How Do You Know You're Right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ryan&Amber2013

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Graduate
So in what ways do you measure whether your beliefs, primarily about dogmatics, are accurate? If we say "by the Bible", that is the same answer those who disagree with you would say. If we say "by God prospering us", we know that all religions tend to prosper at times. If we say "because the Spirit testifies inside of me" others with different beliefs say the same.

I've really been thinking a lot about relativity in certain areas. The Bible isn't like science, with clearly observable conclusions, and we aren't in an age where God speaks in ways to the church like He did in Revelation for example. How do we know who has it right? We can all have different beliefs on dogmatics it seems, with no way of knowing what the right answer really is. But I'm not implying we shouldn't try to find truth and live according to it.

Thoughts? Thanks friends.
 
I think there is a need for humbleness on all but the most central of Christian doctrines. And let's not make tertiary or even secondary doctrines to be overly important.

I have grown very tired of Christian sectarianism. Where I minister I am just glad to meet a true believer, no matter what "kind" - and I can rejoice in the faith of baptists, presbyterians, and even Charismatics, if they have a true relationship with Jesus Christ.

In Romans 14 Paul speaks on holy days, etc, and he COULD have just laid down a few sentences telling us which position was right and which was wrong. But he goes higher and urges this to become an occasion to practice Christian love and unity, instead. I think this is very important.

Over the past 2 years I have come to the position that I could be wrong about baptism as a credobaptist and I now affirm the many promises of God that he makes to the children of believers. Even if I have not embraced the paedobaptist position, I now understand and value the position of my Presbyterian brothers and even get angered when many Reformed Baptists assert that covenant theology was just an invention to justify baptizing babies.

Finally, I think there is a value for pastors to teach their congregations that there are some doctrines that must not be doubted but that there are also some that are less certain and more disputed among true Christians. I tire of the dogmatic over-certainty I see among many Christians and am refreshed when my own pastor in the USA sometimes informs us that, "good theologians differ on this particular issue..." before explaining his own preferred view. This allows us to remain open to further correction and growth and reminds us that our knowledge is not perfect and we have not "arrived" yet into full and certain truth.
 
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
So in what ways do you measure whether your beliefs, primarily about dogmatics, are accurate? If we say "by the Bible", that is the same answer those who disagree with you would say. If we say "by God prospering us", we know that all religions tend to prosper at times. If we say "because the Spirit testifies inside of me" others with different beliefs say the same.

I've really been thinking a lot about relativity in certain areas. The Bible isn't like science, with clearly observable conclusions, and we aren't in an age where God speaks in ways to the church like He did in Revelation for example. How do we know who has it right? We can all have different beliefs on dogmatics it seems, with no way of knowing what the right answer really is. But I'm not implying we shouldn't try to find truth and live according to it.

Thoughts? Thanks friends.
Click to expand...

The foundations of interpretation and basic hermeneutics are a topic that on, fortunately, plenty of ink has been spilled.

:-)
 
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
So in what ways do you measure whether your beliefs, primarily about dogmatics, are accurate?
Click to expand...
Pragmatically, I feed my faith and starve my doubts by not neglecting daily Scripture study, rejoicing in hope, being patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer (Romans 12:12), fellowship with other believers, keeping good stewardship of the secular and spiritual gifts God has given me—including how and where my time is being spent—and with regular assembly with others to worship God, receive instruction, access the ordinary means of grace, and be subject to discipline.

I couple the above with a frequent "checking in" concerning my dogmatics studies with those that have come before me, always on the lookout for the appeal of being in the minority, as it often plays to one's vanities.

In other words, when I come to a confident position, I regularly test that with what others—living or now in their glory—that I have come to trust have to say on the topic at hand. Now this may sound like a "counting noses" method, but there is no shame in being aligned with the saints preceding us when warranted. In fact, when one finds oneself holding a minority position, it is the mark of an instructed mind to carefully examine why such a position is held steadfastly.

I test myself by exposing my views with a wide, and often hostile audience too, versus just spending all my time in an echo chamber of like-minded folks. Being open to correction, sometimes my views are tempered, sometimes they are crushed by the weight of my interlocutor's arguments to the contrary. I count both a blessing.

I have no truck with the Just Me and My Bible crowd, mini-Popes who often assume they are more illuminated by the Holy Spirit that others in times past (chronological snobbery). We are blessed to have at our disposal the great historical confessions, that provide us with accurate summaries of the major doctrines of Scripture that have withstood hundreds of years of cross-examination. These subordinate standards are a wonderful starting point in one's walk of faith concerning dogmatics, thus we should tread with much care when we find ourselves outside the fences they have established.
 
