Post by Once4all on Mar 3, 2011 15:49:54 GMT -5
CHAPTER 19 - The Test of Truth
I had some issues with this chapter. I detected a lack of consistency.
The authors made a case for the test of truth being the witness of two or three witnesses, as defined by Scripture itself. I thought this idea was excellent! But I saw problems with their implementation of it.
19.1 On page 367, they quote John 8:14, 16-18, where Jesus says "In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father."
I'll get back to this later. It comes up again later in the chapter, but first I had a few intervening comments.
19.2 On page 368, the authors write: "The explosion of Christianity in the first century was based on the Holy Spirit working through the first-hand testimony and evidence of the divine origin of the Christian faith. What else could turn an entire world upside down within one generation?"
My question is half tongue-in-cheek, half serious: What "entire world" are they talking about?
19.3 On page 373, the authors spend several paragraphs discussing mental disciplines and human reasoning vs. empirical evidence in nature. My marginal comment to the authors reads, "One or two specific examples about something in nature would be helpful to the reader in comprehending this section."
19.4 On page 381, there is a discussion about how "science operates on nothing other than the testimony of many witnesses. No one scientist can do all research and testing. Findings must be written down and verified by other witnesses. Scientists must have faith in the written testimony of others."
They go on to question why scientists "accept the testimony of many witnesses for conclusions in other scientific fields yet reject the written testimony of many witnesses of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus and all the other miracles recorded in the Bible."
My question on this subject was "What then of the Catholic Church claims of miracles and Marian apparitions, many supposedly with numerous witnesses?"
19.5 Now back to what I hinted at in 19.1. On pages 383-384, the authors make the claim that it is okay to use the Bible alone as a sole authority (i.e, one witness) because, in reality, there are three witnesses because of the "Trinitarian nature of God himself."
That is special pleading, based on a human tradition or interpretation of Scripture. The Bible text never divides God into three separate witnesses. Some passages call God in to be an additional witness, so that there is more than one (Genesis 31:50; Romans 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:5,10) and God (who is One, not three) calling others as witnesses for Him (Isaiah 43:10-12,15).
The concept of covenant mediation also illustrates that God is one party or witness, not multiple (Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).
Reliance on a man-made (and, in my opinion, false) Trinity doctrine of God as a "test of truth" is an inherently damaged and untrustworthy pillar in any argument. They are building a foundation of a test for truth on an interpretation of Scripture, something the authors themselves warned against in chapter 12 (pages 244-245) and even in this very chapter (chapter 19, pages 377,380)!
I had some issues with this chapter. I detected a lack of consistency.
The authors made a case for the test of truth being the witness of two or three witnesses, as defined by Scripture itself. I thought this idea was excellent! But I saw problems with their implementation of it.
19.1 On page 367, they quote John 8:14, 16-18, where Jesus says "In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father."
I'll get back to this later. It comes up again later in the chapter, but first I had a few intervening comments.
19.2 On page 368, the authors write: "The explosion of Christianity in the first century was based on the Holy Spirit working through the first-hand testimony and evidence of the divine origin of the Christian faith. What else could turn an entire world upside down within one generation?"
My question is half tongue-in-cheek, half serious: What "entire world" are they talking about?
19.3 On page 373, the authors spend several paragraphs discussing mental disciplines and human reasoning vs. empirical evidence in nature. My marginal comment to the authors reads, "One or two specific examples about something in nature would be helpful to the reader in comprehending this section."
19.4 On page 381, there is a discussion about how "science operates on nothing other than the testimony of many witnesses. No one scientist can do all research and testing. Findings must be written down and verified by other witnesses. Scientists must have faith in the written testimony of others."
They go on to question why scientists "accept the testimony of many witnesses for conclusions in other scientific fields yet reject the written testimony of many witnesses of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus and all the other miracles recorded in the Bible."
My question on this subject was "What then of the Catholic Church claims of miracles and Marian apparitions, many supposedly with numerous witnesses?"
19.5 Now back to what I hinted at in 19.1. On pages 383-384, the authors make the claim that it is okay to use the Bible alone as a sole authority (i.e, one witness) because, in reality, there are three witnesses because of the "Trinitarian nature of God himself."
That is special pleading, based on a human tradition or interpretation of Scripture. The Bible text never divides God into three separate witnesses. Some passages call God in to be an additional witness, so that there is more than one (Genesis 31:50; Romans 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:5,10) and God (who is One, not three) calling others as witnesses for Him (Isaiah 43:10-12,15).
The concept of covenant mediation also illustrates that God is one party or witness, not multiple (Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).
Reliance on a man-made (and, in my opinion, false) Trinity doctrine of God as a "test of truth" is an inherently damaged and untrustworthy pillar in any argument. They are building a foundation of a test for truth on an interpretation of Scripture, something the authors themselves warned against in chapter 12 (pages 244-245) and even in this very chapter (chapter 19, pages 377,380)!
