Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘hypostatic union’

An “apologetic” is not an attempt to say “I’m sorry”. It actually means to “give reasons why” you believe something is true. I guess that would make this post an “apologetic on why I don’t rely on apologetics”.

It’s not that I don’t think Christians should think deeply about their faith. Quite the opposite. Sometimes, apologetic thinking masks the deeper issues and prevents us from getting to what truth in theology is all about: faith thinking and faith acting.

The Comprehensive Nature of Truth
I’ve been involved in a number of online chats about faith, skepticism and other issues. Each time I find myself frustrated because no one issue or discussion can capture the breadth of why I believe as I do.

C.S. Lewis once wrote, “I believe in God like I believe in the sun, not because I can see it, but because of it all things are seen.” It’s not that I believe one thing, but many things in every area of life which point to God. There isn’t a single focus or even a particular set of arguments that lead me to believe as I do. I see the fingerprints of God everywhere. It all fits together because it originates in God and finds its purpose in Him.

At Best a Starting Point
At their worst, an apologetic just creates a circular argument. While we may frown on people who use simplistic circular arguments, the most intelligent among us simply use bigger and more well-constructed circular arguments. (more…)

Read Full Post »

In Section 25 of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics, we looked at the fulfillment of the knowledge of God. Here in Section 26, Barth delves into what it means for God to be knowable.

“The possibility of the knowledge of God springs from God, in that He is Himself the truth and He gives Himself to man in His Word by the Holy Spirit to be known as the truth. It springs from man, in that, in the Son of God by the Holy Spirit, he becomes an object of the divine good-pleasure and therefore participates in the truth of God.” –Karl Barth (CD II.1, p.63)

In large part, his target is to discredit natural theology as a means to knowing God from every direction he can imagine. Barth will settle for nothing outside God’s own gracious self-revelation as the only means to knowing God. Later, we will see why he is so insistent on this stance, but for now we will review his argument at face value.

Without God, there is no revelation. It is an act of grace or good will toward humanity that he reveals Himself at all. There is no necessity that He do so, but He chooses to do so. (more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts