the "moralization" of knowledge

[rmwilliamsll]

what prompts this thread is a response i just finished writing at:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31292187&postcount=14

Originally Posted by pastorkevin73
The Spiritual dysfuntion on this board is mind boggling. How can so many people so far of the Spiritual track? Oh, Right, Satan is always at work too.

this appears to be the final word from YECism.

knowledge is fundamentally moral and private in nature, not just knowledge concerning God but all knowledge even things about the natural world..

You must be like them in order to truely understand anything important. Failure to do so, to be like them, is to be evil and under Satanic control. This is the ultimate response to seeing the world in such black and white dichotomous terms, either for God or against Him, either true or false, either my way or the highway.

it appears to be a basic mindset, a basic orientation to the world, perhaps something fixed in childhood, this extraordinary self centeredness that makes the world and God revolve around me and by extension those like me. I am always right and if you dare disagree with me you are disagreeing with God Himself and are morally and ethical damned.

curious phenomena. i'm surprised how common it is here.

for it always seems to come from the inability to persuade people with reason and evidence thinking that the problem must be with the people not with the reason or the evidence. The world can be seen quite well enough with these physical eyes, to see the world does not require spiritual eyes or spiritual regeneration. To see God does, but that is not what we are talking about. The natural world is accessible, it is public knowledge, it is really out there, it is accessible to all people who just look. You don't need to be a Christian to look through a telescope and properly see the stars, anymore than you need to be an atheist or a materialist to use radioactive dating properly.

It is a curious phenomena, this "moralization" of all knowledge that seems to grossly infect fundamentalists. Perhaps it stems from an overactive childhood imagination, perhaps it stems from the historical fact that they have lost "natural theology" and the ideas that natural man can see many things without God's direct revelation. perhaps their Biblioalatry has so trumped the universe that nothing can be understood without these rosy colored glasses. i don't know. but we see it weekly here.

and often the next statement is "see you all later" and poof the poster disappears.

we should have this sign over the forum door:

all people who pass through these portals enliven our hearts, brighten our days and encourage our hearts to be stout,
some on the way in, others on the way out.

One of the ways of learning things on this forum is to see how often the same ideas come up from different people. The basis issues of creation-evolution are hermeneutical (on the Scriptural side) and epistemological (on the scientific side), it is not so much over the content of the knowledge in either sphere that the discussion centers on, but rather how exactly do we know things in each domain.

One of the interesting phenomena here is this process of the "moralization" of knowledge that is evidenced above. Simply put you must be the right sort of person, ontologically, in order to understand the domain. For YECists it is often both domains, for they seem to make knowledge of the universe the same kind of moralized knowledge as the Bible claims for itself.

I'm really not sure of all the sources for this bleed through effect, putting the same requirements on people to see the natural world as to see the Scriptures as God intended them. That is, you must be born again to see the world properly, not just to read Scripture properly.

Part of the problem is certainly the almost complete lack of a natural theology in Protestantism. It is well evidenced in the first generations of Reformers, so i'm not sure where or when it was lost. But certainly by the early 19th C experientialism almost completely replaces mental apprehension of the truth as the basis for a Christian epistemology. The Gospel is now true, not because it is true as a fact but because i feel that it is true. Experientialism has no need for a natural theology, for the content of faith is almost immaterial to an emotional experience of the truth.

curious. i wonder if that is why i associate YECism with charismatic and pentecostal types of Christianity?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i just posted this:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” [1 Timothy 1.7]

(From The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41)

to: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31293974&postcount=103


and noticed the final paragraph, in the context of this issue

For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion

it is true, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[artybloke]

One of the interesting phenomena here is this process of the "moralization" of knowledge that is evidenced above. Simply put you must be the right sort of person, ontologically, in order to understand the domain.

This is one of the clearest definitions of gnosticism I've come across. The idea that you have to be the "right" kind of person to "understand the truth" is pure gnostic thinking.

It's amazing how much, 2000 years later, this heresy still pervades certain sections of the church.

 

[Ino]

I've bumped into this phenomenon as well.

 

[novacaine]

This is one of the clearest definitions of gnosticism I've come across. The idea that you have to be the "right" kind of person to "understand the truth" is pure gnostic thinking.

It's amazing how much, 2000 years later, this heresy still pervades certain sections of the church.

And you aren't promoting heresy? It seems you promote the heresy of theistic evolution quite well.

 

[novacaine]

i just posted this:

to: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31293974&postcount=103


and noticed the final paragraph, in the context of this issue



it is true, there is nothing new under the sun.

So when do TEs use scripture to support their theological stance on creation? Could it be because, oh there is not scriptural foundation for evolution?

 

[Deamiter]

And you aren't promoting heresy? It seems you promote the heresy of theistic evolution quite well.

There is a long history of theologians like Augustine who did not take the early bits of Genesis literally (Augustine was far from an "old-earther" but instead insisted that God must have created everything in an instant, not in 6-24-hour days). On the other hand, gnosticism is a well-documented heresy that was addressed and condemned in the early church.

