Can faith only produce true opinion?

[Afterthought]

Here's a thought that came up recently from reading Plato (though I know not whether Plato would have advocated his views in the direction I'm about to speak of). If there is a difference between knowledge and true opinion, and if that difference is that one is "grounded" such as one can give a reason for it (as suggested by defining knowledge as "justified true belief") while the other is not....can one only hope for a true opinion concerning the existence and being of God and things He has revealed? For if we base our belief in God's existence and being on faith only (i.e., without grounding that faith in reason), then it appears that the best we can have is a true opinion about God's existence, after which we only have a true opinion about the things He has revealed--even if we have knowledge of God's existence by some other means, anything "known" by faith would only be a true opinion, rather than knowledge. So the only way to know that God is and about God is if He directly revealed himself to a person?

My thoughts so far. It appears that defining knowledge in such a way as above excludes people knowing things by testimony. That is, it seems that testimony is not a sufficient justification of true belief. However, such a definition of knowledge seems to exclude many other things as knowledge, because we receive many things on faith: scientific discoveries, directions to get somewhere, that our parents are actually our parents. Indeed, this seems to reduce to even greater skepticism in the end: for why do we trust anything we see, hear, feel, touch, etc.? It seems it is because of our senses; we trust them to give us reliable information. So it seems we could only have true opinions about the information our senes give us, rather than knowledge?

So it seems then, that "justification" has to be broader to include credible testimony. (Perhaps that "justified" seems to connote some sort of rational argument, is one reason why I sometimes see knowledge defined as "warranted true belief" instead?) But then I get stuck here, because that means we actually know all the things we accept on credible testimony, which seems to be false in the case of some things in Scripture: some of them it seems we do know (e.g., who "father" and "mother" are; though I wonder whether we know these too, since such is based on inductive reasoning?), but others it seems we do not know (e.g., what God is, that God created the world, all the articles of faith). In short, it seems that some things we do not know, but we trust the God who does know them, and on the basis of His testimony, we believe them (and in the case of inductive reasoning, it seems we can trust that God has made us in a way that we can arrive at universals from such reasoning? In which case, we do not actually know the universals themselves? Or do we know them?).

Further, it seems that Christians do have reasons for their faith, and so such faith is grounded, but it seems one still needs to broaden the term "reasons" to include credible testimony because otherwise it would appear our faith is based on evidence, rather than trust in God and then finding evidence to confirm that trust.


I realize there's a lot here, but comments? Thoughts? Solutions? Any idea how this sort of faith I've been talking about above relates to saving faith, which has traditionally been defined to include knowledge?

 

[newcreature]

Wow, that is a lot. I would say that we have a defining knowledge of all things that we have faith in. That defining knowledge could then be a true opinion or a false opinion. For instance, if I have faith that the sky is pink, that is defining knowledge to me. However a false opinion, my opinion will not change unless someone or something can prove otherwise. I know who my mom is, and if you told me I was adopted, I would not believe you. I would require sound proof and documentation to believe otherwise. Therefore, we have knowledge which defines ourselves, our beliefs, and our morals, be it true or false. In fact, what we believe about God is in fact either a true opinion or a false opinion, but because these are strong beliefs and faith systems, they cannot be changed except by God's grace, which is true and compelling evidence and is grounded in true and credible testimony of the Holy Spirit which works in our hearts.

 

[Peairtach]

All true knowledge is revealed from God to Man, either through the Creation (" General Revelation") or through Scripture ("Special Revelation"). All men know God, although all men do not know Him as Saviour.

See e.g. Romans 1-2.

Also see the apologetic of Cornelius van Til. This book is a relatively straightforward introduction to it, although you can find lots of resources online, including the Puritanboard.

Amazon.com: Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (9780875522432): John M. Frame: Books

 

[rbcbob]

Opinions are neither true nor false, they are opinions.

 

[Philip]

If there is a difference between knowledge and true opinion, and if that difference is that one is "grounded" such as one can give a reason for it (as suggested by defining knowledge as "justified true belief") while the other is not....can one only hope for a true opinion concerning the existence and being of God and things He has revealed?

