"Darren" == Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu> writes:  Darren> In an earlier article, I explained that what many people find Darren> arrogant about Christians is that some Christians profess Darren> absolute certainty about their beliefs and doctrines.  and  Darren> In short, the problem is that no matter how good your sources Darren> are, if any part of your doctrines or beliefs rest on your own Darren> thinking and reasoning, then those doctrines are suspect.  The point that Darren raises is a very Lutheran viewpoint.   While reason is a gift from God, it is also infected by sin. Yet we do not reject reason entirely--and neither, I think,  does Darren.  We need reason, as Darren himself has pointed out, to comprehend God's revelation of himself in the Bible. But reason alone is not sufficient to comprehend and believe the Word.  We need, first and foremost, faith.  For "the sinful mind is hostile to God.  It does not submit to God's law, *nor can it do so*"  (Romans 8:7).  Luther accepted Scripture as the sole means of revelation ("Sola Scriptura"), but accepted the necessity of the use of reason (with faith) in comprehending that revelation. Yet Luther also said, regarding baptism, "But mad reason rushes forth, and, because Baptism is not dazzling like the works which we do, regards it as worthless." (Large Catechism, Fourth part, Baptism).  To make matters more complicated, Luther was the sort of theologian that many  people would describe as an `absolutist'.  I've seen him  described as a `take no prisoners' theologian.  We might conclude, given these observations, that Luther was inconsistent or mad.  And surely at least some have come to that conclusion.  But it might be useful to recall that Jesus was also called mad.  And Peter felt compelled to defend himself and the apostles against a charge of drunkenness on Pentecost.  So we as Christians ought to be careful about rejecting Luther (or others)  as mad.  Rather, we should imitate the Bereans, who examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11).  The basis for the confidence with which Luther, Peter, Paul, and many others preached the gospel was not just reason, but faith and the Holy Spirit.  This is not faith divorced from reason, but a faith that guides, informs, and uses reason.  The Spirit enables us to know the truth and to proclaim it boldly.  God does not want us to preach the message that "I think that Jesus might have risen from the dead" but rather "I know that my redeemer lives!"  (Job 19:25).  The Christian does not side with Pilate in saying "What is truth?" but rather follows Christ, who said, "In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth.  Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37).  We can know the truth because God has promised us that we can know the truth.  Jesus said, "If you hold to my teachings, you are really my disciples.  Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:31,32).  The Proverbs urge us "Buy the truth, and do not sell it." (Pr 23:23). The Psalmist prayed "Do not snatch to word of truth from my mouth" (Ps 119:43).  Evidently he believed that the word of truth was in fact `in his mouth'.    Yet we do indeed appear arrogant if our claim to the truth is motivated by self-glorification.  But if we present the truth as the teachings of Scripture, revealed by the  Spirit, and not our own invention, and if we stand ready to be proved wrong on the basis of Scripture, as Luther did, then we are not arrogant, but humble.  We should humbly trust in God's promise of truth, just as we trust in his promise of forgiveness.  REXLEX> It is only because of God's own revelation that we can be  REXLEX> absolute about a thing.  Darren> But how far does that get you?  Once God's revelation stops, Darren> and your own reasoning begins, possibility for error appears.  I agree that we must make a distinction between the clear teachings of Scripture, and the products of our own reason--even when such reasoning is based on Scripture.  However I think I would draw the line of distinction more `reasonably'  :-)  and less `academically' than you would.  Darren> For example, let's suppose that our modern Bible translations Darren> include a perfect rendering of Jesus words at the Last Supper, Darren> and that Jesus said, exactly, "This is my body."  Darren> We'll presume that what he said was totally without error and Darren> absolutely true.  What can we be certain of?  Not much.  Darren> At the moment he stops speaking, and people start Darren> interpreting, the possibility of error appears.  Did he mean Darren> that literally or not?  We do not have any record that he Darren> elaborated on the words.  Was he thinking of Tran- or Con- Darren> substantiation?  He didn't say.   Darren is almost at the point of making a very Lutheran statement about the Lord's supper.  The Lutheran approach is to say that if Jesus said, "This is my body," then that is what we should believe.  Other interpretations are rejected simply because they are not taught in Scripture.  Recall that Jesus' words do not stand alone on this subject.  We also have Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34,--in which he passed on to us, what he received from the Lord.  In particular he said, "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."  By these words we should believe that the bread that we eat in the Lord's Supper really is bread (as well as the Lord's body)--as our senses in fact tell us.  Does this *prove* that tran-substantiation is false?  I suppose someone could say that Paul spoke metaphorically of the Lord's body as bread, simply because that is the way the body appears when we eat it.  But this thought is found nowhere in Scripture.  So we reject it.  Thus the primary reason for rejecting tran-substantiation is not that we can prove it false, but that it is simply not found in Scripture.  [side remark] I've been told that the Lutheran doctrine on real presence is con-substantiation.  But it has been non-Lutherans who have told me this.  We tend not to use the word.  I almost think that this is used more by professors of comparative religion, who need labels to compare Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed teachings on the Lord's Supper.  But almost every church wants to call their own teaching "real presence" because that was the traditional teaching of  the church. [end side remark]  Darren> When Christians speak as if they believe their own reasoning Darren> can never lead them astray -- when we implicitly claim that we Darren> are infallible -- the non- Christians around us rarely believe Darren> that implicit claim.  Witnessing is hardly going to work when Darren> the person you are talking to believes that you are either too Darren> foolish to recognise your own limits, or intentionally trying Darren> to cover them up.  This is precisely why Christians should not rely on rationalizations in their witnessing.  It is far better to take the approach, "I'd like to show you what Scripture says.  You decide for  yourself whether to believe it or not."  Darren> `REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not Darren> Silent_, by Francis Schaeffer.  I didn't think very highly of Darren> it, but I think that Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many Darren> Evangelical Christians.  Somebody else might like it, though, Darren> so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it.  Darren> If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On Darren> Certainty_, by Ludwig Wittgenstein.  As long as we're trading references, I'd like to suggest Dr. Siegbert Becker's paperback, "The Foolishness of God: The place of reason in Lutheran theology," published by Northwestern Publishing House. This book was based on Becker's doctoral thesis at the University of Chicago.