Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Shane Hilde.
1. The messianic prophecies and their fulfillment in Jesus;
These are based on external evidence, otherwise there would be no way of knowing whether they were really true.
2. The internal consistency of doctrine and teaching over the course of hundreds of years, as reflected in the writings of numerous authors;
Internal consistency is not evidence for divine revelation. Most novels have internal consistency. I think you could make the argument that this is evidence of a divine mind influencing all these writers; however, a similar argument could be made for the Book of Mormon or the Koran.
3. The sanctuary system’s typology that connects the Old Testament with the New Testament;
None of this really matters unless there really were Israelites out in the desert that built a tabernacle. I don’t understand how this shows the Bible is true. Typologies can be made up later.
4. The courage and zeal of the disciples after the crucifixion;
This only matters if Christ’s crucifixion is a historical event. I think there is some merit to this because there are four gospels and the book of Acts that attest to this historical event. I would point out though that the trustworthiness of the gospels is deeply rooted in the factual claims they make about history.
5. The candor and self-effacement reflected in the descriptions of persons and nations;
This just means the authors were more honest than other historians, but really how could I know that unless I had something to compare it with.
6. The fulfillment of some apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel, as reflected in New Testament writings;
This relies on external evidence. I think prophecy is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible, but they would mean nothing if we couldn’t verify the truthfulness of the prophecies in history.
7. The numerous references in which the Scriptural writings of others are confirmed– e.g., Peter characterizes the writings of Paul as Scripture–(and why [Sean Pitman] would call this kind of affirmation “circular” escapes me);
Well this is circular reasoning. Me claiming that Sean’s writings are Scripture doesn’t make it so. It still begs the question.
8. The relative ease in differentiating Scripture from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha;
This is true, but this in now way demonstrates truthfulness. Lots of authors are easily distinguished from others. Does that mean I should trust what they say as authoritative in my life?
9. The confirmed fact that the ancient writers and their contemporaries did not always understand the meaning of what was written;
Exactly how did we confirm that?
Yikes, I need to go to bed. I can appreciate many of the evidences you’ve provided, but they certainly don’t contradict what I’m trying to argue because you’re using external evidence too. I don’t see anything wrong with that, and I don’t know why you do.
Once you have arrived at the conclusion that the Bible is God’s Word then it becomes your ultimate standard by which you judge everything because it has prove to be so accurate in everything it claims.
I can touch on the other points later, but I got to get up early.
Shane Hilde Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Isn’t empiricism (that all knowledge must be obtained by experience), self refuting? How can empiricism be proven empirically?
Also, perhaps it would be helpful to differientate between rationalism and reason.
Reason – the faculty or process of drawing logical inferences
Rationalism – the philosophical view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge.
One refers to a tool we use to make decisions, the other references to that tool as the primary source and test of knowledge.
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Professor Kent: I don’t believe this comment is contradictory to her many statements regarding faith and evidence. Notice she says we should be settled in our belief of the divine authority of God’s Word. We must have good reason to settle first.
In the same paragraph quoted, she says, “All truth, whether in nature or in revelation, is consistent with itself in all its manifestations.” This is why she was able to say, “Moses wrote under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and a correct theory of geology will never claim discoveries that cannot be reconciled with his statements.”
Human reasoning is a necessary tool for detecting truth; however, human reasoning has its limitations. She says the Bible should not be tested by “man’s ideas of science.” What does she mean by this?
First she makes the point that there are things we cannot understand because we are finite. She gives some examples of what men of science think:
Yet men of science think that they can comprehend the wisdom of God, that which He has done or can do. The idea largely prevails that He is restricted by His own laws. Men either deny or ignore His existence, or think to explain everything, even the operation of His Spirit upon the human heart.
She’s not saying Bible shouldn’t be tested at all, but it shouldn’t be tested by man’s ideas of science. She’s talking about a faulting knowledge base. While our ability to reason is by no means perfect, it’s all we have to use to detect truth. She says, “All true science is in harmony with His works” (PP 115).
If they contradict each other, one of them has to be wrong. How do we determine that? God has given us the ability to judge and weigh evidence, and most of all he has given us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.
“Faith rests on evidence,” she says (T5 68). Of the Bible she says:
In order to arrive at truth, we must have a sincere desire to know the truth and a willingness of heart to obey it. And all who come in this spirit to the study of the Bible will find abundant evidence that it is God’s word, and they may gain an understanding of its truths that will make them wise unto salvation. (SC 111)
In the end there is a difference between man’s ideas of science and true science.
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Professor Kent: I’m speaking to evidence that arises solely from scripture and the influence it has on one’s mind through the Holy Spirit.
If I understand you correctly, I don’t see how one could confirm the truth of the Bible unless it made claims that were testable. Listen, I’m not arguing that someone can’t come to believe in the Bible in the situation you described.
All I’ve been saying is that God never asks us to believe without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. This evidence can come from a number of sources: archeology, history, testimony, prophecy, fruition of God’s promises, a changed life, etc.
Ellen White said:
The greatest evidence of the power of Christianity that can be presented to the world is a well-ordered, well-disciplined family. This will recommend the truth as nothing else can, for it is a living witness of its practical power upon the heart. {AH 32.2}
A well-ordered, well-disciplined family is something we can see for ourselves. It confirms the claims and promises of the Bible. If I asked you why you believed the Bible was trustworthy and the Word of God, and all you said was because it says so, that means nothing to the person who does not know God.
If we can show nothing for our faith in God’s words, then our faith is nothing and useless. We essentially deny the power we claim it has. A changed life is empirical data. If a particular physical or mental exercise leads to a manifest change that is consistent and lasting, we can look at that and say, “Wow, there must be something to that Bible for it to produce a change like that in someone.” Even that kind of evidence is external.
I think we’re more in agreement than you may think.
Recent Comments by Shane Hilde
Private Recorded Conversation Prompts La Sierra Resignations
Ron Stone M.D.: then he “accidentally” recorded the private meeting, right?
That’s exactly right. He must have not bothered to play it back. I think the meeting was a couple hours according to the LSU news release. But basically he didn’t know he had recorded him and the others and then posted it without checking his recording.
The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Eddie: Doesn’t LSU’s administration deserve at least a little bit of credit?
I think so. There are some very dedicated individuals on the board.I have no doubt they’re doing everything they can to address this issue.
Blasphemy of a Different Kind
@Ron Stone M.D.: I agree. LSU has not been a shining light for our church. That’s unfortunate. That might be the case for other schools as well.
Former board member never talked with biology faculty
@Alexander Carpenter: I would readily agree since Educate Truth supports the biblical account of creation and disagrees with the handling of the topic in the biology department. This was a political move by Wisbey to gain power on the board. He now has three less who oppose him.
Former board member never talked with biology faculty
@David Read: Board members and even former board members are not allowed to discuss what has happened in board meetings. The only thing I confirmed with Tooma was whether she had conversed with the biology faculty and she made it very clear she never had. She was only presented with the joint statement and wanted to support it. This statement was seen as a big step for the biology department because Wisbey had been keeping them silent for over two years and they were now making constructive advances to dialogue with the church. I disagree with what they said, but I think it’s great their talking now. I suspect Wisbey isn’t happy with the biology department. It wouldn’t make any sense for him to only be upset with the board members since he allegedly embraces what they are doing. Doubtful though given his reaction and double standard.
