I agree with Ravi’s accolyte with his statement about faith. …

Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Sean Pitman.

I agree with Ravi’s accolyte with his statement about faith. I agree entirely.

“So in conclusion, faith is not a kind of religious hoping that you do in spite of the facts. In fact, faith is a kind of knowing that results in doing. A knowing that is so passionately and intelligently faithful to Jesus Christ that it will not submit to fideism, scientism, nor any other secularist attempt to divert and cauterize the human soul by hijacking knowledge.”

The problem, as I understand your position, is that you do not recognize a rational or “logical” platform, to include empirical evidence, as a basis for faith. Your views seem to me to be fidiestic. In this, you are very much opposed to both Ravi Zacharias and Tom Price – and anyone else who thinks to present empirical evidence and rational arguments as a basis for faith. It is because of this evidence and a rational basis for faith that the rational person with then act upon this discovery to put his faith into action accordingly.

It only makes sense that if there is the weight of evidence suggesting that jumping off a cliff will be bad for one’s health that the rational person will act on this information and avoid jumping off a cliff. Likewise, if the weight of evidence is in had which strongly suggests that a particular stock will skyrocket in price in the very near future, the rational person will no doubt act on this information and buy the stock now to gain the future profit. And, the same thing is, or at least can be, true of the Christian Gospel message.

He is restating what informed Christians have been saying for a long time. People like Lewis, Bonhoeffer, McGrath and Polkinghorne.

We are to live our lives as Christians within the real world a world that is increasingly explained by natural mechanism and not miracles. We acknowledge the realities and facts of life and accept that Christ has meaning in the known and not in the unknown. In the non-miraculous conduct of our lives not in the miraculous and inexplicable.

Again, one cannot recognize Jesus if everything in life can be explained by mindless processes of nature. Without something that requires an explanation beyond these mindless laws, and even beyond our own human abilities, there would be no rational reason to invoke Jesus or God to explain anything within us or around us. And, it is because you do not recognize the evidence for such things that you consider your religious views to be beyond logic – effectively beyond rational argument or understanding (the very definition of fideism). In contrast, the disciples of Jesus didn’t gain significant faith in Him or His message of hope until after they saw the empirical evidence of the Resurrection.

In a “..knowing that results in doing”. As both Bonhoeffer and Yoder has written in Cost of Discipleship and Politics of Jesus. Following Christ and living the principles and ethics of the kingdom of heaven here and now is faithfulness to the message of a kenotic incarnate God.

Living the ethics of Christianity isn’t the same thing as having a solid hope in the Gospel message of a new and better world to come beyond this one. Christian ethics can be and often is exhibited by non-Christians – even atheists. While this is good, and while it does form the very basis of salvation, it isn’t the same thing as knowing and understanding the evidence for all of what Jesus claimed and promised (which is also the reason why you don’t believe many of the things that Jesus said and taught). You are a believer in Christian ethics, but not much more than that… which I believe is very unfortunate as there is a great deal of hope and goodness for this life in the Christian message beyond the ethics of Christianity.

As Sean himself puts it the “Royal law of love” although I continue to have a hard time imaging Christ as a soldier killing people according to some notion of a Royal law of Love.

The Royal Law of Love is the foundation of Christian ethics – and can be, as already noted, observed by non-Christians since it is written on the hearts of all mankind.

As far as your reference to my being a medical officer in the US Army, ask yourself what would happen if your own county did away with its police force? – Romans 13:4

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
What is interesting is that the older the creation/Flood stories (which are practically universal in cultures around the world), the closer they match the Biblical account. In other worlds, the evidence at hand strongly favors that the Biblical account in the original account from which all other accounts are derived. Also, the details of the Biblical account described in Genesis are supported by archaeological evidence that confirms various details long believed to be in question or even mythical – such as the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities that were catastrophically destroyed (mentioned in the same order in the Ebla Tablets).

In any case, you’re not mentioning anything new here. These attempts to challenge Biblical credibility have been around for a long time. However, the Bible keeps trumping all efforts to undermine its credibility. It has shown itself to be the most reliable historical text that we have. No other historical text or resource comes remotely close.

For a further discussion along these lines, to include a discussion of the origin of the 7-day weekly cycle in history, see: http://ssnet.org/blog/origin-of-sabbath-7-day-week/


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thank you for your clarification Bob. I certainly agree.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith

Thanks Bob for your candour in recoznizing the likelihood of redaction in the Bible. What got left out, amended, embellished?

As already noted, the names of places were likely updated over time, but not the historical narrative – information which was lost outside of the Scriptural accounts. In fact, this is one of the best evidences that the authors cited by Scripture really did write these accounts in their own day.


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.