Sorry about not blogging...

Well sorry guys for not blogging in a few days but I have been busy planning a covert operation. It's very complicated and needed revisions and I might make one final revision before putting in it into action tomorrow. I wish I could say what is the plan but I decided that would be risky and audacious. So let's wrap up the how do we know Christianity is true series!

Wolfhart Pannenberg
Well he thought that the modern theologians were retreating from the attacks of the seculars sciences. He saw that people who based the foundation for Christianity in mere subjective expierences we trying to shelter Christianity from attacks. That is to say that since there is no way of disproving a subjective expierence Christianity would be safe. But he said that if Christianity was going to make a claim to knowledge and present itself to the world it must also subject itself to the testing and verification. So he placed a tremendous importance on history.


Let's explain his thought. Many people who have read the Bible know how boring it could be sometimes reading about the dates and the number of kings that it had etc. The Bible if it were not the word of God could be accurately called a history book of acient times. So Pannenberg thought this if the Bible asserts all these historical events, then we can investigate them through historical research. For example the Bible talks about the roman empire. If a historian wanted to see if the Bible was credible and accurate in talking about the roman empire than he would investigate to see if the Bible accurately describes the roman empire. Thus, Pannenberg thought the job of proving the Bible is up to the historian. Since the Bible talks about history than they can be investigated by history. If history and the Bible matches perfectly that one can conclude reasonably that the Bible is true word of God. But how does he reach this conclusion. Well the Bible talks about Jesus no? Well it talks about the ressurection of the Christ no? The Bible talks about this as a historical event. So it cannot escape historical research and thus there is a way of proving if it really happened. If it did it can be said with a certain degree of knowledge that Jesus really did come from God. So Christianity must be true. Since the historical facts are reliable one can put his faith in the Bible and in Jesus Christ.


Well next time we will discuss Alvin plantiga and his thought. Then we will wrap this up and do some more natural theology.

What we have so far....

So here is all the thinkers we have discussed so far put into one blog. So get ready this might be long but I will try to condense it.

St.Augustine believed that the foudation for Christianity is authority. Since the Bible is the Word of God is must be believed, since it came from God it must be true. Then he asked himself well many books claim to come from God how do we know which one to choose? He argued that miracles and prophecies make it evident that the Bible is the correct one. But if one keeps on questioning he asked how do we know the miracles even took place? Since the knowledge of the past was accepted on the basis of authority (meaning we accept the testimony of the witness as valid) he said one must accept the testimony of the author of scirpture. But he asked why should one just accept it? He had no way of answering this to avoid cicular reasoning which would be the Bible has authority so the miracles must be true when the miracles are supposed to show the Bible is true. So he appealed to the present day miracle of the Chrurch. He argued even if one rejects all the miracles in the Bible he still has this miracle of the Chruch which is evident. So the Bible must be true because why would anyone believe it only by divine will.

Thomas Aquinas thought that there are 2 types of truths. The truths of reason and the truths of Faith. The truths of reason are truths which can be discovered by inference or philosophy etc. One such of these truths are God exists. Something reason can discover. Then there are the truths of Faith. That reason cannot discovered. This is not to say that they are unreasonable or incoherent. But what this does mean is that these truths cannot be infered or discovered by some argument. For example one can know God exists from the cosmological argument but does the cosmological argument prove that God is triune (three personhoods in one being. Trinitarian concept of God taught in Christianity). Well obviously not. So Thomas said we cannot know the truths of Faith directly but indirectly. How? Well authority. Since the Bible is from God everything it teaches must be true. So when the word of God taken as a whole prove the truths of Faith indirectly. But then again how do we know the Bible has the authority? He said miracles and prophecy made it clear the Bible is true. How do we know the miracles and prophecy took place. He appealed the miracle of the Church as the way of knowing. Thomas also made the important contribution of the reduction of faith to mean a mere trust or commitment of the heart. Faith used to be a way of knowing but Thomas correctly defined the word Faith.


John locke said that every religion must have a foudation based on evidence. This is what we call theological rationalism. He argued that if a belief has no evidence it should be discarded. So Thomas thought the existence of God was a very reasonable thing to believe so he gave arguments for behalf of this. But when he moved into revelation and theological doctrines. He said that revealed truths (revelation) cannot contradict reason. That is to say if a revelation is contradictory to expirence or reason or common sense. Than it is more than likely this revelation is false.  He said that revelation cannot contradict reason because we can always be sure of reason than some revelation claiming to be from God. Locke thought any revelation that came from God is always true but it lies within the scope of reason to examine if it really is from God and determine it's meaning. He gave criteria to determine if a revelation is truely divine. 1. It must not contradict what has already be revealed. 2. It must not inform us of anything that is contray to God or the moral law or something easily discovered ( e.g rocks are hard) 3. It must be confirmed by supernatural signs. If the revelation satisfied the criteria than it could be said that the revelation is true. So Locke thought that Jesus fufilled the criteria so we can be sure that Christianity is true.