You blithly throw the claim of "heresy" at a theological system without even a hint of explanation of why the system is heretical (i.e. the post you refered to drew parallels between the need to be the right sort of person ontologically to have correct knowledge and the special knowledge suggested in gnosticism). Do you have similar parallels between a historical heresy and theistic evolution, or are you simply using the word as a rather poor insult?

So when do TEs use scripture to support their theological stance on creation? Could it be because, oh there is not scriptural foundation for evolution?

Theistic evolutionists come from a rather wide variety of theological backgrounds that all have foundation in the Bible. If there were a group of Christians who rejected germ theory (and I believe there have been) I would similarly address their false beliefs from a scientific standpoint while showing how germ theory can quite easily coexist with a good Bible-based theology.

Most scientific theories like that of electricity, gravitation, germ theory, the theory of magnitism, and yes, the theory of evolution have no "scriptural foundation." Certainly you are not claiming to reject all of these because they are the result of worldly research and not careful study of scripture!

 

[busterdog]

I understand the point of the OP.

However, being wrong is still sin, even if it on the basis of a mistake of fact. Paster Kevin is right. It is still a spiritual problem (whether you are YEC or TE).

God indeed looks at the heart and we have imputed righteousness through Jesus.

IMHO, the Romans 10 confession (resurrection and Lordship of Jesus as God in the flesh) is a statement of fact intended to avoid this problem. There will always be a mistake of fact for man to contend with and it will always have moral ramifications, but for imputed righteousness.

 

[novacaine]

There is a long history of theologians like Augustine who did not take the early bits of Genesis literally (Augustine was far from an "old-earther" but instead insisted that God must have created everything in an instant, not in 6-24-hour days). On the other hand, gnosticism is a well-documented heresy that was addressed and condemned in the early church.

You blithly throw the claim of "heresy" at a theological system without even a hint of explanation of why the system is heretical (i.e. the post you refered to drew parallels between the need to be the right sort of person ontologically to have correct knowledge and the special knowledge suggested in gnosticism). Do you have similar parallels between a historical heresy and theistic evolution, or are you simply using the word as a rather poor insult?


Theistic evolutionists come from a rather wide variety of theological backgrounds that all have foundation in the Bible. If there were a group of Christians who rejected germ theory (and I believe there have been) I would similarly address their false beliefs from a scientific standpoint while showing how germ theory can quite easily coexist with a good Bible-based theology.

Most scientific theories like that of electricity, gravitation, germ theory, the theory of magnitism, and yes, the theory of evolution have no "scriptural foundation." Certainly you are not claiming to reject all of these because they are the result of worldly research and not careful study of scripture!

 

[Deamiter]

I understand the point of the OP.

However, being wrong is still sin, even if it on the basis of a mistake of fact. Paster Kevin is right. It is still a spiritual problem (whether you are YEC or TE).

God indeed looks at the heart and we have imputed righteousness through Jesus.

IMHO, the Romans 10 confession (resurrection and Lordship of Jesus as God in the flesh) is a statement of fact intended to avoid this problem. There will always be a mistake of fact for man to contend with and it will always have moral ramifications, but for imputed righteousness.

I'm hung up on "being wrong is still a sin, even if on the basis of a mistake of fact." Am I sinning if I mistakenly believe (or report) that Pi is 3.15? Or am I misunderstanding the sentence? I guess I'd like you to clarify if being wrong is ALWAYS a sin, and if so could you give the scriptural basis of such a claim?

----------------

As to novacaine's , that's real mature. Do you have something to offer besides mockery of people who disagree with you?

 

[busterdog]

I'm hung up on "being wrong is still a sin, even if on the basis of a mistake of fact." Am I sinning if I mistakenly believe (or report) that Pi is 3.15? Or am I misunderstanding the sentence? I guess I'd like you to clarify if being wrong is ALWAYS a sin, and if so could you give the scriptural basis of such a claim?

Man presumed to know for himself and he just wasn't up to it, thus the fall. Pi is an interesting example. It is a fundamental figure, but man isn't really up to knowing it completely, thus it is irrational.

Obviously, there are a number of questions: Is the sin forgivable? Can the sin get you condemned to hell? Does good overlook the sin based upon the heart, or intention?

As for the knowledge of pi, its rather a moot point, sin those screw up on pi have lots of other worse sin anyway.

"Sin" is from the old english, meaning "missing the mark." THis is not completely alien to the idea that the children were lost in the wilderness of sin. IT wasn't a landscape of obvious temptation by gambling and booze, it was a series of very difficult box canyons and maze-like ravines. That is, it was a confusing tangle of blind alleys.

There are a number of examples about the law ruling at times. If the rings to hole the poles of the ark were made of bronze rather than silver due to a mistranslation of Moses, would that be sin? Well, yes.

If you messed up and offered a blemished lamb, would that be sin? Yes.

