Life of Pride
Friday, May 12, 2006
I am not changing the words below because people have been responding to them as they stand. I think my own post was careless, however. I used harsher words concerning the arguments of Drs. N. and C. than I would wish that I had. This only outlines my own foolishness. I don't think these professors were careless in their writing, and I want to make sure that nobody thinks that I think that their beliefs contradict Scripture. Still, as we all know from our own papers, unintended objections can often be drawn from our words as written. I am commenting on the possibilities of misunderstanding that arise from words, not on inherent flaws in people.
Just so y'all know, I have based the conclusions that follow on a phone conversation and emails with Dr. F., lengthy exchanges of emails with a student who strongly upheld the side of the professors, emails with a few of the involved professors themselves, and discussions with other professors during my L-Ball visit to PHC.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has recently posted an article about PHC's recent troubles. It paints Dr. F. in an unforgiving light and almost completely exonerates the professors of wrongdoing. When I read the article at first, I felt my heart harden against Dr. F., because the facts in the article entirely back up everything I had discovered in my own fact-finding expeditions. Then I read Dr. C.'s and Dr. N.'s article from The Source, which I had not read before, since I didn't know it was available online. I was puzzled at some of the items in that article because they do seem to imply things that I would conjecture (from having sat in some of their classes) that the professors involved would not wish to imply. I showed the article to my mother, and she instantly reacted far more violently than I would have expected as well. Apparently, some of those phrases and concepts were hot issues for the previous generation.
- "All truth is God's truth." Of course, that is so. But unless one defines "truth," the statement leads far afield, usually by the following argument: "This seems true to me. Therefore, it is God's truth." Recall theologians' compromise with evolution, beginning at the start of the twentieth century. One must continue the syllogism:
(1) All truth is God's truth.
(2) God's truth is determined from the Bible.
(C3) All truth is determined from the Bible.
This is what Dr. Farris concludes. I myself think that our professors erred by not including this key point, since without it statement (1) can be carried far astray. But I believe that the full argument for studying the liberal arts continues as follows (pardon me for turning it into a hypothetical syllogism):
(4) If one ought to determine anything at all, one must exercise and hone the skill of discernment.
(5) If all truth is God's truth and God wants us to worship Him the best we can, He wants us to determine truth.
(6) God wants us to worship Him the best we can.
(C7) God wants us to determine truth.
(8) If God wants us to determine truth, we ought to determine it.
(C9) We ought to determine truth.
(C10) We must exercise and hone the skill of discernment.
And then, putting both halves of the argument together:
All truth is in the Bible, but we need everything else we have in the world to help us understand that Bible.
Think about it. Yes, we can find truth in Plato. But the reason we can recognize it as truth is because we already know what is true! We know that because we are Christians. Plato doesn't give us a new truth, but an illustration of and enlightenment in the truth we already have.
- "Knowledge is the highest good" because it comes before everything else. Yes. But again, that was a careless statement, since it does not reference the source of that knowledge. Taken as it stands, one could easily conclude, "I 'know' that my homosexual relationship is good for me. Therefore it is." We have to link knowledge into a higher authority. Knowledge of God is the highest good. How can I assert this? Without Christianity, there is no reason to suppose that one actually knows anything. One cannot rationally argue that the world outside ourselves is real. If we are fair to ourselves, we turn into skeptics like Descartes, reduced to "I think, therefore I am." Or we go crazy, like Nietzsche.
- The "lifeboat" example. This is another hot topic from the previous generation, which is probably why that other parent, my mom, and Dr. F. all reacted the same way. Even if it is used only as a hypothetical example of a state of nature that will never exist, it needs to be handled with extreme caution. This was one of the spearhead examples of situational ethics, and it is used in many state-run classrooms to purposefully shake up a student's moral foundation in preparation for injecting new values. I'm not saying that Dr. R. presented it wrongfully, only that he may not understand himself (since he is youngish) just how hot a button he pushed.
