the nature of man himself, the Bible is PERFECTLY "in accordance with previously established fact" Gal 5:19-21 : 19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The a priori acceptance here is that it is not St. Paul speaking, but God through him.
But, FK, your own Reformed theology contradicts this: once you accept Jesus as your Savior, what you do doesn't matter as far as your assurance of inheritance of the Kingdom of God (another loaded OT term which was Christianized to mean something else), which is another a priori acceptance.
The problem is that all these claims require absolute blind faith. Gravity doesn't. No one doubts gravity. There is a qualitative difference in a priori a acceptance of biblical claims and physician reality. An a priori acceptance is a matter of choice. We choose to go to church (unless Reformers think otherwise, and feel that they are "frog marched" to go to church against their will).
Of course he is. Therefore, the totality of scripture is not "a priori". The Bible gives man the truth about himself flat out
It's not what the Bible give us about man that is a priori, but what it says about God. We can verify what is said about man, but we must accept a priori that what is in the Bible is from "God's lips."
So, what about the faith part? The Bible speaks of ears to hear and eyes to see, and these must come from God.
No, if I wanted to give my writing credibility and convincing character without proof, I would invoke a higher power. That is just a logical human approach.
If the proof you are looking for cannot come from God (or be disqualified), then I suppose your view could fall under that which is not "in accordance with previously established fact". The OBVIOUS RED FLAG is that you are taking the position of a committed atheist!
The comparison is only superficial and dead wrong. Just because Muslims, Jews and Christians believe in one God doesn't mean we believe the same thing. The equation (monotheism) is only superficial. Obviously, LDS and Christians, on a superficial level, share Jesus as the Savior, so saying that He is our Lord and Savior does not mean we are arguing from the position of a committed Mormon!
Atheism is in the same predicament as those who believe in God. Atheists flat out deny God without any evidence to prove their denial. Just because we don't see radio waves doesn't mean they don't exist! The only reason we all agree they exist is because we can detect them. Believers, however, claim that what they believe is absolute truth because they have the "ears and the eyes" to "detect" God!
Faith does not require proof (by definition). That's why it is futile to try to argue faith. If you have faith, you can not prove it, and you cannot be proven wrong either.
I don't see any contradiction. We don't earn our salvation by doing the right number of works, so our assurance is not dependent on doing the right number of works. But of course, that does NOT mean that what we do doesn't matter. God created us (in part) to do good works.
Eph 2:10 : For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
So, of course works are important.
The problem is that all these claims require absolute blind faith. Gravity doesn't. No one doubts gravity. There is a qualitative difference in a priori acceptance of biblical claims and physician reality. An a priori acceptance is a matter of choice. We choose to go to church (unless Reformers think otherwise, and feel that they are "frog marched" to go to church against their will).
Comparing scientific laws to whether something is historically true makes no sense. By your standards believing that George Washington ever lived is solely by blind faith.
You guys seem really stuck on this "frogmarching" thing. :) Before I was saved I had no interest in going to Church, but then God changed my heart and I did have the interest. Why do you guys think that is so horrible? :) I fully admit that reconciling that God is in control is a very difficult thing for men to do, but the Christian REALLY needs to do it:
1 Cor 6:19-20 : 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own ; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
----------------------
Just because we don't see radio waves doesn't mean they don't exist! The only reason we all agree they exist is because we can detect them. Believers, however, claim that what they believe is absolute truth because they have the "ears and the eyes" to "detect" God!
No, detection is not the issue. Faith is. Do you say that you cannot "detect" God simply from your human experience? I think most Christians would say that they CAN detect God this way. Demons detect God too, but they do not have faith. The eyes and ears are what confirm for believers that the words of scripture are true. Eyes and ears do not change that which is false into something that is true. They allow a believer to see what has been absolutely true all along.
Faith does not require proof (by definition). That's why it is futile to try to argue faith. If you have faith, you can not prove it, and you cannot be proven wrong either.
I disagree. I think ALL of us have proved we have faith by the evidence of our postings here. Whether we have PROVED REASONABLY that we have faith in the correct thing is a matter of opinion.