All the Right Beliefs for all the Wrong Reasons
Sometimes it is frustrating to introduce yourself to theological issues. Most people who get deeply involved in theology quickly realize how much they don’t know. Confident seminary students enter their training thinking that they are going to breeze their way through as they have their prejudices confirmed by their soon to be impressed professors. After the first year, their countenance is soured as their confidence turns into an insecure angel (or devil) on their shoulder who says, “Who did you think you were presuming God called you into ministry?” They begin to realize that they came to seminary to find out how much they did not know! Some get discouraged and leave, others harden in their categories becoming unable to learn. But the best adjust their expectations, knowing that an admission of ignorance is a fundamental foundation to learning.
There is an old dictum to knowledge. It goes something like this:
There are four types of people:
1. The one who doesn’t know, and doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. He is a fool–shun him.
2. The one who doesn’t know, but knows that he doesn’t know. He is a student–help him learn.
3. The one who knows, but doesn’t know that he knows. He is an unenlightened person–enlighten him.
4. The one who knows and knows that he knows. He is a wise man–follow him.
I would like to add a fifth:
5. The one who knows but does not know how he knows. He is naive—deconstruct him.
This fifth category refers to those who have all the right beliefs for all the wrong reasons. This is very common in theological circles. I believe that it is prevalent within Evangelicalism as a basic creedal confession takes the place of doctrinal understanding. I know of many people who confess a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, but they really don’t know why they believe in this doctrine. I know of many people who believe that Christ rose bodily from the grave, but they could not give you even the most basic defense of their confession. Both the bodily resurrection of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are good and right beliefs, but if someone cannot justify these beliefs, do they really believe them?
The fidest (one who defines faith as a blind leap into the dark) would answer with an unqualified, “Yes.” The evidentialist (one who believes that evidence plays a vital role in faith) would say, “Maybe, maybe not.” I side with the evidentialist. There is a large chasm between assent to a proposition and being convicted of that proposition. And there is a fine line between emotional conviction and conviction of the Holy Spirit. To answer the question How do you know that Christ rose from the grave? with a “I just know that I know!” answer is both insufficient and, dare I say, sinfully neglectful of our duty to engage our minds. It creates an unjustified dichotomy between the mind and the heart.
“The heart will not accept what the mind rejects.” These words are attributed to Jonathan Edwards (although I have never seen the reference). Nevertheless, I believe this is true. The one who knows but does not know how he knows is in great danger of one day losing what he knew. Why? Because the justification for this knowledge is unqualified and insufficient. Creating a dichotomy between the mind and the heart is a self-defense mechanism for those who are truly insecure about their faith. They don’t have enough confidence in their faith to subject it to the scrutiny that the mind demands. For these people, an introduction of the mind’s interrogation to their beliefs is like playing the lottery. There is a chance—a good chance—that it will not survive, so it is better not to take that chance. They simply “know that they know that they know.” Or, as some would put it, they know because they have a “burning in their bosom”—that’s enough for them.
The problem with this fidestic approach to faith is that, in the end, everyone can claim this “burning in the bosom.” No one and no belief system is disqualified from its epistemological methodology. Two people with completely different belief systems can both have this subjective confidence with hearts on fire. Both can (and often do) claim that their conviction is from the Holy Spirit. Yet one of them is wrong.
Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that there is a subjective conviction of the Holy Spirit. But I believe that the conviction that the Holy Spirit brings is based upon the objective realities of the truths He represents. These truths are not acquired by a sound method of meditation or a blind adherence to what mom and dad taught you, but by wrestling with the issues and coming to your faith on your own. There has to be a deconstruction process that allows the Holy Spirit to bring about a conviction that we can truly credit to Him. We don’t have to disassociate His conviction with our studies. It is not an either/or but a both/and. God brings about conviction through our studies. This is the medium He uses. Yet unfortunately we often justify our lazy minds by placing the blame on Him for our intellectual disassociation.
Having all the right beliefs for all the wrong reasons. This is not a good thing. The reasons provide the foundation for our beliefs. If we do not construct a method of inquiry that has integrity, our beliefs will lack integrity. If our beliefs lack integrity, do we truly believe them?