When we, as Christians, say that we know God, we don't merely mean that we hold true opinions about God or believe certain propositions about God that happen to be true. We know God personally because He has indeed revealed Himself to us by Grace through faith.

The trouble you're running into has to do with the fact that you're looking for absolute certainty when that's not not possible. I would also suggest that you've forgotten to address the elephant in the room: why shouldn't I trust my God-given faculties? You know the creator of your faculties and you know that He is trustworthy, so why should you mistrust what he's given you? There's a difference between healthy skepticism and humble admission of your own fallibility due to the effects of the fall, but in the end, you are made in the image of God, and so your faculties, including things like inductive reasoning, are part of His design plan.

So it seems then, that "justification" has to be broader to include credible testimony. (Perhaps that "justified" seems to connote some sort of rational argument, is one reason why I sometimes see knowledge defined as "warranted true belief" instead?) But then I get stuck here, because that means we actually know all the things we accept on credible testimony,

You're getting hung up here on the difference between justification (warrant) and truth-value. You're going to end up with some warranted beliefs that aren't knowledge because they aren't true---you just don't know that they aren't.

I would also suggest that faith is a work of the Spirit and therefore our knowledge of God comes about because God reveals Himself. Revelation is always God showing Himself to us---and the prime example of this is Jesus. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory. Glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

To state what has already been said another way: Our knowledge of things is relational. We do not know anything exhaustively but we do know God Who knows all things and so we can trust what He reveals about things. The quest for knowledge apart from the Creator is a fool's errand. It assumes that the universe exists as a set of brute facts that can be understood with or without any reference to God using the organ of our mind to differentiate those facts.

 

[Sola Gratia]

All true knowledge is revealed from God to Man, either through the Creation (" General Revelation") or through Scripture ("Special Revelation"). All men know God, although all men do not know Him as Saviour.

See e.g. Romans 1-2.

Also see the apologetic of Cornelius van Til. This book is a relatively straightforward introduction to it, although you can find lots of resources online, including the Puritanboard.

Amazon.com: Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (9780875522432): John M. Frame: Books

A quick question though on general revelation. Creation was effected by the fall, so does everything that it show us reflect truthfully on God or does it require more discernment than that? What exactly is truthfully revealed and what is fallen? Or am I perhaps misunderstanding the nature of general revelation?

The education I received about this topic was generally... lacking.

 

[Sola Gratia]

All true knowledge is revealed from God to Man, either through the Creation (" General Revelation") or through Scripture ("Special Revelation"). All men know God, although all men do not know Him as Saviour.

See e.g. Romans 1-2.

Also see the apologetic of Cornelius van Til. This book is a relatively straightforward introduction to it, although you can find lots of resources online, including the Puritanboard.

Amazon.com: Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (9780875522432): John M. Frame: Books

A quick question though on general revelation. Creation was effected by the fall, so does everything that it show us reflect truthfully on God or does it require more discernment than that? What exactly is truthfully revealed and what is fallen? Or am I perhaps misunderstanding the nature of general revelation?

The education I received about this topic was generally... lacking.

 

[Sola Gratia]

I apologize for the multiple posts.

 

[Philip]

Creation was effected by the fall, so does everything that it show us reflect truthfully on God or does it require more discernment than that? What exactly is truthfully revealed and what is fallen? Or am I perhaps misunderstanding the nature of general revelation?

Creation is affected by the fall, it is true, but it still reveals God truly in its brokenness---if we have eyes to see. The problem is that with our fallen will has come fallen perception such that sin clouds our vision, and we need regeneration in order to see God truly in creation.

 

[Sola Gratia]

Creation was effected by the fall, so does everything that it show us reflect truthfully on God or does it require more discernment than that? What exactly is truthfully revealed and what is fallen? Or am I perhaps misunderstanding the nature of general revelation?

Creation is affected by the fall, it is true, but it still reveals God truly in its brokenness---if we have eyes to see. The problem is that with our fallen will has come fallen perception such that sin clouds our vision, and we need regeneration in order to see God truly in creation.