I think, in short, that some of our professors have possibly been guilty of wrongthinking in their writing. I also think that Dr. F. has possibly been guilty of wrongdoing. Our professors have lived and taught the truth of the Bible, even if they did not express it completely in this article and in other sources. If they wrote something that was a little "off," this should have been an opportunity for intellectual discussion and enlightenment on students' part. Instead, the reaction was heavy-handed. The reason for his reaction, however, was that he knows the danger that has come to other formerly Christian institutions because of this and other similar episodes of wrongthinking.
I hope that this will ease some of y'all's frustrations. I'm still not sure what the next year will bring, but I am also quite certain that it will be somewhat short of perfection and somewhat brighter than the black picture some of y'all will be tempted to imagine. :) I welcome comments.
Just so y'all know, I have based the conclusions that follow on a phone conversation and emails with Dr. F., lengthy exchanges of emails with a student who strongly upheld the side of the professors, emails with a few of the involved professors themselves, and discussions with other professors during my L-Ball visit to PHC.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has recently posted an article about PHC's recent troubles. It paints Dr. F. in an unforgiving light and almost completely exonerates the professors of wrongdoing. When I read the article at first, I felt my heart harden against Dr. F., because the facts in the article entirely back up everything I had discovered in my own fact-finding expeditions. Then I read Dr. C.'s and Dr. N.'s article from The Source, which I had not read before, since I didn't know it was available online. I was puzzled at some of the items in that article because they do seem to imply things that I would conjecture (from having sat in some of their classes) that the professors involved would not wish to imply. I showed the article to my mother, and she instantly reacted far more violently than I would have expected as well. Apparently, some of those phrases and concepts were hot issues for the previous generation.
- "All truth is God's truth." Of course, that is so. But unless one defines "truth," the statement leads far afield, usually by the following argument: "This seems true to me. Therefore, it is God's truth." Recall theologians' compromise with evolution, beginning at the start of the twentieth century. One must continue the syllogism:
(1) All truth is God's truth.
(2) God's truth is determined from the Bible.
(C3) All truth is determined from the Bible.
This is what Dr. Farris concludes. I myself think that our professors erred by not including this key point, since without it statement (1) can be carried far astray. But I believe that the full argument for studying the liberal arts continues as follows (pardon me for turning it into a hypothetical syllogism):
(4) If one ought to determine anything at all, one must exercise and hone the skill of discernment.
(5) If all truth is God's truth and God wants us to worship Him the best we can, He wants us to determine truth.
(6) God wants us to worship Him the best we can.
(C7) God wants us to determine truth.
(8) If God wants us to determine truth, we ought to determine it.
(C9) We ought to determine truth.
(C10) We must exercise and hone the skill of discernment.
And then, putting both halves of the argument together:
All truth is in the Bible, but we need everything else we have in the world to help us understand that Bible.
Think about it. Yes, we can find truth in Plato. But the reason we can recognize it as truth is because we already know what is true! We know that because we are Christians. Plato doesn't give us a new truth, but an illustration of and enlightenment in the truth we already have.
- "Knowledge is the highest good" because it comes before everything else. Yes. But again, that was a careless statement, since it does not reference the source of that knowledge. Taken as it stands, one could easily conclude, "I 'know' that my homosexual relationship is good for me. Therefore it is." We have to link knowledge into a higher authority. Knowledge of God is the highest good. How can I assert this? Without Christianity, there is no reason to suppose that one actually knows anything. One cannot rationally argue that the world outside ourselves is real. If we are fair to ourselves, we turn into skeptics like Descartes, reduced to "I think, therefore I am." Or we go crazy, like Nietzsche.