Ryan,

We are not called to say "I know" but "I believe."

I believe that I can sing man-made hymns in worship while other brothers believe we may not. None of us can claim infallible knowledge concerning our position, but to the best of our abilities base what we believe on scriptures.

Not even the scientist can say that he knows infallibly. The scientist can only consistently say I believe.

It is faith (i.e believing) that justifies us before God, not knowledge (historical faith).

Might I change my beliefs in certain areas of my theology? I'm sure I will! But any change must be based in scripture, not political correctness, popular theological whim, etc.

The beauty of belief is that it has a sure object-- God Himself. We can know God without accurately knowing everything about Him. This knowledge is not simply information but it is a relationship. In any relationship, we grow in the intimacy of that relationship with work and time. We make it our aim to know God rightly. But if scientists cannot infallibly know a finite object right in front of them, we should adjust our expectations when we study an infinite God. And we should be exceedingly patient with others who don't understand Him exactly as we do considering who we are and Whom we strive to know.
 
Pergamum said:
I have grown very tired of Christian sectarianism. Where I minister I am just glad to meet a true believer, no matter what "kind" - and I can rejoice in the faith of baptists, presbyterians, and even Charismatics, if they have a true relationship with Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

Amen to that, brother.
 
Ryan, the foundation of certainty is revelation, general and special. It is not that we've autonomously worked things out in our own thinking (rationalism) or with the evidence (empiricism). It is rather that God has spoken to us, particularly in His word. And the Spirit who inspired the Word illumines His church to receive that revelation.

And the most basic aspects of that biblical revelation (God as He exists in three persons, Christ in one person with two natures, His life and death for us, etc.) is agreed upon by historic Christianity. Within the confines of that revealed religion, those who profess Christianity debate and differ.

I believe what I do (reflected in the Westminster Standards) because as far as I understand it is what the Bible teaches, including that which can by good and necessary consequence be deduced from the Bible. All of that if foundational to and consonant with the kind of approach that Patrick cites above.

I agree with the brethren here that we need a good deal more humility in dealing with each other, particularly those with whom we are the closest and differ the least. Sometimes the closest brethren can be the most fierce in their differences with each other. Much more charity, even in areas of deep convictions (like Tim cites), is always in order. I say this with a keen awareness of my own failings here and a desire to do better in this regard. May the Lord help us all in this!

Peace,
Alan
 
I don't know I'm right. When it comes to certainty, I cannot rely on my own self, my own mind, my own logic or reasoning to come to certainty. I am far too fickle for that! My mind is far too sinful to know truth absolutely.

Rather, I know that God is right. When it comes to certainty, like Tim mentioned, we believe in the certainty that God provides through His Word, through the ministry of His Spirit, through His all-encompassing work of salvation to us.

Ryan&Amber2013 said:
I've really been thinking a lot about relativity in certain areas. The Bible isn't like science, with clearly observable conclusions, and we aren't in an age where God speaks in ways to the church like He did in Revelation for example. How do we know who has it right? We can all have different beliefs on dogmatics it seems, with no way of knowing what the right answer really is. But I'm not implying we shouldn't try to find truth and live according to it.
Click to expand...

We know that even in the days where God directly speaks to people that people were disobedient and strayed from certainty. Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Moses struck the rock. Ahab still went to battle. Zechariah had his lips sealed from disbelief. Pilate questioned Truth in front of the giver of truth himself.

I don't think that even if we lived in the age where God spoke regularly to certain people we would be any better off. We would walk through the Red Sea with our enemies washed away by a miraculous hand and still create our own golden calf days later.

The Bible is amazing. Whereas the rest of the world's religions study thousands of books of "holy writ" and its infallible interpretation and interpretation of this interpretation and so on, we have sixty-six short-ish books. Very concise. Very factual. Not full of allegory and mysterious symbolism. Very condensed compared to what others try to write. From these short books comes all good and worthy doctrine. In one sense, it becomes easy to verify against other religions and other beliefs because there's not much source material to work with - you can cross-reference quickly and verify the truth claim without much fuss.

So how do I measure if what I believe is in accord to the truth?

1. Does what I believe about the Scriptures accurately reflect the text? This would be most basic.
2. Does what I believe reflect the beliefs of the historical church? I know the church is not infallible. Yet, if my belief were to differ significantly such that no historical body believed it, I would have to give myself pause as to whether this innovation is truly from God.
3. Does what I believe bring glory to God and elevate Christ? Right doctrine leads to proper worship of God. Proper worship of God reinforces right doctrine.
4. Does what I believe put man and the world in its rightful place? Do I think too highly of man? Do I think too highly of the world?