We must learn to deconstruct our beliefs. No, not in the postmodern sense of the term. Postmodernism seeks to deconstruct without the intention of reconstructing. They do this because part of their presumed construction says that we cannot reconstruct (which is self-defeating). We deconstruct so that we can truly believe. We deconstruct so that we don’t have a faith of hibernated fear. We deconstruct so that when our fortress is rebuilt, it can weather any trial, internal or external. Ultimately, we deconstruct so that we can glorify God by loving Him with all our mind.
I know that this is difficult for many to hear. I know that the proposition is a fearful one. We are much more comfortable in our naive existence. But we must graduate our faith and encourage others to do the same. We must have the right beliefs for the right reasons.
I believe that a failure to do so, from a human standpoint, sets people up for their journey away from Christianity. This is why you see me singing this same tune so often.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight(b) – What about all the divisions?
- "You Ask Me How I Know He Lives . . . He Lives Within My Heart". . . And Other Stupid Statements
- Must One Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?
- Doctrinal Disagreement to the Glory of God
- Are you prejudiced in what you see?
Print This Post

Dale on 28 Jan 2010 at 6:11 am #
I’ve read this post several times, and the same thought keeps coming back to me: most of my patients are seniors who were farmers, factory workers or married to one, had families and a pretty good life, went to church and believed with all their hearts. Not one is (to my knowledge) a theologian, and could probably not “justify” their beliefs any more than most of the rest of us mere mortals on the planet. Does this mean we are all going to hell?
WLS on 28 Jan 2010 at 7:57 am #
6. The one who DOESN’T know, but thinks that he knows….
Rick on 28 Jan 2010 at 9:51 am #
I think you are dealing with two issues here:
1) the importance of deepening one’s understanding of their faith, so that it stronger. I agree with that.
2) “if someone cannot justify these beliefs, do they really believe them?” That is where I am not sure I fully agree with you. There are many areas of life (scientific, medical, economic, etc…) that we may not understand something sufficiently, but correctly believe it. Gravity, boats float, bridges support people, etc…
Likewise, in terms of faith, there are deeper things that we may not understand, or thought about, yet belief is there. And who decides how sufficiently one must understand something for it to be a true belief. For example, in terms of the Trinity, do they have to refer to biblical passages, or just creeds, or just the tradition of their denomination? Where does it become insufficent, or lack “integrity”?
Which belief is more important: a shallow belief in the Trinity, or a confident belief in “a method of inquiry that has integrity”?
Chuck on 28 Jan 2010 at 9:52 am #
“5. The one who knows but does not know how he knows. He is naive—deconstruct him.”
My perspective of theists with a Calvinist persuasion and why I comment on this site.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 28 Jan 2010 at 10:40 am #
All the Right Beliefs for All the Right Reasons:
Salvation in the Work and Person of Jesus Christ as written and preached in the Inerrant, Authoritative Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Rick on 28 Jan 2010 at 10:48 am #
Truth #4-
“All the Right Beliefs for All the Right Reasons:
Salvation in the Work and Person of Jesus Christ as written and preached in the Inerrant, Authoritative Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
But, if we follow CMP’s thoughts, is that sufficient for belief?
Why do you believe in Salvation? In Jesus Christ? Scripture as inerrant and authoritative? The Holy Spirit?
Sorry, that answer is not enough for true belief. No soup for you! :^)
C Michael Patton on 28 Jan 2010 at 11:15 am #
Rick,
“2) “if someone cannot justify these beliefs, do they really believe them?” That is where I am not sure I fully agree with you. There are many areas of life (scientific, medical, economic, etc…) that we may not understand something sufficiently, but correctly believe it. Gravity, boats float, bridges support people, etc…”
I agree. I am not meaning to say that we definitely don’t believe them, but that they are open to question. If we have not reflected upon the truthfulness of our faith, this does not necessarily mean that we don’t have faith, but it is a sign that our faith may be weak or never really planted.
Tony on 28 Jan 2010 at 12:11 pm #
(I’m writing this on break during a seminary class)
6. The one who knows some and knows he knows some, but is blown away by how much he doesn’t know (a.k.a., the average seminarian).
Maybe this is simply the state of one who is eagerly pursuing the Lord. I am not neither where I was (completely clueless) nor where I will be (standing in His presence) but somewhere in between and moving to the latter.
(And now back to drinking from the fire hydrant!)