- The "lifeboat" example. This is another hot topic from the previous generation, which is probably why that other parent, my mom, and Dr. F. all reacted the same way. Even if it is used only as a hypothetical example of a state of nature that will never exist, it needs to be handled with extreme caution. This was one of the spearhead examples of situational ethics, and it is used in many state-run classrooms to purposefully shake up a student's moral foundation in preparation for injecting new values. I'm not saying that Dr. R. presented it wrongfully, only that he may not understand himself (since he is youngish) just how hot a button he pushed.
I think, in short, that some of our professors have possibly been guilty of wrongthinking in their writing. I also think that Dr. F. has possibly been guilty of wrongdoing. Our professors have lived and taught the truth of the Bible, even if they did not express it completely in this article and in other sources. If they wrote something that was a little "off," this should have been an opportunity for intellectual discussion and enlightenment on students' part. Instead, the reaction was heavy-handed. The reason for his reaction, however, was that he knows the danger that has come to other formerly Christian institutions because of this and other similar episodes of wrongthinking.
I hope that this will ease some of y'all's frustrations. I'm still not sure what the next year will bring, but I am also quite certain that it will be somewhat short of perfection and somewhat brighter than the black picture some of y'all will be tempted to imagine. :) I welcome comments.
Comments:
I think you should alter the wording of your conclusion a bit to say that the truth you are speaking of is moral/philosophical/theological truth, not just any fact. Obviously, the fact that I am wearing blue pants right now is true, but not in the Bible. It is determined solely by sense data. Of course, one could say that we only have a reason to trust sense data because we believe God wired us properly, but this may not convince those who disagree with your statement. The objection to your conclusion's wording is not really a good objection to make--it's a bit of a smoke screen--but it's best to avoid the possibility of such objection.
Ben Guthrie
Ben Guthrie
# posted by 
: 1:46 PM
: 1:46 PM
I'm with you 100% with your first premise: All truth is God's truth.
The problem is in your second premise. Just because God's truth can be found in the bible doesn't mean that all truth is found in the bible. You just sidelined the entire debate that's been going on!
That's why your conclusion that all other sources of truth only serve to further an understanding of the bible is wrong. Truth exists outside ourselves and our understanding of the bible and can be found outside of the bible for purposes other than furthering our understanding of it.
-Randy
The problem is in your second premise. Just because God's truth can be found in the bible doesn't mean that all truth is found in the bible. You just sidelined the entire debate that's been going on!
That's why your conclusion that all other sources of truth only serve to further an understanding of the bible is wrong. Truth exists outside ourselves and our understanding of the bible and can be found outside of the bible for purposes other than furthering our understanding of it.
-Randy
# posted by : 2:54 PM
: 2:54 PM
Actually, the second premise and the rest are for stabilizing the meaning of "truth" in "All truth is God's truth." To take Ben's example, if you say that "My pants are blue" is a statement of truth, how does it make sense to say that that statement is God's truth? Is it God's just because it is true? How do you know it is true? From your perception? Well then, what if you perceive that you are a homosexual and you enjoy it? Obviously, then, God must approve. My point is this: How do you judge if anything is true? Your senses? How do you know your senses aren't deceiving you?
Everyone deals with the same world, but Christians and non-Christians make entirely different conclusions about it.
So let us render this discussion more specific. Give me a counter-example - a truth that is "God's truth," and yet is clearly not derived from or available in the Bible.
Everyone deals with the same world, but Christians and non-Christians make entirely different conclusions about it.
So let us render this discussion more specific. Give me a counter-example - a truth that is "God's truth," and yet is clearly not derived from or available in the Bible.
The problem is with Sarah's second point and the exact definition of "determined." I'm comfortable with saying that the Bible is our starting point for truth and even that it INFORMS all truth (whether that truth be sense perception or philosophy). As the basis for our worldview it will have some influence on all truth that we perceive.
The problem comes when we say the Bible is our SOURCE for ALL truth. There are many truths about the universe and human behavior that are found outside the Bible. We must view those truths through a Biblical worldview, but they still exist apart from the Bible (though not apart from God).