Ah, well that would make sense. However, how do we know if we are seeing "God truly in creation". What I mean is yes we have regeneration, but we are by no means infallible. Obviously when special revelation comes into play it is authoritative and corrective to our mistakes. What then of things where special revelation is silent? Can we be sure of general revelation or should we remain silent as well?

 

[newcreature]

Ah, well that would make sense. However, how do we know if we are seeing "God truly in creation". What I mean is yes we have regeneration, but we are by no means infallible. Obviously when special revelation comes into play it is authoritative and corrective to our mistakes. What then of things where special revelation is silent? Can we be sure of general revelation or should we remain silent as well?

This is where faith comes in. There are certain things of the secret counsel of God which He has not revealed to us. We must have faith that His word is true, and we know it to be true because He said it and we believe it. If scripture interprets scripture, then we can trust the word of God because it has never failed us.

 

[Philip]

However, how do we know if we are seeing "God truly in creation".

How do we know that we aren't? I don't think that an honest admission of our own fallibility means that we should be driven to skepticism or to question our God-given faculties. If I am flying a plane through a cloud bank, I have to rely on my instruments, even though there's always the possibility that they could fail or that I could misread them. Do you think that God calls us to give up on knowledge and learning just because we're fallible? No. Instead, He calls us to steward the gifts of logic, intelligence, induction, and sense perception that He has given us. Look, we're going to make intellectual mistakes, and many of them are going to be honest ones where we're not necessarily at fault, where it's not a sin issue persay---but that doesn't invalidate the things we do know, and it's no excuse for intellectual laziness.

 

[Sola Gratia]

However, how do we know if we are seeing "God truly in creation".

How do we know that we aren't? I don't think that an honest admission of our own fallibility means that we should be driven to skepticism or to question our God-given faculties. If I am flying a plane through a cloud bank, I have to rely on my instruments, even though there's always the possibility that they could fail or that I could misread them. Do you think that God calls us to give up on knowledge and learning just because we're fallible? No. Instead, He calls us to steward the gifts of logic, intelligence, induction, and sense perception that He has given us. Look, we're going to make intellectual mistakes, and many of them are going to be honest ones where we're not necessarily at fault, where it's not a sin issue persay---but that doesn't invalidate the things we do know, and it's no excuse for intellectual laziness.

I was not arguing for skepticism or intellectual laziness. It would be quite difficult to be both a skeptic and a Christian methinks. However, I was questioning the process of how we know through our logic, intelligence etc. That is why I clarified that Scripture of course can give much clarity to these issues, but if it is silent on an issue does that mean we in turn should be silent? Not that we do not theorize or try to come to terms with things, but how do we discuss these things with others who may honestly disagree with us when Scripture itself is silent. I was not attempting to be contentious, but simply asking a question. I acknowledge that we will make mistakes for sure, but if that be the case how confidently should we assert what we think when Scripture itself may be silent on a given issue.

Also, I find it quite insulting to be accused of intellectual laziness when I was simply trying to seek the counsel of those whom I deem to be wiser than I am. Also, I think the fact that my degree is in Religious Thought and Philosophy and the fact that I was willing to read and consider that the liberal theology that was being forced on me was false would bear further evidence that I am not intellectually lazy. By virtue of being on this board, asking honest questions and reading/ researching for myself I am putting forth effort to understand as I assume most others are on this board.

 

[Philip]

That is why I clarified that Scripture of course can give much clarity to these issues, but if it is silent on an issue does that mean we in turn should be silent? Not that we do not theorize or try to come to terms with things, but how do we discuss these things with others who may honestly disagree with us when Scripture itself is silent.

How do we discuss any issue when Scripture is silent? With charity, humility, honesty, and attention to what we see in the world. Scripture gives us all the principles for life and Godliness, but there's a ton of stuff it's silent or unclear on. Scripture won't tell me how to fix the economy any more than it's going to tell me how to fix my car.

Your confidence should, most likely, be dependent on expertise. I can't speak terribly confidently when it comes to mechanics or baseball, but I'm much more confident if the subject is Scotism or George Herbert.