Henry dodwell going against the prevailing thought of his time argued that how can God expect something as human reason to lead us to faith? He basically said the way one know Christianity is true is not by reason but authority. But not authority of scirpture but the authority from the inner witness of the Holy spirit. This assures us that Christianity is true because the Holy spirit comes from God and since it is from God himself the spirit must be telling the truth.


Well that is it for now as for the two other people I neglected to mention well just look at my last blog for that. Well till next time!

Contemporary thinkers. How do we know Christianity is true?

Even though it is not so contemporary the philosophers I will be discussing nevertheless they are close though. Karl barth and Rodolfo bultman we will discuss theyre thoughts on the issue of reason and faith. So let's begin. Also I decided for this blog I will discuss some personal issues.


Ok let's first start with Karl barth. He thought that human beings had no way of having knowledge of God. That this is beyond comprehension beyond reason. That man cannot reason about God. The reason he thought this is because God is so other worldly so to speak. That since he transcends all creation he cannot possibly be comprehended by such lowly being as us. There is no way of knowing God on this view except by faith in Jesus Christ. Well I think this kinda ironic because if one cannot reason about God how did he reason that God can't be reasoned? Anyway to continue. That it is only through faith that one can have some knowledge of God. But even this knowledge is expiremental and not cognitive. That is to say that this knowledge does not come from within but is expirenced. That man since he is lost in sin does not have even the capacity to know God. So God has to come to him to confront him with the Word of God. He also argued that man cannot even take a leap of faith towards God. That since he is lost in sin it is impossible to take a leap of faith. So it is soley divine intervention that brings a person to knowledge of him. It is not man who choses God by his own spirit but it is God who choses man through the work of the Holy spirit. So if one were to ask how do we know if it is the word of God that comes to man and not a delusion. He would respond that such a question is meaningless. When the Word of God comes to man he is not free to reason or think only obey. So at the end he says that the authority of the Word of God is the foundation of religious belief. That is to say since the Word of God confronts man since it is God confronting man there is no way that could be false so it must be true that is really is God so one must obey.  Well I have so thoughts on this that I would like to discuss but I would have to formulate them coherently right now they are just some thoughts that need to be thought out reasonably. I think this might go against some doctrines.



Well let's talk Rodolfo (this guy has my uncle in law name). Well what did he think? Well his thinking matched perfectly with Karl's. They both think human apprehension of God is impossible except faith. He thought faith as not knowledge based on proof (such as thomas aquinas definition of faith). But he thought faith must be something uncertain and risky. Something one cannot be sure of. So he thought trying to prove Christianity is wrong is fatal because it will destroy faith. Well if asked how do we know the Word of God is true? He would respond on the basis of authority that the Word of God is true. On authority one has no need for reason or proofs the authority of the Word of God deems it superflous.

So in short both of these thinkers would have been authoritarians. They ultimately appeal to authority as the basis for religous belief. So that is it for that. Let's talk something I want to get off my chest.



Well I have been doing ok I suppose. Times are tough you know? The economic status of the U.S isn't great. Especially now that I have to take care of myself. I really need a job. Also I am a little love sick and trying to forget this girl I am in love with. But still she doesn't love me back so there is no point to continue to love her. I just want to forget her and move on with my life. But I can't it is so hard I feel if I move on I find out she has feelings for me and I lose her for ever. I mean she isn't the only one I know a lot of girls who like me and could easily go out with but none are like her though but I guess I am just being stupid ain't I? Ok that is enough for my personal life I will resume my demeanor and talk to you tomorrow!

Henry dodwell how do we know Christianity is true?

Well sorry I been busy but here I am. Well lets get started!


Henry thought was quite different from the prevailing dominant theological rationalism of John locke. He didn't think faith and reason could work together. That why would God would intend on having something as human reason to bring us to faith. That it is the job of the Holy spirit to do that right? He argued that we know Christianity is true on the basis of authority. Again we have heard this already. But he didn't base his authority on scripture but an the inner working faith of the Holy spirit. The Holy spirit witnesses that Christianity is true and therefore on the basis of the authority of the Holy spirit which comes from God who is truthful Christianity must be true. Well that is all he argued.  Next time we will discuss contemporary thinkers.

