Butters has it!

The “you find it unpalatable” argument is ineffective against doctrines that seem to be contrary to a loving, caring and just God.

Most unpalatable doctrines are so, because people have already embraced embrace doctrines that ARE palatable, such as a loving God.

Random thought to throw out there –

What if the term ‘unpalatable’ is actually an understatement with certain doctrines? For example, it could be said that the doctrine of eternal torture in hell is not simply unpalatable but completely abhorrent in a way that believing it would make worship and love of God almost impossible. Kind of like the difference between eating old broccoli (not very pleasant) and drinking poison (lethal).

Hi Michael,

To follow up, I think your summary statement is excellent, especially the last part—that final authority rests in God’s word and not in one’s “taste buds”.

I probably did not word my previous comment very well. What I meant to say is that it is easy to see that people reject doctrines that seem unpalatable (e.g., hell, or reprobation), but on the flip side, do people tend to embrace as true doctrines that strike them as palatable? I’m not so sure.

From a reformed view, even palatable Christian doctrines strike people as unpalatable if their hearts have not been first opened by God to accept them as true.

Of course if we are deciding truth of a doctrine based on palability or unpalability, we’ve set up ourselves as the final authority, not Scripture.

I think your argument that palatability may have a say when things are not clear, using the example of infant salvation, is good. But I would caution that we ought to be very careful about establishing any doctrine that at bottom is not clearly supported by Scripture, or which leans too much on the subjectiveness of palability.

Michael I would be interested to learn more about the analogy of being you mention in relation to the imago dei. Could you recommend a starting point?

I like your imagery of a smorgasbord. One thing about putting something into our mouths is that once swallowed we are committed to the effects of whatever it was.

Revelation 10:8-10
Psalm 19:10
Psalm 119:103
Ezekiel 3:1-3
Jeremiah 15:16

CMP -

Kind of bitter-sweet in this present age, isn’t it? We know it to be true but don’t always taste of it, thus leaving us longing for the age to come when all things are made new.

Well, unless we take the somewhat off-base view that the ‘supernatural sign-gifts’ (wording you have used) were performed at will by the apostles. If that were true, continuationism is false no matter how palatable it is.

[Note: I wasn't getting at you, just making difficult observations about such theological concepts.]

Scott,

At this point in my life, continuationism is much more palatable than cessationism!

Michael -

So does this mean you are moving more towards continuationism, though it is unpalatable?

“The Palatability of a Doctrine Does not Determine its Veracity”, unless of course palatability means “consistent with a loving, just and merciful God”, in which case it’s palatability might be a very strong determinant of veracity, at least for the Christian anyway.

If we describe a God who is unjust, arbitrary and unmerciful, yet we claim he is merciful, loving ang just, then either A) we need to change our vocabulary or B) we’ve got some serious contradictions that need to be sorted out.

In general, I would agree, of course. But there is an exception to the rule. Palatability usually determines the veracity of claims about palatability. For instance:

“O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!” – Psalm 34:8

If Christianity is unpalatable, then the Bible is not true in all that it affirms.

Hi Michael–

I understand your point when you write “the palability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity” but wonder, does anyone embrace the actual truth of a doctrine by its palability?

In the quest for truth, it seems to me that as soon as the question becomes, “Do I like this doctrine that I encounter in Scripture– does it suit my subjective tastes and fancies?”, then the search for its objective truth has already been abandoned. If one embraces only those doctrines one finds palatable then one only seeks to confirm one’s own subjectivity. Whether one likes or dislikes a doctrine is of course irrelevant to whether or not it is true. In our fallenness our natural tendency it seems would be skewed towards believing that which is not true, or a distortion of the truth.

By the way, the opposite of palability is unpalability, not inpalability! Inpalability would be an ugly word– if indeed it was a word.