Also, I find it quite insulting to be accused of intellectual laziness when I was simply trying to seek the counsel of those whom I deem to be wiser than I am.

Brother, I'm not accusing you. I'm merely pointing out the direction that this line of questioning can lead to. I recognize that you don't want to be intellectually lazy, which is why I'm pushing this point. When God presents me with a mystery, that's when I'm supposed to shut up and listen. It was not my intention to insult you or question your academic rigour, but to encourage you in it.

 

[Sola Gratia]

That is why I clarified that Scripture of course can give much clarity to these issues, but if it is silent on an issue does that mean we in turn should be silent? Not that we do not theorize or try to come to terms with things, but how do we discuss these things with others who may honestly disagree with us when Scripture itself is silent.

How do we discuss any issue when Scripture is silent? With charity, humility, honesty, and attention to what we see in the world. Scripture gives us all the principles for life and Godliness, but there's a ton of stuff it's silent or unclear on. Scripture won't tell me how to fix the economy any more than it's going to tell me how to fix my car.

Your confidence should, most likely, be dependent on expertise. I can't speak terribly confidently when it comes to mechanics or baseball, but I'm much more confident if the subject is Scotism or George Herbert.

Also, I find it quite insulting to be accused of intellectual laziness when I was simply trying to seek the counsel of those whom I deem to be wiser than I am.

Brother, I'm not accusing you. I'm merely pointing out the direction that this line of questioning can lead to. I recognize that you don't want to be intellectually lazy, which is why I'm pushing this point. When God presents me with a mystery, that's when I'm supposed to shut up and listen. It was not my intention to insult you or question your academic rigour, but to encourage you in it.

I think perhaps we are using different definitions of the word "question". The question, which you answered predominantly with charity, humility, etc., was more about how firmly do we express our views? What is the limit of saying I believe n to be true based on my current knowledge of God and His Holy Word? It has nothing to do with not wanting to persue answers as I feel was implied by "this line of questioning". My line of questioning, in my own mind at least (apologies if it does not come across well), is how far should we push things of which we only have general revelation (when Scripture is silent) in discussions with others? I am not anti-intellectual in any sense, nor would I ever say that anyone should pursue a line of reasoning that would lead to intellectual laziness. However, coming from a liberal religious education and realizing that I am an infant in the Reformed faith I was not clear on how or what our response should be in the specific instances discussed above. My education rejected infallibility and inerrancy outright and so the basis of argument was always and only based on our own reason. Upon relatively recent personal reaffirmation of both inerrancy and infallibility I have recovered a sense of absolute truth and that things can be stood on with certainty. That is wonderful for me, but I find that in the "re-found" knowledge that sometimes I have a tendency to take it too far - hence my question about how far we can press these issues.

I hope that clarifies and isn't utterly confusing, my mind can be a confusing place even for me.

 

[Philip]

My line of questioning, in my own mind at least (apologies if it does not come across well), is how far should we push things of which we only have general revelation (when Scripture is silent) in discussions with others?

Depends on how much expertise you have in the field in question, really. If the subject is economics, I doubt that anyone (including economists) should be too confident in their opinionsl, whereas in ethics, we should be as confident as we can.

I think what you're bumping against is the fact that certainty is always relative. I'm extremely certain that Jesus rose from the dead, but I'm rather less certain about tomorrow's weather, and I'm very uncertain as to the best solution to America's fiscal crisis. The fact is that we're all going to speak out of turn on subjects we don't know as much about as we think we do. Foot-in-mouth disease is something that we all catch from time to time.

So I guess my answer is that it depends.

 

[Afterthought]

Thank you everyone! There is a lot of good thoughts in this thread, and I think I can see how I was getting stuck (thanks, Philip!); namely, not all beliefs we receive on credible testimony are true, so not all such beliefs are knowledge even though warranted (with the case of God's testimony though, the beliefs are both warranted and true). Because of my limited time, I will only make a few comments and ask a few questions.


