November 30, 2008
If you can see one step in advance...
....For in any matter so momentous and practical as the welfare of the soul, a wise man will not wait for the fullest evidence before he acts; and will show his caution, not in remaining uninfluenced by the existing report of a divine message, but by obeying it though it might be more clearly attested. If it is but fairly probable that rejection of the Gospel will involve his eternal ruin, it is safest and wisest to act as if it were certain.Posted by John Weidner at November 30, 2008 05:22 AM
On the other hand, when a man does not make the truth of Christianity a practical concern, but a mere matter of philosophical or historical research, he will feel himself at leisure (and reasonably on his own grounds) to find fault with the evidence. When we inquire into a point of history, or investigate an opinion of science, we do demand decisive evidence; we consider it allowable to wait till we obtain it, to remain undecided; in a word, to be sceptical.
If religion be not a practical matter, it is right and philosophical in us to be sceptics. Assuredly higher and fuller evidence of its truth might be given us; and, after all, there are a number of deep questions concerning the laws of nature, the constitution of the human mind, and the like, which must be solved before we can feel perfectly satisfied.
And those whose hearts are not "tender," [2 Kings xxii. 19.] as Scripture expresses it,—that is, who have not a vivid perception of the Divine Voice within them, and of the necessity of His existence from whom it issues,—do not feel Christianity as a practical matter, and let it pass accordingly. They are accustomed to say that death will soon come upon them, and solve the great secret for them without their trouble,—that is, they wait for sight: not understanding, or being able to be made to comprehend, that their solving this great problem without sight is the very end and business of their mortal life: according to St. Paul's decision, that faith is "the substance," or the realizing, "of things hoped for," "the evidence," or the making trial of, the acting on, the belief of "things not seen." [Heb. xi. 1.]
What the Apostle says of Abraham is a description of all true faith; it goes out not knowing whither it goes. It does not crave or bargain to see the end of the journey; it does not argue with St. Thomas, in the days of his ignorance, "we know not whither, and how can we know the way?" it is persuaded that it has quite enough light to walk by, far more than sinful man has a right to expect, if it sees one step in advance; and it leaves all knowledge of the country over which it is journeying, to Him who calls it on...
--John Henry Newman [Link. Paragraphing added by me.]
This is only supposing Gospel or nothing. In reality one has Koran, Gita, Talmud et al.
This is one objectin Materialists often make: how do you choose between various offerings for afterlife.
Well, I think it is "Gospel or nothing." Obviously I'm not an objective observer (but I doubt there really is such a thing).
When I put religions side-by-side, Christianity (and Judaism) seem much richer and deeper and more complex. They feel different, like a great oil painting placed next to a printed reproduction.
Since I haven't studied "comparative religion," it's possible I'm just missing a lot in other faiths. Missing the equivalents to Newman, Lewis, Chesterton, Belloc, Augustine, Aquinas, etc...
Posted by: John Weidner at December 1, 2008 06:02 PMWe must do better since this is a big objection always being raised by Atheists and I dont have a good counter-argument.
Posted by: Bisaal at December 1, 2008 08:12 PMA good argument is hard to form, because Christianity (or any other faith) is not something you chose like comparing tomatoes in the market.
You cannot "see" the Church unless you get at least a ways inside. You have to become a little bit captivated first. (Actually this is true of all complex thought-systems. One can't appreciate science, or history, or engineering, until one has fallen a little bit in love with them. But religion is harder to "get" this way, at least in our modern cultures.)
Becoming a Christian is sort of like falling in love and deciding to marry someone. It is not a decision that can be made by any objective standard, and my "arguments" for loving someone won't convince you at all. As my pastor likes to say , "I could tell you about so-and-so's virtues and charm and beauty all day long, but that won't cause you to fall in love with them."
But that does not make that kind of decision-making invalid. Most of our big decisions are made like that. We accumulate various pieces of information, one after the other, and suddenly they make a pattern, and we feel a certainty. (Then we often retroactively imagine we followed some more clear and formal logic.)
Newman called this the "illative" process. Many probabilities can add up to a certainty. Even most of our personal "scientific" knowledge is like this--We didn't ourselves run any experiments, rather we relied on numerous probabilities that most science is accurate and errors are usually soon detected.
But conveying this to an atheist is hard, because the atheist is usually someone who has hardened his heart. He doesn't want to be captivated. God is calling him, but he doesn't want to hear...
Posted by: John Weidner at December 1, 2008 08:55 PMAnd about conveying it to a sincere Hindu or Muslim?
I find strange this -always talking to a atheist. There are many more Hindus and Muslims than atheists.
Do you say they are called by God but are their hearts hardened?
You were the one who brought up atheists. ;-)
Actually the basic situation is not that different. The atheist may be hard-hearted, or may he may be a sincere and tender-hearted seeker of truth, just following a false path.
But the exact same thing is true of a Hindu or Muslim.
The Church teaches that God provides sufficient Grace for everyone to be saved, although we don't know how this happens. My pastor said the other night, "On what will we be judged? On our yes." That is, on how we respond to God's call to us.
I think that Muslims and Hindus have constructed false systems of faith, but that they have done so as a response to God's call to our hearts. They didn't have God's Revelation, so they've just been "winging it." However, they, or the atheist, can still say "yes" to God. (And a Christian can go through the motions of faith, but still secretly say "no.")
[So why become a Christian? Because the straight path gets you to the goal more surely than wandering on by-ways with many dead ends. And mostly, because God asked us to. It's absurd to say "yes" to the God who created the whole cosmos, but then say you are going to do the thing in your own way. That's like agreeing to marry someone, but saying you don't want to live in the same house with them. "We'll just get together on the weekends."]
Posted by: John Weidner at December 3, 2008 10:28 AMVGlHw2 amrqvumhwlzx, [url=http://bskqohuoxvxi.com/]bskqohuoxvxi[/url], [link=http://heacvwprkyok.com/]heacvwprkyok[/link], http://qigxxfwwhyqj.com/
Posted by: dkzgwhwwhz at December 3, 2008 10:39 PM