After all of that is said and done, we will still come to differing beliefs. From there, it's a matter of testing the consistency and inconsistency of what we believe against other aspects of what we believe. When you talk about baptism, you're talking about covenant theology, for example. They go together hand-in-hand.

Patrick and Tim have addressed other aspects of certainty, but there's my two cents.
 
Pergy is right to point out what a problem sectarianism is. It's the whole "the true church consists of you and me, and I'm starting to have doubts about you" thing. It is all too easy to get into group think in conservative Presbyterian or Baptist circles, especially if we don't have much contact with those outside our own denomination. It's one reason I joined the local ministerial association: to remind me that the OPC is not the only denomination in the visible Christian church.

That being said, it is essential not to divorce knowledge from faith. Faith is usually defined as knowledge, assent, and trust. The Bible is written that we may know what we must for salvation. The Bible assumes (and states occasionally!) that knowledge is essential for salvation, and that it can be obtained by the right methods. But it is not a mere intellectual knowledge (though the brain is not checked at the door). It is a "whole person" kind of knowledge, and it is personal knowledge of the Triune God. This is why what Patrick said is so important. We get to know God through the means of grace. It is knowledge in the same way that, through the various forms of interaction, a spouse gets to know their better half. That includes "things" that we know about the other person, but it also means knowing that person as a whole.

Then we have to add the all-important element that Alan states: it is not autonomous reason that gains knowledge of God. Trust in the Lord, and lean not on your own understanding, says Proverbs. Obviously that passage is not saying, "Distrust everything your brain thinks." It means that the source of wisdom is God, and for us to be wise, it has to come from Him. If Proverbs then proceeds to lay out a hugely copious amount of wisdom, is it not by that very fact assuming that we can eventually possess that wisdom and knowledge?

So, how do we know things? We know when we bow submissively to God's Word with it judging us rather than us judging it. We know when we make full and submissive use of the means of grace. We know when we pray for the Holy Spirit's help. We know progressively and partially, as creatures who are sinful, not fully and completely as sinless Creator.

So here, the old scholastic definitions of different kinds of knowledge can be helpful. There is the archetypal knowledge that God has. That is fully intuitive, absolutely complete and exhaustive. Then there are many kinds of ectypal knowledge. Ecyptal knowledge is always derivative from archetypal. There is the knowledge of angels, the knowledge of humans before the Fall, after the Fall, redeemed after the Fall, and beautified. There is the knowledge of hypostatic union that Christ has. Therefore, it is important to know which kind of knowledge we are talking about, so that we do not have unrealistic expectations of what it can and cannot encompass, as well as what degree of certainty can adhere to each one.
 
There has been a lot of great counsel given here. I just want to elaborate on one element of the matter, and that's the one Jason highlights here:
sc_q_jayce said:
From there, it's a matter of testing the consistency and inconsistency of what we believe against other aspects of what we believe.
Click to expand...

All true doctrine is logically consistent with all other true doctrine. Test all things using the laws of logic.

It is important to distinguish between reason and logic. Reason is the thinking faculty. Our reasoning faculty is weak and fallible. Some people are better at reasoning than others, and there is some knowledge that is too high for us; we cannot attain unto it (Ps 139:6). Logic, on the other hand, is the system of laws by which truth is ordered. Truth doesn't exist apart from logic; it is a necessary part of ectypal, human knowledge. For this reason, the laws of logic can properly be said to be infallible.

Take the classic example:
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion infallibly follows the major and minor premises. That's not to say that the major and minor premises are necessarily true; it is simply to say that the logical law by which the conclusion is draw cannot be circumvented; it's logically necessary, given the premises.

So much to say: you should be careful not to put to much weight on your own reasoning, or on someone else's; however, if you learn to use the laws of logic, you can test one doctrine against another using them.

Paul uses these rules of logic against the doctrine of salvation by works:

Major premise: Salvation is by grace (Rom 3:24).
Minor premise: Salvation by works cannot be fully gracious (Rom 4:4).
Conclusion: "Therefore it is of faith [viz, not of works], that it might be by grace" (Rom:16).
 
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
So in what ways do you measure whether your beliefs, primarily about dogmatics, are accurate? If we say "by the Bible", that is the same answer those who disagree with you would say. If we say "by God prospering us", we know that all religions tend to prosper at times. If we say "because the Spirit testifies inside of me" others with different beliefs say the same.