Firstly, sure we can know some things with certainty? For one thing, the WCF speaks of an "infallible assurance." Further, it seems personal knowledge of anyone is a certain knowledge that one certainly knows someone, interestingly enough. Philip, I take it from your later posts that perhaps you simply meant that humans are fallbile and can err (I do note you use "absolute certainty" rather than "full certainty")? But surely that does not exclude from knowing the truth (or rather, finding it in subjects that Scripture does not address?) and knowing it with certainty (I address this last question to anyone), or knowing anything with certainty?

Secondly, in this "relational knowledge" (I actually appreciate it more and more each time I've seen it come up on this board), what is the definition of knowledge? Because it cannot simply be justified, true belief, unless "justified" is broadened as mentioned in the OP, or else we do not know anything (and it seems there's no problem doing so). It appears that knowledge in this case does include what one receives on testimony--primarily God's testimony--and then in other matters, the justified, true belief definition applies again; that is, we know that we are made in God's image and have God given faculties (trusting God), and so we can use those for knowing truth--however fallible they may be (like induction), and in such cases, a belief must be true belief and justified belief in order to be knowledge? Or perhaps we distinguish between knowledge mediately known (through testimony based on another person) and knowledge immediately known (anything else, e.g., the testimony of our own senses)? Or perhaps we still say we cannot know the things revealed, but we can merely believe them and know that the belief is true?

Thirdly, it was asked already, but I'll ask in a slightly different form: I thought general revelation revealed God, not facts about the universe in themselves? In which case, how are such facts (e.g., in science or mathematics--especially considering that much invention is in science such that it is hard to tell observation from hypothesis) revealed facts? Or are they? What kinds of facts are they in this relational model of knowledge?

The quest for knowledge apart from the Creator is a fool's errand. It assumes that the universe exists as a set of brute facts that can be understood with or without any reference to God using the organ of our mind to differentiate those facts.

To make sure I understand, is that because any quest for knowledge apart from the Creator ends in skepticism, because there's no trust in a Creator to justify the use of the senses, etc., or is there something deeper going on to make searching for knowledge apart from the Creator futile?

 

[Loopie]

I'm extremely certain that Jesus rose from the dead, but I'm rather less certain about tomorrow's weather, and I'm very uncertain as to the best solution to America's fiscal crisis.

Philip,

I sincerely agree with what you have said in this thread. I only have a few questions. In the above statement you said that you are 'extremely certain' that Jesus rose from the dead. How comes you can't say that you 'know' that Jesus rose from the dead? I mean, if God has truly revealed this fact to you (through the Holy Spirit), how can you turn around and essentially say that you don't really 'know' that Jesus rose from the dead? If God wanted us to 'know' something, then it seems that there would be no reason to deny that we actually do 'know' it. Thoughts?

 

[Philip]

In the above statement you said that you are 'extremely certain' that Jesus rose from the dead.

Because I wasn't talking about knowledge but certainty. I do know that Jesus rose from the dead---I am certain enough abut it that I make a knowledge-claim.

But surely that does not exclude from knowing the truth (or rather, finding it in subjects that Scripture does not address?) and knowing it with certainty (I address this last question to anyone), or knowing anything with certainty?

How much certainty is enough certainty here, though? If knowledge is being absolutely certain with no doubts whatsoever, then none of us knows anything because fallibility and sin get in the way. Yet we do know God, so clearly absolute certainty isn't required for knowledge.

Secondly, in this "relational knowledge" (I actually appreciate it more and more each time I've seen it come up on this board), what is the definition of knowledge?

That's an aspect of epistemology that I'm still getting my head around. What does it even mean for me to know another human being?

I thought general revelation revealed God, not facts about the universe in themselves?

Doesn't it do both? Scripture reveals God, but it also contains much by way of facts. All of us here hold to inerrancy, so I'm not sure what the objection to it being being both would be.

 

[Loopie]

Because I wasn't talking about knowledge but certainty. I do know that Jesus rose from the dead---I am certain enough abut it that I make a knowledge-claim.