Rick on 28 Jan 2010 at 12:18 pm #
CMP-
Thanks for your additional thoughts.
This has caused me to think further about how we define “belief”, “faith”, and “trust”, and how/why it seems people have differing standards for achieving those.
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary-
Belief- 1) “a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing”, 2) “something believed; especially: a tenent or body of tenents held by a group”, 3) “conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.”
It then does on to say, “Belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer….Faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof.”
In your post, it seems that the terms (belief/trust) are used interchangably, but should they be? Are they the same?
Or is faith a gift from God that is separate from, or is in addition to, belief? If it is separate, does it matter what our beliefs are founded upon in our own minds?
Jason C on 28 Jan 2010 at 1:48 pm #
My take (not an original one) is that faith is trust in God based on evidence of prior performance.
For ourselves we trust in God’s salvation because of the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. That evidence is historical (the testimony of witnesses recorded in the Gospels) traditional (it is what has been taught by the Church from its earliest days) and circumstantial (the existence of the Church is very hard to coherently explain without it). Jesus himself laid the theological foundations to understand the resurrection, and on that foundation Paul laid a well developed theology for us to interpret the evidence through.
cherylu on 28 Jan 2010 at 1:51 pm #
Michael (CMP),
There is a question that has come up in my mind that is related here but not exactly on topic.
I have found myself wondering how what you are saying works out with your Calvinism. Do you not believe that faith is not something we have on our own, but it is God’s gift to us? If that is the case, I am not sure how all of this working through and “deconstructing” plays into things to have a faith that is “planted”. Somehow, in my mind anyway, the two things seem at least partially contradictory.
I think Rick’s questions in his comment #8 goes along with what I am asking here, at least to some degree.
Bryan on 28 Jan 2010 at 2:03 pm #
Hmm. I doubt very much that study brings conviction. This idea that faith is more real if it is supported by study seems a bit biased and, frankly, wrong.
Recall the prophets and see that I have a point. Moses didn’t come to his conviction about the One God through years of study but through a particular event. Ezekiel and others were quite literally called, according to their writings.
Moreover, the Israel learned the faith mostly through their experiences — with miracles, prophets, and lots of struggle. We’d do well to recall that the most profound theophany of the age of Israel’s kings was associated with a mass murder (2 Kings 18 and 19)
Finally, we should consider the experience of the primitive church. Whatever individuals knew or studied was emphatically turned on its head by the interaction with the fellow who was quite dead a couple days earlier. How does St. John know Christ was raised?
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we looked upon and touched with our hands concerns the Word of life– for the life was made visible; we have seen it and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made visible to us– “
We know that the early Christian agenda was concerned with RE-reading and RE-evaluating everything they thought they knew about the scriptures in light of the experience they had. The only possible justification for changing the entire meaning of the OT (indeed, conflicting with everything everyone “knew” about interpretation) was this experience.
They didn’t know Jesus is God because they found it in scripture. It is more accurate to say they found it in scripture because they knew Jesus was God.
I’m not hatin’ on study. I am merely suggesting that we can’t make the kind of claims you are making about it.
C Michael Patton on 28 Jan 2010 at 2:09 pm #
Cheryl,
Cheryl, I believe you are equating Calvinism with “fideism.”
Calvinism is not passive with regard to human interaction in the process of salvation. It is one of the common misunderstandings. Otherwise any “argument” put forth by a Calvinist is futile. As St. Thomas Aquinas once said concerning this, “God has determined the ends, but he has also chosen the means.” The “means” in the case of humanities relationship with God is made up of the will, emotion, and mind. To bypass these would be to bypass the only means that God uses. Therefore, “reasoning” is an integral part of all systems save fideism. Calvinism is not fideism (even though their are some Calvinists (and Arminians) who are fideists).
C Michael Patton on 28 Jan 2010 at 3:00 pm #
All I am saying is that faith does not come by closing your eyes but by opening them.
Luke, in Acts 1, says that Christ appeared and showed many “convincing proofs.” The question is, what did the convincing here? Was it blind faith or rational evidence?
God does not hide in the dark and ask us to believe, but he puts himself in the light.
If we don’t look, seek, search into this light, we are no different than the Mormons who believe because of a “burning in the bosom.”