In any case, please talk to the professors involved if you really have a problem with their "wrongthinking." Like Farris, I had a few concerns, but they were quickly solved once I spoke with the professors. If only he had the humility to act like a sane human being.
blessings,
- Josh G.
The problem comes when we say the Bible is our SOURCE for ALL truth. There are many truths about the universe and human behavior that are found outside the Bible. We must view those truths through a Biblical worldview, but they still exist apart from the Bible (though not apart from God).
In any case, please talk to the professors involved if you really have a problem with their "wrongthinking." Like Farris, I had a few concerns, but they were quickly solved once I spoke with the professors. If only he had the humility to act like a sane human being.
blessings,
- Josh G.
I said in my last post that "truth exists outside of ourselves." This takes away the question of truth being derived through mere perception. That's why we find people everywhere agreeing that murder is wrong, respecting elders is good, and other such ethical absolutes.
When you said "Everyone deals with the same world, but Christians and non-Christians make entirely different conclusions about it," I was a little confused. We don't make entirely different conclusions from non-Christians. Those who have properly used their God-given reason can come to the knowledge of the truth that exists outside of themselves. Obviously, we as Christians have an amazing advantage with the bible, but this doesn't negate the fact that non-Christians can discover those same truths. That's why the bible says that those who do not come to those conclusion are "suppressing the truth."
As for your desire for a counter-example, there are countless examples of God's truth not found in the bible. One of which should be familiar: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Nowhere in the bible does God explicity say these things, but I still believe that they are God's truth. You'd expect a constitutional lawyer to know about that... I mean, please... it's embarrassing.
-Randy
When you said "Everyone deals with the same world, but Christians and non-Christians make entirely different conclusions about it," I was a little confused. We don't make entirely different conclusions from non-Christians. Those who have properly used their God-given reason can come to the knowledge of the truth that exists outside of themselves. Obviously, we as Christians have an amazing advantage with the bible, but this doesn't negate the fact that non-Christians can discover those same truths. That's why the bible says that those who do not come to those conclusion are "suppressing the truth."
As for your desire for a counter-example, there are countless examples of God's truth not found in the bible. One of which should be familiar: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Nowhere in the bible does God explicity say these things, but I still believe that they are God's truth. You'd expect a constitutional lawyer to know about that... I mean, please... it's embarrassing.
-Randy
# posted by : 4:07 PM
: 4:07 PM
Josh: I'm not saying that the professors actually live or believe anything with which I disagree, only that their written statements can easily lead in a mistaken direction. I don't think the Drs. are heretics, and I strongly respect each one of them. I am arguing with their words, not with them -- although I understand from other professors that this argument has considerable longstanding.
Randy: Now that's more like it! Thank you! I totally understand your position, and I respect you for spending time during finals to write it out. I suspect I will owe you $10. heh
The reason I understand your position is that I would have argued it myself a few years ago. As it is, I have a few objections.
First, of course truth exists outside the Bible -- but we describe it from our knowledge of the Bible. Let me explain what I mean by using the example of murder. You say, "We find people everywhere agreeing that murder is wrong." To a certain extent, yes. Cultures vary all over the landscape for what constitutes murder, however. The Aztecs sacrificed humans by the millions. Our own society does not believe it is murder to abort unborn babies. It so happens that non-Christians who have no check on their power often do not seem to have any compunction with slaughtering millions to fulfill an experiment. Think of Hitler. Lenin, Stalin. Mao Zedong. A person raised to power without moral training might just as well look at the world and think, "Killing is OK if I can get away with it." In reality, people kill other people and get away with it every day in this world. There is no way to logically derive from the world alone that "murder of any person is wrong." The closest non-religious persons can get logically is, "If I kill that person, someone will probably kill me. So I had better not." These are the effects of Natural Law, that people cannot usually get away with murder unpunished in the world God has made. Again, however, the punishment doesn't always occur in this life. Those who do not believe in another life have little rational evidence to derive the truth that "murder is wrong." Others can come to it religiously without the Bible. However, it certainly does not communicate anything new to those of us who have read the Bible.