Thank you for clearing that up. I was confused for a second, because it seemed like you weren't really claiming to 'know' that Jesus rose from the dead. I mean, even if we say that 'we are extremely certain', that seems to imply that we don't really 'know for sure' (at least, in everyday usage of the phrase).

 

[Afterthought]

How much certainty is enough certainty here, though? If knowledge is being absolutely certain with no doubts whatsoever, then none of us knows anything because fallibility and sin get in the way. Yet we do know God, so clearly absolute certainty isn't required for knowledge.

I just thought that if knowledge is true belief, then it is absolutely certain, and that there are other things that we are or can be absolutely certain about (e.g., the infallible assurance). But it appears that "certainty" applies more to one's subjective persuasion; that is, how much one knows that one knows; that is, to what degree one believes the knowledge one has is actually knowledge. So you may be right about that (though I'm not sure whether it is correct that we don't know anything with absolute certainty, for reasons given above), though it seems a bit odd, considering the certainty we should have even in confessing creeds. Though it could possibly only seem odd because the imprecise use of the term in other contexts is distorting its meaning in my mind.

That's an aspect of epistemology that I'm still getting my head around. What does it even mean for me to know another human being?

Hmm. A good point. Unless someone else on this board has a solution, it will be something for me also to think about.

Doesn't it do both? Scripture reveals God, but it also contains much by way of facts. All of us here hold to inerrancy, so I'm not sure what the objection to it being being both would be.

Well, my main concern is people claiming that God reveals such things as scientific facts about the universe, and so that science has some sort of "infallibility" or has "God on its side" or God guiding and aiding its search for truth/knowledge or that God takes some sort of deeper interest in our scientific inquiriers or something like that...I can't quite put the right words to my concern at the moment, but it's not just the case with science only--I merely use it as an obvious example, especially because of the creative human element involved in inventing hypotheses.

 

[Philip]

I mean, even if we say that 'we are extremely certain', that seems to imply that we don't really 'know for sure' (at least, in everyday usage of the phrase).

Certainty is always subjective, true---which means that it's never absolute for a finite creature. All beliefs are, to one extent or another, derived from trust in something or someone. And therefore all knowledge-claims are derived from trust.

So you may be right about that (though I'm not sure whether it is correct that we don't know anything with absolute certainty, for reasons given above), though it seems a bit odd, considering the certainty we should have even in confessing creeds.

I absolutely agree that we should confess the creeds with a great degree of certainty: I really do know that Jesus is the incarnate Son. My point is simply that this knowledge is not entirely dependent on how certain I am at a given moment. My sinful doubts about the Gospel do not mean that I don't know it.

Well, my main concern is people claiming that God reveals such things as scientific facts about the universe

But He does. The argument you need to make here concerns whether human science is correctly interpreting these facts at all times.

 

[Afterthought]

Certainty is always subjective, true---which means that it's never absolute for a finite creature. All beliefs are, to one extent or another, derived from trust in something or someone. And therefore all knowledge-claims are derived from trust.

Although, don't people usually speak of trusting oneself (such as one's senses) as knowledge, while trusting another, as faith, belief, but not knowledge? I'm not sure: just asking.

I absolutely agree that we should confess the creeds with a great degree of certainty: I really do know that Jesus is the incarnate Son. My point is simply that this knowledge is not entirely dependent on how certain I am at a given moment. My sinful doubts about the Gospel do not mean that I don't know it.

I see. Well that I can agree with then.

But He does. The argument you need to make here concerns whether human science is correctly interpreting these facts at all times.

Do you agree with the consensus in the below threads? I can agree that general revelation is God's revealing Himself through the facts of creation, and those could be interpreted wrongly, but I'm not sure that general revelation includes a revelation of facts, as facts.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/what-natural-revelation-69067/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/what-natural-revelation-exactly-how-does-works-73379/

 

[Philip]

Although, don't people usually speak of trusting oneself (such as one's senses) as knowledge, while trusting another, as faith, belief, but not knowledge?

Most would count my belief that Harold of Wessex was killed in 1066 at the Battle opf Hastings as knowledge, even though this belief was formed on the basis of second-hand accounts.