The Christian faith is a rational faith. The very idea of the incarnation demands that our faith graduate beyond a faith that we believe because our parents believed.
In my ministry, I have dealt with way too many people who are “leaving” the faith due to the fact that they never had an intellectual conviction about the faith. We all know that, ultimately, the Holy Spirit is responsible for our convictions. However, as I said above to Cheryl, the Holy Spirit does not bypass the mind, but uses it as an intramental cause of our faith and growth in it.
“Many convincing proofs.” Ponder that.
#John1453 on 28 Jan 2010 at 3:12 pm #
Formally, knowledge is usually defined as justified true belief.
I contend that one’s belief can be properly justified even if they are justified for so-called “wrong” reasons. If all I know are wrong reasons, but those reasons lead me to the belief that Jesus is the Christ, is not my belief justified on the basis of the grounds that I do have? Would I not be irrational to belief otherwise? If my wrong reasons lead me to conclude that Jesus is the Christ, but I reject that belief, am I not acting irrationally? And unjustified?
It is, of course, possible that my “wrong” reasons are not sufficient to justify my belief to someone else, but so what? Now if I come to realize that my grounds are wrong, or insufficient, then it would be rational to either revise my beliefs, or to hold to what I first believed for (what were) good reasons while I do further investigation and reflection. In the latter process, it may be that I come to have better, or more correct grounds, for believing that Jesus is the Christ. My beliefs are then justified to ME on those grounds, and my beliefs are more justifiable to others.
Suppose someone believes that they miraculously saw Jesus in the soap stains on their shower wall, believe that it was a sign from God, and so confessed their sins, believed that Jesus is the Christ and started going to church. They then read and memorize Gary Habermas’ books on the resurrection of Jesus. Then they die and go to heaven and find out that the soap scum was just that, and that there was no miracle. Was that person’s initial belief not justified? Poppycock.
Or, for example, I believe that I (a person who has never heard of Jesus) would be justified in believing that Jesus died and rose again and saves me on the ground that I believe the person in the bar telling me this story. Does this suffice according to the lede post? Apparently not, because “I know of many people who believe that Christ rose bodily from the grave, but they could not give you even the most basic defense of their confession. Both the bodily resurrection of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are good and right beliefs, but if someone cannot justify these beliefs, do they really believe them?” According to the lede, it could just as easily be a Muslim telling me that I should pray to Allah 5 times a day, or a JW or Mormon, in which case I would not be justified in my belief. Indeed, I’d be no better off than someone with a burning in their bosom.
How relevant or true is this statement: “If our beliefs lack integrity, do we truly believe them?” Not. Belief is a first person phenomena (at least if one is not a materialist / naturalist), and thus inherently subjective. Our beliefs can properly be justified to us on a first person basis, even though a third person observer does not find the beliefs justified on the basis of the reasons we are using.
Alan Coughlin on 28 Jan 2010 at 3:16 pm #
Excellent article Michael! “Christians” with an existentialist epistemology are all too common today. Keep getting the word out and you save many from falling away.
(I posted an audio lecture of mine on the Biblical use of the word “faith” on my site: http://test.alancoughlin.com/BibleStudies/#ChristianLivingSeries. It’s called Living by Faith. It overlaps with your article.)
R. Guyton on 28 Jan 2010 at 4:00 pm #
I have an introductory understanding of Calvanism. So my comments here will be limited. I am a former Mormon. Faith without works is from a verse in the Bible. In my former life, I thought that you had to work to have faith. When I became a Christan and accepted Jesus, gave my life to Him alone, He gave me the gift of faith. I then began a search of the Bible with the eyes of the Holy Spirit. As I have studied and learned more about God, my faith has grown. I understand that His word Is Him! To say that we can have faith without scripture is like the Mormon view on works. They go together. You cannot seperate them. Faith brings you to study, to be close to Him that saved you and to know Him. Study brings you faith in a tangible God that is real and powerful and amazing. So to paraphrase what I am trying to say, “Faith without study is dead, and study without Faith is dead.”
Bryan on 28 Jan 2010 at 4:58 pm #
Well, I take your point, CMP. I am unable ever to forget that my parents were taken into the Jehovah’s Witnesses due to the “ring of truth” they thought they heard. It made sense, they said. Imagine.