I've really been thinking a lot about relativity in certain areas. The Bible isn't like science, with clearly observable conclusions, and we aren't in an age where God speaks in ways to the church like He did in Revelation for example. How do we know who has it right? We can all have different beliefs on dogmatics it seems, with no way of knowing what the right answer really is. But I'm not implying we shouldn't try to find truth and live according to it.

Thoughts? Thanks friends.
Click to expand...
I would always direct this type of question to 'Who is the person Jesus Christ?"For if he was, and He is, who He claimed to be, words that He spoke would carry absolute authority.
 
timfost said:
I would hesitate to call any man-made rule infallible. :2cents:
Click to expand...
That's just it--they aren't man-made. They are constitutive of ectypal knowledge.

By the way, I am convinced that every Reformed theologian prior to the 20th century would agree with me on the infallibility of the laws of logic.
 
TylerRay said:
That's just it--they aren't man-made. They are constitutive of ectypal knowledge.
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying. Here's where I'm uncomfortable:

These rules of logic have not been delivered by God Himself, unless you argue that the rules of logic are contained in scripture. If logic itself is infallible, we necessarily have an extra-biblical infallible source. God's word alone is our infallible source of knowledge.
 
timfost said:
I understand what your saying. Here's where I'm uncomfortable:

These rules of logic have not been delivered by God Himself, unless you argue that the rules of logic are contained in scripture. If logic itself is infallible, we necessarily have an extra-biblical infallible source. God's word alone is our infallible source of knowledge.
Click to expand...
The laws of logic are discernible in natural revelation, but are also used throughout special revelation.

I don't think there's a problem with having an "extra-biblical infallible source." Neither do the Westminster Standards, which say the following about assurance of salvation:
XVIII. ii. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
Click to expand...
 
TylerRay said:
The laws of logic are discernible in natural revelation, but are also used throughout special revelation.

I don't think there's a problem with having an "extra-biblical infallible source." Neither do the Westminster Standards, which say the following about assurance of salvation:
Click to expand...

Would you say that logic is as equally infallible as the word of God?
 
timfost said:
So are you saying that human logic is infallible in the same way as God's word?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure just what you mean by "human logic." If you're referring to the reasoning faculty, I've already denied its infallibility.

Let me illustrate the cost of denying the infallibility of the laws of logic. Take this syllogism:

Major premise: The Scriptures teach that there is one God.
Minor premise: The Scriptures cannot err.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is one God.

If the laws of logic are fallible, how can you trust this conclusion?

If the laws of logic are fallible, we cannot trust any inference with certainty. At best, we're left with some degree of probability.
 
timfost said:
an extra-biblical infallible source.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your squeamishness with respect to this, Tim, but general revelation itself is infallible. That is, the revelation that it gives is not capable of being in error because, like special revelation, it comes from God, who is incapable of error.

Where I think that you might be getting hung up is that we are not infallible interpreters of general or special revelation. We need, in fact, the glasses of special revelation rightly to understand general revelation (to use Calvin's metaphor).

However, even then, we fallibly interpret general revelation, even as we do special revelation. Remember, this does not mean that we are necessarily erroneous in any given interpretation but are capable of being erroneous. One may think, for instance, that the ecumenical creeds (or our doctrinal Standards) are inerrant, but we would all admit that they are capable of error (i.e., they are not infallible).

Natural unregenerate man often badly interprets general revelation (and even more so special!) because he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Nonetheless, the Bible, because from God, is infallible. So is natural, or general, revelation--from God and thus infallible.

Peace,
Alan
 
I assume we are not headed down the path that assumes human logic is univocally the same as God's logic and that we just do not know all the propositions that God knows.

There are truths about God that transcend reason. I suspect these truths are not reducible to propositional logic, especially since I believe many things about God beyond our ability to reason them out logically.
 
There are aspects of God beyond the scriptures, as they contain all that God has to say to us, all that we need to know, but they do not contain all that God knows, and He is still infinite, so the knowledge of God shall never to full, even in Eternity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

blhowes
  • Locked
Coffee Drinkers - I don't know how you do it!
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
apaleífo̱
apaleífo̱
Mr. Bultitude
  • Locked
What do you do when you're sick on Sundays?
Replies
11
Views
3K
Cymro
Cymro
K
  • Locked
How do I know if its Emergent?
Replies
6
Views
3K
khaki
K
JeffR
  • Locked
How do you approach reading
Replies
15
Views
2K
Jerusalem Blade
Jerusalem Blade
R
  • Locked
How do you "Thank" someone?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Reformed Christian
R
Back
Top