Do you agree with the consensus in the below threads? I can agree that general revelation is God's revealing Himself through the facts of creation, and those could be interpreted wrongly, but I'm not sure that general revelation includes a revelation of facts, as facts.

I would most certainly agree with the consensus in those threads. But what exactly are you saying with regard to facts as facts? Are you trying to argue that the facts of general revelation are deceptive? It seems to me that Scripture too contains facts that are not, strictly speaking, about God (for example that David ruled Israel around 1000 years before Christ).

 

[Afterthought]

Most would count my belief that Harold of Wessex was killed in 1066 at the Battle opf Hastings as knowledge, even though this belief was formed on the basis of second-hand accounts.

A good point.

I would most certainly agree with the consensus in those threads. But what exactly are you saying with regard to facts as facts? Are you trying to argue that the facts of general revelation are deceptive? It seems to me that Scripture too contains facts that are not, strictly speaking, about God (for example that David ruled Israel around 1000 years before Christ).

I'm not arguing that the facts are deceptive. I agree with you that the facts can be and are misinterpreted. What I'm trying to say is that the facts are never revealed for themselves; they are always a means to reveal God--in the sense described in the aforementioned threads. So, for example, I'm fine saying scientific laws in general and in particular (with the obvious caveat that scientific laws are not always correct and are often approximations) show something about the Creator (e.g., His wisdom and consistency in governing the world).

For some examples to hopefully clarify my meaning, some that I know would argue that the facts of general revelation are not deceptive--by which they mean, the facts that science has discovered are true, and therefore, the various conclusions of science are true too (e.g., evolution); so if it looks like animals evolved from others, then they must have; if it looks like the universe is a certain age, then it must be. Some would grant that it is possible to misinterpret the facts of general revelation, but they would say that they are not; they are Christians, after all, and so have the Holy Spirit to combat interpreting the world falsely--some may even say that the Holy Spirit actually guides them into the truth of the facts of general revelation (by which they mean, the laws of science, etc.). Perhaps still others would say that the various theorems of mathematics, the various laws of chemistry, and the facts of other human sciences are also revealed to them by God.

The above are examples of what I mean by a revealing of facts as facts; in such cases, the facts reveal themselves, rather than the facts revealing God; God reveals the facts so we can know the facts, rather than know what we are supposed to conclude from general revelation (that there is a God, some of His nature, that we are sinners, etc.). When the facts are revealed for themselves, it seems to attach a certain authority--perhaps short of infallibility, but rather high, nevertheless--to the various human endeavours; a kind of authority that is allowed to be close to if not on the same level of Scripture, to the point that we are allowed to interpret Scripture in light of the facts of general revelation (by which I mean again, the facts of various human sciences), especially if there is something that is quite clearly true in general revelation that special revelation seemingly contradicts at first but does allow for being intepreted in another way to fit general revelation--for the two revelations cannot contradict each other (and some would add that general revelation is perspicuous too).

As far as I can tell, I see no reason to believe that the facts are revealed as facts. I see no verses in Scripture for general revelation revealing such things as Newton's laws or the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, and I see instead that the heavens declare the glory of God (the facts reveal God). As for reasons from reason to believe general revelation reveals such things, the best (and only so far) reason I have seen so far has been the one you have given--namely, that special revelation reveals facts that are not strictly speaking about God, so it is at least possible, perhaps expected even, that general revelation does the same. I'll need to think about that one. I hope the above explanation clears up what I'm trying to say.


And (to anyone) if I'm misunderstanding something about general revelation, please let me know! (I do agree that general revelation is perspicuous and accomplishes the purpose for which it was given)

 

[Philip]

Raymond, I get where you're going here, but here's the problem: if we start saying that the facts of general revelation aren't revealed as facts but nonetheless reveal God, we open up the possibility that the revelation of Scripture is this way too such that it's not infallible or inerrant. Then too there's another problema: are we going to ascribe error to God's creation? Or if we find in nature things that seem contrary to God's word, who is wrong? Creation (given by God) or us (fallen, sinful, and finite)?