Different blog for today.

I would just like to make a evangelistic attempt to bring people to Christ. I really don't know how much people read this. I really hope at least a few though I know at least one person does I know that. But if you do thank you for doing so. Anyway I want to preach the Gospel for this blog. Well here it goes. Everyone on earth has sinned and all come short of God. Many of us consider ourselves to be good people. But our own standards are limited. God being ulimited has a much higher standard than ours to the status of perfection. So since we can't be like God we all come short of this perfect standard. No one can. We all have sinned. I am not saying we are murderers or theives but we all have sinned and come short of God's standards. The standards can't be kept so no matter what we do isn't God fault? Well I asked myself this question well but here is the thing it wasn't always like that. Man used to be sinless and was able to keep God standards. But man was tempted and fell into sin. Since sin was introduced into the world mankind could no longer keep God standards. It's not like we try to keep it anyway because most people just do as they please. Now everyone has sinned so everyone comes under God justice.


Since  God is just he must punish sin he cannot let it go unpunished. Even if we were able to stop sinning completely that still wouldn't help it doesn't changed the fact one sinned. It's like a murderer stopped killing people. It doesn't changed the fact he killed people and he must be punished. Well doesn't God forgive? Yes he does but even if God forgave us of our sins he still must punish those sins. Why because they were committed and must be paid for. For example let's you get in trouble with your mom and your ask for forgiveness. She forgive being a good mother and then she still punishes you. Why? Because even if she did forgive you she still has to punish what you did. So now what do we do? God forgives our sin but he can't just forget it something must take the full punishment of sin. That is why God sent Jesus Christ. He was perfect and blameless in all his ways. And he took the full weight of sin onto his hands. He was punished for our sins. So God forgives us and Jesus takes the blame making you free eternal life with God. Now if you recieve Christ into your heart and repent of your ways and follow him he will forgive you and grant you eternal life.



Ok that is the blog for today. Next time I will continue my series on how do we know Christianity is true?

Sorry can't blog today.

I forgot to read to take notes on the thinker which helps me develop his thinking. So I am sorry.

I decided not to blog on weekends.

As the title says I deserve rest on two days and war on the rest.

John locke: How do we know Christianity is true?

I am sure anyone who has taken a history class has heard at least once of John locke. Ever hear the expression " Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"? Well John locke orginally said " Life, liberty and property" it was changed by Thomas Jefferson. Well enough of the history let's get to the heart of the issue.

What did John locke say about religious epistemology? Well he argued that any religious belief must have a foundation that is based on evidence. And if one were absent that the belief is totally unwarranted. He argued that the existence of God is obviously discovered by reason. He argued by the means of the cosmological argument to prove that God exists. But when it came to the matters of faith or religous truths he said that any revelation cannot condradict reason. That is to say any type of religious belief cannot go against what reason says is true. And if a religious belief contradicted reason than it should not be believed. For example let's say the Bible taught the earth has a face on it. Reason obviously contradicts this notion. So John locke would have rejected it. So even though John locke believed anything that came from God is true he said that reason can gurantee if this revelation really is from God. Not only is religous belief must be in harmony with reason but it also serves to discern whether a revelation is genuine. It must have rational proofs to show that it is divine. If there is no proof then one is irrational.

John locke proceedes to give out three criteria to discern a genuine revelation from God.
1. It must not dishonor God or be inconsistent with natural religion or natural moral law.
2. It must not inform man of anything insignificant, indifferent or easily discovered by natural ability.
3. It must be confirmed by supernatural signs.

As for Christians beliefs he agued that fufilled miracle and prophecy make it reasonable that Christ was divine and what he taught was true so Christianity must be true.

Well that is it for what John locke thought on the issue tomorrow I will discuss another thinker who had a radically different approach to the issue than John locke's theological rationalism.

Well a break for today

I will discuss tomorrow the thoughts of 18th centurary thinkers.

Thomas Aquinas how do we know Christianity is true?

Thomas Aquinas one of my favorite philosophers. He was the guy who wrote the most extensive apologetic in the midevil times so he deserves our recognition. Thomas aquinas answered the question in a very interesting way.