Second, the quote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Bible does not contain those words directly, but it is the source of the concepts. I charge you to demonstrate how they can be drawn from the world at large. The value of man springs directly from the idea that we are made in God's image and are precious in His sight.
You are absolutely right (and so are the profs) that we can learn things from studying the world that we did not learn first from studying the Bible. I have yet to find a foundational truth, however, that is not in the Bible or is not directly derivable from it. As Dr. B. teaches in PBR, special and general revelation must be constantly compared to each other, but special revelation is higher.
Randy: Now that's more like it! Thank you! I totally understand your position, and I respect you for spending time during finals to write it out. I suspect I will owe you $10. heh
The reason I understand your position is that I would have argued it myself a few years ago. As it is, I have a few objections.
First, of course truth exists outside the Bible -- but we describe it from our knowledge of the Bible. Let me explain what I mean by using the example of murder. You say, "We find people everywhere agreeing that murder is wrong." To a certain extent, yes. Cultures vary all over the landscape for what constitutes murder, however. The Aztecs sacrificed humans by the millions. Our own society does not believe it is murder to abort unborn babies. It so happens that non-Christians who have no check on their power often do not seem to have any compunction with slaughtering millions to fulfill an experiment. Think of Hitler. Lenin, Stalin. Mao Zedong. A person raised to power without moral training might just as well look at the world and think, "Killing is OK if I can get away with it." In reality, people kill other people and get away with it every day in this world. There is no way to logically derive from the world alone that "murder of any person is wrong." The closest non-religious persons can get logically is, "If I kill that person, someone will probably kill me. So I had better not." These are the effects of Natural Law, that people cannot usually get away with murder unpunished in the world God has made. Again, however, the punishment doesn't always occur in this life. Those who do not believe in another life have little rational evidence to derive the truth that "murder is wrong." Others can come to it religiously without the Bible. However, it certainly does not communicate anything new to those of us who have read the Bible.
Second, the quote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Bible does not contain those words directly, but it is the source of the concepts. I charge you to demonstrate how they can be drawn from the world at large. The value of man springs directly from the idea that we are made in God's image and are precious in His sight.
You are absolutely right (and so are the profs) that we can learn things from studying the world that we did not learn first from studying the Bible. I have yet to find a foundational truth, however, that is not in the Bible or is not directly derivable from it. As Dr. B. teaches in PBR, special and general revelation must be constantly compared to each other, but special revelation is higher.
Sarah,
As an alumnus, I, too, have had the leisure to think a great deal about what presently is happening at Patrick Henry College. I appreciate you opening up your comments section for debate. (Note: due to limited time, I will have to respond to your initial post piecemeal.)
On point one, "all truth is God's truth," you err in implying that the Bible contains all truth. Everything in the Bible is "true," but not everything "true" is in the Bible. This is the case both in the sense of Ben's blue pants, but also in a deeper, more philosophical sense. Randy's point about the Declaration of Independence is an excellent counter-example: political philosophy is not in the Bible. The Bible does not address the question of the best regime.
To be sure, the Old Testament discusses kings and judges who did both right and evil in the eyes of the Lord; Jesus says to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's; and St. Paul counsels the Christian to submit to the governing authorities. But these, either alone or taken together, are not comprehensive and do not constitute a "political philosophy"; nor does the fact that the Bible does not provide us with a comprehensive political philosophy negate the importance of developing one. These are all instances, as Josh points out, of the Bible informing our view of truth, but not establishing it--not, in your words, determining it.
