Our discussion on the boundaries of the definition of “scholarship” (here) has morphed into a discussion about epistemology. We began by asking if scholarship could say anything to the subject of the historicity of the resurrection since most scholars have very strict rules regarding objectivity. Now we have moved to how one can know that the gospel is true if there is no way to objectively “prove” the resurrection, or the authority of the Apostle Paul, or the authority of the Scriptures, and so forth.
James McGrath has asked the following:
“It may be that historical study cannot provide any evidence for accepting any one individual in the past’s claim to divine revelation or religious experience over any other. But surely that is something we need to take seriously in our thinking about Christianity in our own time. It may be that the appropriate way to discuss religions is to compare texts with texts, and share our own personal experiences that have changed our lives. But there too, if we find that others have had an experience comparable to ours in the context of another tradition, would that not potentially be a good reason to acknowledge a breadth in God’s workings and to view that other tradition in a way that is at least somewhat positive? If not, why not?”
In what sense can we as Christians expect people to hear and obey the gospel? What makes our experience lining up with the words of the New Testament any different than someone whose experience lines up with the words of the Qur’an? Does experience matter when determining the truth?
In part this is why I am a Calvinist. I am not a Calvinist because I believe in strict determinism, but because I think that in some sense it is impossible to “prove” the gospel unless the Holy Spirit is already at work. I am not sure what the basis is for the election of believers by God though I do not think it is arbitrary. Nevertheless, I do not think it is simply a matter of taking the evidence to court and that we must in the end have been faithful to what our rationality would allow. I would appreciate hearing the opinions of some others, especially those of the Arminian pursuasion.
the archives near Emmaus 
One reason I am not a Calvinist is that this strikes me as a way to justify our religious allegiance in spite of an inability to put together a coherent case for it – not a purely rational one or a watertight one, I must add, but simply one that provides adequate reason. Appealing to predestination as though that helped resolve the issue doesn’t persuade me, since there are plenty of others who have had other religious viewpoints and also believed themselves to be God’s chosen ones: the Qumran community, for instance, and many Muslims.
But of course there is a simple explanation for why I am not persuaded: I wasn’t predestined to be a Calvinist! 🙂
James,
I can see the trouble with Calvinism but I think a soft Calvinism best explains the biblical data and the balance between our responsibility to preach the gospel and our inability to be apologetic into infinity. While it may not be intellectually satisfying for some (which is why Arminians exist) it does make sense to me.
Just because others believed in their group’s predestination doesn’t mean I should abandon mine. The Muslims may be right when it is all said and done.
As an Arminian (or something like an Arminian, anyways), I’ll point out that the Holy Spirit has a huge role in Salvation as well. A doctrine of prevenient grace asserts that the Holy Spirit enables the sinner to choose to place faith in Christ. Not all Arminians hold to Total Depravity, but there are many who do and who will speak of “freed will” instead of “free will” because of prevenient grace.
As a Pentecostal, I’ll also throw in the argument from miracles. Obviously this will look flimsy to some in western scholars, but sometimes it looks like people believed the Gospel simply because of the demonstrations of power that were taking place through exorcisms, healings, etc. Some people will dismiss this evidence a priori, but one has to at least describe it when discussing the history of the early Church.
Alex,
Yes, the Holy Spirit is central to a Christian “way of knowing”. I think we may find ourselves running in circles if we try to satisfy what James above calls a “watertight” case. While it may be different by degree one could argue that there is not even a “watertight” case for my own existence let alone the resurrection or other historical events. There can always be a “but what about…” for every answer we give.
While I am not sure that the Holy Spirit moves in the life of the unbeliever in the same way as he does the elect I do agree with you that it is essentially the Holy Spirit who gives believers, at least, a “freed will” to believe. In part those who do not believe are still spiritually blind and no amount of evidence can change that unless the evidence is something the Holy Spirit uses as part of his “freeing” act.
As regards miracles we may suggest that this is also a means by which the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of some. There is some subjectivity to this since people can appeal to miracles in Judaism, Islam, and so forth. Nevertheless, the miracles that accompany the gospel seem to be for the express purposes of opening the eyes of those who would believe if they could believe. Since God knows who would believe if they could believe and what it would take to usher belief into their lives God knows when miracles are an appropriate sign.
By the way, has anyone ever read ‘Paul’s Way of Knowing: Story, Experience, and the Spirit’ by Ian Scott. This looks like a valuable work considering the nature of these discussions.
Well, Brian I think the title to the book you noted gives a hint as to how we can know something is true – its the dreaded despised “e” word: experience. We know the gospel is true because we’ve experienced and its life chaning power.
But I guess the very mention of the word “experience” invalidates my assertion since generally, especially among calvinists (though perhaps not among nice ones like you) experience is not a valid means for belief and understanding – too subjective. Faith must be enough, etc. At least, this has been my experience (oops, there’s that word again!) in talking with non-pentecostals or charismatics.
I don’t think it is the only thing but I think it is a significant aspect especially considering the mention of miracles by Alex. The Bible says in Hebrews 2:4 that God testified to salvation (the gospel) by signs, wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit. So, I think it is safe to say experience is a valid mans to belief (but we also know through apologetics the historicity of the Bible and so that helps, no?
Look at it this way, is coffee good? How do you know? Can you prove it scientifically? Not really, unless we take a survey and see that a spectrum of people say it is good so it must be, but also, we know coffee is good why? Because we’ve expereinced it. Follow?
I understand perfetly that my comment is not “watertight.”
Brian,
While I am Calvinistic let it be made known I am equally charismatic. I strongly affirm continuationist views on the gifts of the Spirit and although I may not line up in regards to doctrines like “initial evidence” I do think that experiencing the Spirit is an expected part of the salvation process.
Likewise, I agree that the experience of the Holy Spirit is one essential way of “knowing”. What I do not know how to do is argue that our experience with the Holy Spirit should be respected anymore than say Rumi’s mystical experiences?
I think William Lane Craig has some interesting discussion of epistemology in his Reasonable Faith. It may be worth browsing through if you can get it from the Library. That book on Paul’s Way of Knowing looks fascinating, though I’ve not read it.
Brian, I guess Christian expereinces are slightly different from Rumi’s mystical experiences because we have the Bible – and we measure those experiences by the Bible – while there is some measure of subjectivity in our spiritual experiences they are to be rooted in the word of God and are held to that standard.
If our experiences seem to be out of alignment with the Word, then we need to put up red flags. So for example, we know out of body experiences probably aren’t biblical, nor are experiences of talking to the dead and so on. If something like that happens we can be sure it’s probably not Christian.
Additionally, our Christian spiritual experiences should lead us to become more like Christ and essentially become more Christian not less Christian and so on. That’s the difference, at least as I see it.
No easy answers to these kinds of things. But Iwould argue rooting them in the word of God helps. Does that make sense?
I hope that helps.
But conversely, might not the Bible represent accounts and interpretations of ancient Jewish and early Christian religious experiences? How do we know which is the cart and which is the horse, as it were? 🙂
James,
I think you are just a contrarian. 🙂
No I’m not! 😉