And I believe it is true that JW sophistry will fail to fool one who has the least familiarity with the more orthodox faiths and the scriptural basis for those beliefs. So I agree with you there, as well.
But they are quite able to defend their own religion with an exhaustive list of proof texts that are quite bulletproof to anything you might say. They certainly know why they believe their hodgepodge of heresies.
So, I guess I distrust too much reliance on reason as a guide. My reason and your reason are likely to lead us to different places, geniuses that we both are. Indeed, for some of us, our reason could send us somewhere very nearly the opposite of the gospel.
mbaker on 28 Jan 2010 at 9:04 pm #
I hope this isn’t a case of if I don’t with the conclusions of this post that I am automatically of #1 or #3 . That would be indeed be sad.
#John1453 on 28 Jan 2010 at 9:59 pm #
Alan (@ #15) writes, “Keep getting the word out and you save many from falling away.” However, that would only be true on a non-Calvinist set of beliefs. If God elects someone they will never fall away. A better apologetic and a better understanding of one’s faith does not lead to or from faith; that is God’s sole work. An apologetic and reason- – whether excellent or poor- -only occurs in the context of the temporal conjunction of salvation and faith. That is, apologetics and reason is not an issue of whether, nor of how, but of in what manner.
Consequently, it is not an issue of salvation simpliciter but of obedience: what does God demand of us as we live our faith? Does he require or demand that we improve our apologetic and our reasons? Does he require of us that we present the faith in a manner that the other person would accept as justifiable (whether or not they have been elected)?
Hence, in what manner are we to live our faith? Is it as suggested in the lede? I’m not yet convinced, though I could be.
regards,
#John
C Michael Patton on 28 Jan 2010 at 10:20 pm #
John, that is not Calvinism. Please read what I posted above. Otherwise, Calvinist would not even evangelize, much less “defend” the faith.
C Michael Patton on 28 Jan 2010 at 10:20 pm #
As well, everyone, do NOT turn this into a discussion about Calvinism.
Michael on 28 Jan 2010 at 11:42 pm #
CMP,
I don’t think it’s a statement about Calvinism so much as if what you say in your post can be logically reconciled with Calvinism. No one debates whether or not Calvinists are serious about Evangelism (at least I don’t because most of the Calvinists I know take Evangelism quite seriously) the question is whether they are being logically consistent in doing so. I would answer that in the negative and you of course would disagree.
Suffice to say I think this post would be hard to swallow for a Calvinist who is logically consistent since ultimately the reason why we believe is that God gave us fath and we didn’t have a choice but to believe (from the Calvinist perspective). He could have just of easily given us the “faith” to follow the Heaven’s Gate Cult. Having good reasons for belief or the ability of us to give great apologetic defense of our beliefs is completely irrelevant to whether or not someone is going to believe. God has either elected them or he hasn’t. If you don’t have an answer that satisfies them and justifies your belief to them that isn’t really your problem it’s simply God not predestining the person your talking to. And if someone falls away from the faith because their reasons for believe weren’t good enough they just weren’t elect in the first place.
Now of course to an Arminian like myself what you said makes perfect sense and I agree with your post 100%. Furthermore I would say agreeing with what you have written here and the importance of knowing why we believe what we believe is part of the reason (albeit a small part) I reject Calvinism. What you have written would just make no sense to me in a Calvinistic system (which is ultimately fatalistic in my view).
P.S. Feel free to delete this post – I will understand. But I felt that the reason this discussion is turning towards Calvinism is legitimate and needed to be addressed.
C Michael Patton on 28 Jan 2010 at 11:45 pm #
lol Michael. I am not going to delete it, but let this be the last about Calvinism!
Obviously I disagree with what you said, but it is a very common misconception and misunderstanding about the conclusion that others think Calvinists must come to. We will leave it at that.
Around the Blog in 80 Seconds – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile on 29 Jan 2010 at 7:24 am #
[...] Michael Patton examines why some have “All the right beliefs for all the wrong reasons.” There are four types of [...]
R. Guyton on 29 Jan 2010 at 9:35 am #
Does the Bible say that you have to have a reason to believe? Or does it just say that we need to believe?