Before I continue, a word of caution. Some would attempt to establish a purely "biblical" political philosophy, derived (determined) solely from the Bible. Those who do so are, at best, foolishly deceiving themselves and, at worst, maliciously deceiving others. The reason I say this is because we need to be careful not to make the Bible out to be more than it claims to be. The Bible claims sufficiency in salvation (understood broadly to include both justification and sanctification.) I don't dispute this in any way. But the Bible does not claim sufficiency in all areas. For us to assert the sufficiency of the Bible beyond what the Bible itself claims is folly. Moreover, it is dangerous, because it results in a truth claim of certainty ("Thus saith the Lord") that doesn't deserve it. As Christians we believe in "absolute truth," because we believe in an absolute God; but we must always recognize that, while God knows with certainty what is true, we humans must be more modest. We don't have comprehensive knowledge of absolute truth.
Consequently, when you say that "Plato doesn't give us a new truth" I have to disagree. Plato discovers truth ("God's truth") that we didn't already know or "have." God knew it; we didn't.
--David
As an alumnus, I, too, have had the leisure to think a great deal about what presently is happening at Patrick Henry College. I appreciate you opening up your comments section for debate. (Note: due to limited time, I will have to respond to your initial post piecemeal.)
On point one, "all truth is God's truth," you err in implying that the Bible contains all truth. Everything in the Bible is "true," but not everything "true" is in the Bible. This is the case both in the sense of Ben's blue pants, but also in a deeper, more philosophical sense. Randy's point about the Declaration of Independence is an excellent counter-example: political philosophy is not in the Bible. The Bible does not address the question of the best regime.
To be sure, the Old Testament discusses kings and judges who did both right and evil in the eyes of the Lord; Jesus says to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and God what is God's; and St. Paul counsels the Christian to submit to the governing authorities. But these, either alone or taken together, are not comprehensive and do not constitute a "political philosophy"; nor does the fact that the Bible does not provide us with a comprehensive political philosophy negate the importance of developing one. These are all instances, as Josh points out, of the Bible informing our view of truth, but not establishing it--not, in your words, determining it.
Before I continue, a word of caution. Some would attempt to establish a purely "biblical" political philosophy, derived (determined) solely from the Bible. Those who do so are, at best, foolishly deceiving themselves and, at worst, maliciously deceiving others. The reason I say this is because we need to be careful not to make the Bible out to be more than it claims to be. The Bible claims sufficiency in salvation (understood broadly to include both justification and sanctification.) I don't dispute this in any way. But the Bible does not claim sufficiency in all areas. For us to assert the sufficiency of the Bible beyond what the Bible itself claims is folly. Moreover, it is dangerous, because it results in a truth claim of certainty ("Thus saith the Lord") that doesn't deserve it. As Christians we believe in "absolute truth," because we believe in an absolute God; but we must always recognize that, while God knows with certainty what is true, we humans must be more modest. We don't have comprehensive knowledge of absolute truth.
Consequently, when you say that "Plato doesn't give us a new truth" I have to disagree. Plato discovers truth ("God's truth") that we didn't already know or "have." God knew it; we didn't.
--David
# posted by : 8:05 PM
: 8:05 PM
Sarah, you said "Give me a counter-example - a truth that is "God's truth," and yet is clearly not derived from or available in the Bible."
If we can only know that something is true because it is proven through principles in the Bible, how could anyone, Christian or otherwise, know truth before the Bible was written or compiled?
Plato and Aristotle wrote even before the entire Bible was compiled. Of course you can find parallels to their truths in the Bible, and even verify the validity of their arguments through Scripture, but these authors still provide more detailed analysis of certain truths that the Bible is not here to provide (ie: see David’s argument that the Bible is not sufficient for everything). These men did not need Scripture to write truth, and they certainly drew out much more in-depth analysis than the Bible gives on many areas of truth. Detailed philosophical arguments can be verified by Scripture, but this does not mean that they are readily available to us in Scripture by itself. We need to apply our reason and our observations from the world around us to draw from those principles. Secular writers evidence that this can be done even without the Bible (though we of course should use it).
-Nick Timpe
If we can only know that something is true because it is proven through principles in the Bible, how could anyone, Christian or otherwise, know truth before the Bible was written or compiled?