What needs to be corrected is not the view that the facts of General Revelation are revealed, but the view that we apprehend them perfectly by means of science. Even a Christian enlightened by the Holy Spirit will not be immune to errors, even serious errors, in pursuit of knowledge. The problem here is arrogance: the Christian who thinks that he is immune to error needs to humble himself before God and admit that God knows more than He does.

 

[ZackF]

It's my opinion that cheeseburgers are best with carmelized onions and sauted mustrooms. I didn't reach that conclusion until after I was Reformed I don't think.

 

[Afterthought]

if we start saying that the facts of general revelation aren't revealed as facts but nonetheless reveal God, we open up the possibility that the revelation of Scripture is this way too such that it's not infallible or inerrant.

I'm not entirely sure that follows, but I will need to think about it some more before being able to respond one way or the other.

are we going to ascribe error to God's creation? Or if we find in nature things that seem contrary to God's word, who is wrong? Creation (given by God) or us (fallen, sinful, and finite)?

If general revelation includes the facts of science and we find something that seems contrary to God's word, could we not just as easily say that we were wrong in our interpretation of Scripture? Wouldn't then human science effectively be on the same authoritative level as theology, and indeed, wouldn't then science have a hand in correcting our theology? Now, of course, I have no intention on ascribing error to God's creation. And no one would ascribe error to God's word either. But it seems this view of things would end up putting human science and theology (Scripture interpretation) on the same level: namely, as interpretations of general revelation and special revelation, respectively. Given taht both revelations are perspicuous in some sense too, the only thing that I can see that could possibly stop that from happening--if we accept that scientific facts are revealed facts of general revelation--is if we have the Holy Spirit's aid for one revelation that we don't have for the other. But one of the arguments to arrive at this position was by comparing general revelation to special revelation, so what's to stop one from arguing, "We have the Holy Spirit's aid in special revelation, so why not in general revelation too?" In which case, the two disciplines seem to become on an even plane of authority such that sciences could correct Scripture interpretation, and Scripture interpretation could correct sciences.

Now, I may err in my understanding of Scriptural interpretation, but I was not aware that we put human sciences so high that we allow it to correct our interpretations of Scripture; indeed, it seems we are loathe to say that "This is my interpretation of Scripture" but rather "This is what Scripture says." (Anyone please correct me if I'm wrong about the method of interpreting Scripture) When we look at various things our sciences have discovered, we see all sorts of things that seem contrary to God's word. Take Egyptian chronologies for example. While the logical alternatives are indeed that we have either interpreted Scripture wrongly or something in the natural world, which is it and how shall we behave in reality? Shall we look at the contrary chronology and say, "It violates God's word. I don't know how it all fits together, but I know the natural chronology is wrong." Or shall we say, "Our understanding of God's word must be wrong. Let's see if we can re-interpret it." Or (moderately), "Let's weigh all the evidence, even perhaps needing to wait on more evidence before deciding. Then combine all we know from general revelation and special to see what the Scriptures actually say; perhaps our interpretation was wrong, but regardless, this is an opportunity to re-evaluate our interpretation. Though of course, if the Scriptures can't possibly be re-interpreted to fit general revelation, or our interpretive methods are sound, then our understanding of the natural realm must be wrong."

Edit: Perhaps the difference between the two is that one revelation is more perspicuous than the other?

 

[Philip]

I'm not entirely sure that follows, but I will need to think about it some more before being able to respond one way or the other.

Here's what I'm saying: if we start arguing that any part of God's revelation, general or special, is in error, we start doubting God.

If general revelation includes the facts of science and we find something that seems contrary to God's word, could we not just as easily say that we were wrong in our interpretation of Scripture?

Indeed we could. Last I checked, most theologians are at peace with the sun being the center of the solar system even though there have been theological positions to the contrary.

Let's be honest here: there is precisely one area where there is a seeming conflict between what general revelation says and what Scripture says. I have, after searching the scriptures and weighing certain things, concluded that the traditional interpretation of Scripture is correct. I don't think that science has examined the question of origins sufficiently from the proper perspective.