C Michael Patton on 29 Jan 2010 at 10:28 am #
Again, you all are still writing about Calvinism. This will not go there.
mbaker on 29 Jan 2010 at 10:48 am #
I am wondering about the constant talk of ‘deconstruction’ on some of these posts, which seems to be considered an important process for a believer to go through here before we can have the ‘right’ kind of faith. Is that a new Christian buzzword? I’m hearing that so much lately I’m beginning to think we need to add that to the thread on Christian cliches, lol.
Seriously, I am all for learning about our faith, and being able to talk about it clearly and intelligently with others when we share it, but I don’t see quite how the process of ‘deconstructing’ it first , which means tearing down, is necessary in order to do that.
Examining our faith is a good thing, that is agreed. So is loving the Lord with all our minds. Both are biblical commands. So, by that criteria, we all need to be able answer someone’s questions as to why we believe as we do, no matter how limited our formal religious training.
I just don’t think proving ourselves smarter or more knowledgable by ‘deconstructing’ a ‘naive’ person is necessarily the best way to win souls and influence people. You also say “We deconstruct so we can truly believe’. I don’t see why it is necessary to deconstruct a belief in the first place, unless it is blatantly and obviously false, in order to make it more believable. That seems redundant to me. Not to mention it also seems to imply, whether it was meant or not, that the gospel is somehow too hard for the average person to understand, and that we will be able to make it more acceptable to them simply by being able to better explain it.
That seems much more naive to me.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 29 Jan 2010 at 10:52 am #
Rick, #6: “Why do you believe in Salvation? In Jesus Christ? Scripture as inerrant and authoritative? The Holy Spirit?”
Why?
The Why is answered by the How and the Who.
Answer: By His Grace.
P.S. I don’t need soup. I have Living Water instead.
C Michael Patton on 29 Jan 2010 at 11:20 am #
What is being described here is nothing revolutionary. It is simply education post indoctrination.
Deconstruction is an education term. It is not a Christian term, but more of a postmodern description of the education process in total. However, Christianity is not a deconstructed belief of agnosticism, but one that is constructed based on its reasonability and truth.
No is denying the work of the Holy Spirit in this process. All traditions believe that, from a divine perspective, the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to believe these truths.
However, from a human perspective, what I am arguing here is that we don’t close our eyes and ears and hope that we somehow get the right belief.
To deconstruct is the opposite of simply working to have your prejudices confirmed. But you study, learn, reflect, and discern with wisdom, putting your own beliefs to the test. If you fail to do that, your faith will have a strong element of naivety, which is not the will of God in my opinion.
mbaker on 29 Jan 2010 at 11:37 am #
“But you study, learn, reflect, and discern with wisdom, putting your own beliefs to the test. If you fail to do that, your faith will have a strong element of naivety, which is not the will of God in my opinion.”
On that we completely agree. To do all those things faithfully is especially important in this age of increasing apostasy. However, to say because we have been Bereans in every sense of the word does not necessarily make us better Christians, only more knowledgable ones.
So we must not make the opposite mistake either by thinking that possessing superior knowledge necessarily trumps having simple faith when it comes to salvation. That’s the other extreme of naiviete, and just as as dangerous a trap to fall into, don’t you think?
C Michael Patton on 29 Jan 2010 at 11:44 am #
Cheryl.
“On that we completely agree. To do all those things faithfully is especially important in this age of increasing apostasy. However, to say because we have been Bereans in every sense of the word, does not necessarily make us better Christians, only more knowledgable ones.”
I am with you 100%. Knowledge does not make us better Christians at all. There will be no rewards for knowledge. Just like there will be no rewards for Scripture memorization, how many times you have read your Bible, or any other exercise of the mind in isolation.
Faith, belief, trust, and the fruits of the Spirit are what our end game is here.
I was actually thinking this the other day. I study, write, and reflect all the time. Teaching people does not mean too much about me in and of itself. It is my love, joy, peace, patience and all the other fruits…including the allusive gentleness and self-control (for me!).
However, when I look for justification and reasons why I should pursue such, it must go beyond a burning in thy bosom or it will be empty and short lived for the most part. Our faith must graduate so that we can practice and trust with real conviction, which is, in my opinion, pleasing to the Lord.
mbaker on 29 Jan 2010 at 11:50 am #
I believe that was me you were addressing in comment #32, was it not?
carl Peterson on 29 Jan 2010 at 12:33 pm #
I agree in general with the OP but specifics can get in the way. I wonder what is meant by “5. The one who knows but does not know how he knows. He is naive—deconstruct him.” It seems too broad and that is why many are having a hard time with it.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 29 Jan 2010 at 12:55 pm #
Ravi Z.: “Helping Believers Think, Helping Thinkers Believe.”