Aquinas thought the relationship between faith and reason could be answered if we made a distinguish between truths of reason and the truths of faith. Now what are the truths of reason? Well the truths are reason in a nutshell are truths that can be obtained through reason only such as philosophical investigation, scientific study, etc. The truths of faith are those which can not be obtained by such methods. Now in Christianity he thought that both truths exists. He said we can know God exists through reason. The arguments of natural theology render the existence of God to be the most reasonable thing a mad can conclude. So the existence of God is a truth of reason. But he asked a question well can we know by reason that God is triune? ( trinitarian concept of God) We obviously not. For example the Kalam Cosmological Argument will get me to God existence but from that conclusion can I say he is triune or he is loving? No we cannot. So in case you don't understand Thomas thought that religious truths or theological truths cannot be known by empirical investigation. Which leads us to the truths of faith.

The truths of faith are those which cannot be known be reason. Now let's be careful to say by reason. Thomas does not mean the truths of faith are beyond reason. Rather what he means that they cannot be known by a certain means of investigation. So how does one know the truths of faith? He thought we can know it indirectly. Thomas appealed to Augustine's thought. Authority but with a twist. Since the Bible is the word of God it must be true and have the highest authority. This is confirmed by the miracles and prophecy which shows the Scriptures to be from God. Therfore everything that the Bible teaches must be true. So the truths are faith are indeed true. So let me explain this again in case you didn't understand. The truths of faith cannot be know directly but indirectly by the authority of the Bible, since it's true the thing it teaches must also be true therefore the truths of faith must be true. But Thomas hit a problem the same one that plagued Augustine. How do we know the miracles and prophecy took place? Since they lacked the historical method of investigation. Thomas appealed to the miracle of the Church to prove the miracles and prophecy took place.

Also to note in Thomas work we see the word faith has been reduced in meaning. Since Thomas thought if you knew something by reason you cannot believe it by faith. So he reduced the word faith to mean a mere trust of commitment such as I know the chair won't break I know that it was built right but I put my trust that when I sit on it won't break. This is very important since the word faith as of today means this. Just a little history lesson. Well next time I will talk about more contemporary well not really thinkers.

St. Augustine how do we know Christianity is true?

Well St. Augustine was a medievil theologian. So let's look at what he said about the relationship between faith and reason. If you want to hear it on video you can visit my youtube page Djchrist15. Anyway let's begin!


St. Augustine thought that the basis of believing in Christianity is solely on authority. Since the word of God is absolutelty true (since it's from God) and since it's absolutelty true it has authority and it must be believed. But the Augustine thought of something. Many books on earth claim to be from God, how do we know that the Bible is the correct one? In other ones they all have claims to authority so must we believe all? Well Augustine answered by saying that since the Bible is confirmed by miracles and prophecy it must be true. Since it's confirmed by these signs it shows the Bible to be from God and thus have the authority which compells us to believe.


But if you're a skeptic your obviously going to ask the question well how do we know that these miracles and prophecy even took place? Since that happened in the past there is no way of knowing if it did or did not happen. Well Augustine answered this question with the thought of the day. Back in medievil times knowledge of the past was taken purely on authority. That is too say that the witnesses off the past are too be believed since they were there and they must be telling the truth because if they were lying it would make no sense. So knowledge of the past was based on authority. But what about the knowledge of present? Well knowledge of the present was based on reason since we can observe and test the present.

So back to the question how do we know that the miracles in prophecy took place? Well on the basis of the authority we can know the miracles and prophecy took place. Since they took place that confirms the scripture to be true giving it the authority which demands our belief that is how we know Christianity is true. But Augustine posed one more question. Why should we believe the authority of the witnesses of the past? Why should we accept their witness? So Augustine answered in the following way: we can reject the witnesses of the past but we are still left with the miracle of the church which is present and real. Since this miracle can't be denied and it's true it must be the Bible is true giving it authority which demands our belief. Now Augustine doesn't base the authority of the Bible on the authority of the Church. The Bible is greater than the Chuch was he is saying is that everyone is believing in Christianity despite the fact we can't know if the miracles took plac, and that very act of believing is in of itself is a miracle.


Since Augustine lacked the historical method of investigating the past to see if the miracles really took place he appealed the miracle of the Church. It's ironic since the Church miracle can be known be reason and not authority his model is based on reason and authority together which he sought to avoid.

Well tomorrow we will see the St. Thomas Aquinas thought about the relationship between faith and reason and how do we know Christianity is true.

Tomorrow's the day I decide to blog again.

Since I got lazy on the studying I think that blogging my help me get into the material by forcing me to read it again in order to blog it. So tomorrow I will explore what St. Augustine thought about the relationship between faith and reason. I also decide to take this week off from the gym. I need to see if I can cancel my membership. Or find the proper way to do all the excersises. Either way lot's of things to do this week.