Plato and Aristotle wrote even before the entire Bible was compiled. Of course you can find parallels to their truths in the Bible, and even verify the validity of their arguments through Scripture, but these authors still provide more detailed analysis of certain truths that the Bible is not here to provide (ie: see David’s argument that the Bible is not sufficient for everything). These men did not need Scripture to write truth, and they certainly drew out much more in-depth analysis than the Bible gives on many areas of truth. Detailed philosophical arguments can be verified by Scripture, but this does not mean that they are readily available to us in Scripture by itself. We need to apply our reason and our observations from the world around us to draw from those principles. Secular writers evidence that this can be done even without the Bible (though we of course should use it).
-Nick Timpe
# posted by : 11:40 PM
: 11:40 PM
On your second point, "knowledge is the highest good," I have two responses.
(1) I reject your notion that C & N were "careless" in their words. Nonsense. Those who misread C & N did precisely that: they misread them. Bouchoc, et al., are guilty of being careless readers. We ought to be censuring Bouchoc, et al., for their uncharitable reading (in addition to their "wrongdoing"), not the professors for their "wrongthinking."
(2) Moreover, you are simply wrong in your assertion that C's & N's piece failed to "reference the source" of the knowledge of which they referred. (A) The sentence itself reads, "Clearly there is no greater good than knowledge, for without knowledge, there can be no use of any other gift which God imparts." I.e., knowledge is a gift that God imparts, i.e., God is the source of all knowledge. (Think of "knowledge" in the Platonic sense, contrasted to "opinion." All knowledge is true knowledge.) (B) The context of the entire piece was discussing the relationship between general and special revelation. It was printed in the student magazine of an explicitly Christian college. Can anyone seriously doubt its Christian grounding? Must we constantly qualify everything we say, no matter the forum? Shouldn't these things be given? Do C & N really need to clarify that they don't endorse Descartes and Nietzsche every time they write something? Please, let's not be ridiculous. This is--or at least was!--a college, an institution of higher education!
(1) I reject your notion that C & N were "careless" in their words. Nonsense. Those who misread C & N did precisely that: they misread them. Bouchoc, et al., are guilty of being careless readers. We ought to be censuring Bouchoc, et al., for their uncharitable reading (in addition to their "wrongdoing"), not the professors for their "wrongthinking."
(2) Moreover, you are simply wrong in your assertion that C's & N's piece failed to "reference the source" of the knowledge of which they referred. (A) The sentence itself reads, "Clearly there is no greater good than knowledge, for without knowledge, there can be no use of any other gift which God imparts." I.e., knowledge is a gift that God imparts, i.e., God is the source of all knowledge. (Think of "knowledge" in the Platonic sense, contrasted to "opinion." All knowledge is true knowledge.) (B) The context of the entire piece was discussing the relationship between general and special revelation. It was printed in the student magazine of an explicitly Christian college. Can anyone seriously doubt its Christian grounding? Must we constantly qualify everything we say, no matter the forum? Shouldn't these things be given? Do C & N really need to clarify that they don't endorse Descartes and Nietzsche every time they write something? Please, let's not be ridiculous. This is--or at least was!--a college, an institution of higher education!
# posted by : 1:01 PM
: 1:01 PM
Guys, I do have answers for you, but I have been unexpectedly gone all day, and I am exhausted. I will get back to you tomorrow afternoon after church.
Let me clarify here what I mean by "wrongthinking." I don't mean that the professors actually think anything wrong inside their minds, only that the words that emerged can easily be misconstrued. It is their written thinking with which I disagree, and to which Dr. F. reacted.
Post a Comment
Let me clarify here what I mean by "wrongthinking." I don't mean that the professors actually think anything wrong inside their minds, only that the words that emerged can easily be misconstrued. It is their written thinking with which I disagree, and to which Dr. F. reacted.