Amy Jo Garner on 29 Jan 2010 at 12:58 pm #
CMP – How is it that these persons come to have the right belief for the wrong reasons? Were they never properly instructed in the tenets of the faith at the time they believed? If that is the case, then shame on the church.
I agree, I do see this as an issue in some Evangelical circles. There seems to be an animosity towards any type of formal catechist. Whether the instruction is called confirmation, new believers class, inquirers class, candidate instruction, does not matter. The focus of this intentional (and sometimes even mandatory instruction) is for the very issues you raise — what is the Trinity, what is the resurrection, what is the church, what are the creeds, etc., and why do we believe these things? Every believer, regardless of background or intellectual abilities, should be able to give right reasons for their beliefs. Some will be satisfied with what they learn in the catechism. Some will be more curious and want to explore the matters more deeply. All who sincerely participate in such an endeavor will be able to give an answer for why they believe.
I’m not sure DEconstruction is so much the issue here as is a simple return to proper INstruction.
David Ritchie on 29 Jan 2010 at 1:47 pm #
Where the heck do you get this stuff from? What highbrow stuff are you reading on a daily basis to sound so intellectual? I follow this blog on a regular basis and enjoy it. Yes, I learn every day but
most people in the church wouldn’t have a clue what you are talking about because their library is filled with Joel Osteen and Joyce Myer books.
Keep up the good work and God Bless.
David
Rick on 29 Jan 2010 at 2:28 pm #
Truth #29-
“Answer: By His Grace.”
So the understanding of right beliefs that CMP is advocating is not that important. Rather, we just need Grace?
“P.S. I don’t need soup. I have Living Water instead.”
lol. Great answer :^)
#John1453 on 29 Jan 2010 at 2:34 pm #
The one who does not know, and does not know that he knows is not foolish, but merely ignorant. It’s the one who knows that she does not know and refuses or does not care to learn that is foolish.
Naivity in faith, is not a matter of first importance for God. More important is our heart in relation to him, then it would be our actions, third might be our knowledge. One does not need much doctrine at all to have a vibrant faith and to do much in the way of works.
I’m not denying the usefulness of doctrinal and apologetic knowledge, nor am I saying that one should remain ignorant. I am contending, however, that it is not necessary in order to have justified true belief and that believing something for the wrong reasons will not affect our salvation.
regards,
#John
Truth Unites... and Divides on 29 Jan 2010 at 3:28 pm #
Rick, #38,
You’re extrapolating a wrong inference from my answer.
Rick on 29 Jan 2010 at 4:01 pm #
Truth #40-
What I am actually doing is processing out where “grace” and “faith” are placed in lieu of CMP’s thoughts. Does his emphasis on “a method of inquiry that has integrity” displace these other sources of belief?
Full disclosure- I am one who has long advocated the deeper understanding/learning that CMP has been championing. I just want to look at where those two forces (grace/faith and knowledge/inquiry) meet, relate, and/or possibly conflict with each other in the spiritual growth of a Christian.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 29 Jan 2010 at 4:08 pm #
Rick,
That’s fine. Just don’t misrepresent my comments for your purposes. Address them directly to CMP.
Personally, I like Amy’s comment in #36 and John’s comment in #39.
Rick on 29 Jan 2010 at 4:20 pm #
Truth #42-
Sorry, that was not my intent. Your comment just brought to mind further, potential tension with CMP’s post- but not that you were advocating that.
I am totally with you on those other comments, especially John #39.
#John1453 on 29 Jan 2010 at 5:04 pm #
Propositional knowledge is the knowledge that such-and-such is the case. It is commonly expressed using the schema “S knows that p”, where “S” refers to the knowing subject, and “p” to the proposition that is known. The analysis of this form usually consists of a statement of the following form: S knows that p if and only if – -. The blank is to be replaced by the list of conditions that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient.
In a step by step logical arrangement, the “justified true belief” analysis of propositional knowledge it can be written out as:
S knows that p iff (“iff” = if and only if)
i. p is true;
ii. S believes that p;
iii. S is justified in believing that p.
