Ramified Natural Theology

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by humblethinker, Aug 8, 2012.

  1. humblethinker

    humblethinker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Cypress

    Cypress
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope, needed the heads up about thirty years ago. May have had enough time and intellect then.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
     
  3. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Interesting . . .
     
  4. humblethinker

    humblethinker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I agree.

    The idea of Ramified Theology is that a compelling aruement for Christianity can be made by reasoning that "...the evidence for miracles and fulfilled prophecy favor Christianity over rival religions." The article says, "This is really a revival and extension of the approach taken by some of the church fathers and Pascal..."

    Though I'm sure I don't much about him, Pascal is one of my heros. Due to the advancement of science, it seems that at least some arguments made two thousand years ago woul not be made today, (at the moment I don't know what these 'some' would be) therefore I would be hesitant to put all my eggs of persuasiveness into this kind of basket. However I do see how it would be a usefull tool and even possibly very influential to some unbelievers.

    It seems that Ramified Theology is convincing only to the extent that we can accurately recognize what is a miracle by making a clear deliniation between a naturally occuring event and a 'super' naturaly occuring event. Yet isn't even this subjective? We would all agree that anomolies exist in the material world and that they certainly happen in time, yet, not all anomolies are miracles. So, the goal of Ramified Theology then would seem to be to demonstrate how the perponderance of the evidence favors not only the existence of a Deity but that this Deity was actually the person Jesus Christ. It seems to me that if God exists in the way we propose then we would expect to find evidence of such a reality. In this sense Ramified Theology seems like an endeavor worthy of thought and effort that, if successfull, should add to our argument for the God of the Bible.

    Regardless of how evidential the argument may be it still seems the case that God expects man to believe in Him in a way that the 'belief' desired is of 'faith' and not of 'certainty'. Meaning that the fact that I have a state of mind that is less than "certain", it does not absolve me of my accountability to God regarding whether I believe in Him. So, for an example, the one who claims, "I cannot believe in a God unless I am absolutely certain that He is who I am expected to believe He is. Since I do not have that level of certainty I therefore do not believe in God and will not believe in God until I am thusly convinced." If one ever arrived at that level of certainty then it cannot be said that their believe is of faith but instead of presumption. Since, "Without faith it is impossible to please God.", any state of mind in which I esteem myself to be 'certain', or that I have achieved unalterable certitude in the correctness of my views, then I have entered a state of mind that is no longer faith but presumption.

    So, I propose that it is the case that God was pleased to have created a world in which salvation was predicated on a state of mind, or rather a state of the heart, that was not of 'certainty' but of 'faith'. Insofaras Ramified Theology seeks to add to the weight of evidence to influence the actualization of such belief, I support the endeavor. If, however, it is to be thought of as a 'science' that 'proves' that which faith 'believes', then I do not support it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...