Why not say simply that knowledge is true belief? The standard answer: a belief that is true just because of luck does not qualify as knowledge. This gets at the lede’s point about having the right beliefs for the wrong reasons.
Indeed, in 1963 Edmund Gettier presented two effective counterexamples to the “JTB” analysis in his paper, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”.
Is a belief that is true because of luck or some other process (as set out by Gettier) still knowledge?
Because of Gettier, we have had to rethink our previous, western analysis of knowledge. So we return to the basic question: What turns a true belief into knowledge?
An alternative approach to analysing what turns a true belief into knowledge is based on the reliability of the cognitive process that produced the belief. The paradigmatic example is our knowledge of the physical environment. How do we know it’s raining? We see, hear and feel the rain through sense experience. Theses sense experiential processes are, at least under normal conditions, highly reliable and there is nothing accidental about the truth of the beliefs these processes produce. Thus what turns true belief into knowledge is the reliability of our cognitive processes. Obviously, the same argument can be made for other reliable cognitive processes, e.g. introspection, memory, and rational intuition.
Consequently, the burning in our bosom will produce knowledge if it arises from a properly working sense of the divine and it is true.
The Christian with a burning bosom has a belief that is both true and formed on the basis of a properly working function; the Mormon has neither of these.
In Fides et Ratio (“Faith and Reason”) the pope put it this way, “The basic idea is that faith and reason are two separate sources of justified or warranted belief: “there exists a knowledge which is peculiar to faith, surpassing the knowledge proper to human reason, which nevertheless by its nature can discover the Creator”. Alvin Plantinga is in basic agreement with the pope.
We do not need reason to hold justified true beliefs.
regards
#John
Latte Links (1/30/10) | Caffeinated Thoughts on 30 Jan 2010 at 11:30 pm #
[...] Parchment and Pen: All the Right Beliefs for all the Wrong Reasons [...]
cherylu on 31 Jan 2010 at 12:20 am #
I just read these verses tonight and wondered how they impact this conversation. I don’t remember any one else bringing them up in this thread but didn’t read back through it to be sure.
“and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” I Corinthians 2:4-5
The chapter goes on to speak further about the Spirit of God revealing the things of God to us.
These verses seem to me to speak of the certainty of our faith being given to us by the power of God rather than by having to think deeply through all of these issues and “deconstructing” our faith in order to make it strong or to truly believe.
Thoughts anyone??
Stuart B on 31 Jan 2010 at 1:38 am #
# 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 42…you guys got it right.
#John1453 on 01 Feb 2010 at 12:15 pm #
Interesting and relevant post by Victor Reppert on his blog as to why and how wrong beliefs can be held yet one can nevertheless arrive at a correct / appropriate response:
“Jason Pratt, of the Christian CADRE, explains Lewis’s important point about literal and metaphorical language in the chapter of Miracles entitled Horrid Red Things. One of my favorite C. S. Lewis points.
“Lewis uses the example of a little girl who thinks that poison, in any given substance, is “horrid red things”. She really believes that if she separated the poison out of ‘poisonous’ solids and liquids, the poison would really look like horrid red things. But an adult who attempted to refute her claim that lye is poisonous by correcting her false belief about what ‘poison’ looks like, would still be in for a nasty shock if he drank it! Indeed, with a little investigation he might have discovered that she did not believe lye poisonous because it contained horrid red things (which she knows she cannot see in the lye), but because her mother (who may have sufficiently accurate reasons for saying so) has told her the lye is poisonous and she trusts her mother. She thinks the red things are in the lye, not because she can see them, but because she already believes the lye is poisonous; therefore it must (as far as she is concerned) have those horrid red things in it somewhere. Her imagery turns out to be, upon fair examination, ultimately of little importance to the issue at hand: whether lye really is poisonous. If she was corrected about the nature of poison, it would probably not (nor should not) affect her belief about the toxicity of lye. She would know more, but she would not necessarily be refuted in her core belief.”
Regards,
#John
Hence, one can have core saving beliefs about Jesus, without those core beliefs being held “rationally” in the doctrinal or apologetic sense.
5 types of people « Strengthened by Grace on 02 Feb 2010 at 6:46 am #
[...] –Parchment and Pen [...]