Why was a Cain's offering unacceptable? It might have been just "heart", but I think God just wanted something else for his own reasons. The text supports that.

And, how about Uzza?

1Ch 13:9 ¶ And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled.
1Ch 13:10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.

As Paul also wrote, all have fallen short of the glory of God. Messing up pi is certainly falling short of a rather modest measure of glory.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

One essential test of faith is, what do we derive our knowledge from? Do we rely upon our own knowledge or rely upon the Lord for knowledge?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Man presumed to know for himself and he just wasn't up to it, thus the fall. Pi is an interesting example. It is a fundamental figure, but man isn't really up to knowing it completely, thus it is irrational.

No, Pi is irrational because it cannot be written as the ratio of two whole numbers.

 

[Deamiter]

Indeed Pi can be perfectly expressed, but that wasn't my point.

As far as I know (perhaps you can correct me) Adam and Eve were not omniscient. They did not know everything. And yet I think most of us (even TEs who find the story allegorical) would claim that neither sinned before they fell to temptation. Was that not the first sin?

Am I sinning if I claim something incorrect that I was taught? Am I sinning if I say "I think that xxx is correct" but am wrong about what I think?

Lying is wrong and is a sin, and I certainly understand the argument that sin is literally "missing the mark." However, we generally accept that Adam and Eve did not sin until the fall. Yet they were far from the potential "mark" that we seem to set at God.

So either sin is anything short of God and we are sinning simply by having limited knowledge, or as I tend to think, sin is tied inextricably to intentions and while lying would be sinful, reporting somebody else's lie that you believed would be simply mistaken.

For example, I don't think Adam and Eve sinned by eating the fruit, they sinned by disobeying God. They were not punished for masticating a particular complex carbohydrate but for doing something they knew was wrong.

Anyway, I'm far from certain that my view is right, but the idea that simply being lesser than god is itself sinful seems to me to contrast with the historical and even Biblical definition that holds sin as the opposite of seeking and following God in every word action and thought.

 

[novacaine]

Pi? I love to eat pi, especially cherry pi.

 

[random_guy]

Man presumed to know for himself and he just wasn't up to it, thus the fall. Pi is an interesting example. It is a fundamental figure, but man isn't really up to knowing it completely, thus it is irrational.

That definition of irrational applies to women. The mathematical definition of irrational is that it can't be written as the ratio of two whole numbers, like Tinker Grey said.

However, you can write out Pi in many different ways. While this is off topic, I suggest you google the many different ways to get to Pi. It's a lot of fun, and there's arguing whether it's right or wrong because it's math, and there are proofs for math. My favorite approximation is Buffon's Needle. Check out other methods of approximating or getting exact values of Pi, only to expand your mind. Then you might see why evolutionists value knowledge because it expands the mind.

 

[shernren]

"Sin" is from the old english, meaning "missing the mark."

[Nitpick.] Sin in Old English is simply "synn" and meant roughly the same thing that "sin" means today, i.e. transgression, trespass, etc. etc. The concept of "missing the mark" is expressed in the Greek hamartia, not the Old English. [/Nitpick.]

One essential test of faith is, what do we derive our knowledge from? Do we rely upon our own knowledge or rely upon the Lord for knowledge?

I wonder. We make many decisions based on our own knowledge, and I think God is perfectly fine with that.

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
(Hebrews 11:17-19 NIV)

Notice that within the context of obeying God, Abraham really relied a lot on his own knowledge, his own reasoning, and his own ideas. God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac; Abraham filled in the blanks, and as things turned out Abraham was only right in the most general possible sense.

I'm quite sure that there are many areas in life where God expects us to learn by ourselves and explore by ourselves. (That's what brains are for, right?) It seems that in the area of physical sciences God has made both brains and a universe so conducive to exploration by said brains; that can hardly be a coincidence. Even within the area of moral knowledge of what is right and wrong God has left so much ambiguity that you will find Christians taking up well-reasoned positions on different sides of the fence in such areas as pacifism, abortion, embryonic research, etc. Can that be sin? I doubt so. Wrong knowledge can certainly lead to sin, but in and of itself it is not sin. Again, sin can lead us to wrong knowledge (for example, an arrogant person is not easily corrected), but still that doesn't make wrong knowledge in and of itself sinful.

 

[busterdog]

I'm hung up on "being wrong is still a sin, even if on the basis of a mistake of fact." Am I sinning if I mistakenly believe (or report) that Pi is 3.15? Or am I misunderstanding the sentence? I guess I'd like you to clarify if being wrong is ALWAYS a sin, and if so could you give the scriptural basis of such a claim?

----------------

As to novacaine's , that's real mature. Do you have something to offer besides mockery of people who disagree with you?

[Nitpick.] Sin in Old English is simply "synn" and meant roughly the same thing that "sin" means today, i.e. transgression, trespass, etc. etc. The concept of "missing the mark" is expressed in the Greek hamartia, not the Old English. [/Nitpick.]



I wonder. We make many decisions based on our own knowledge, and I think God is perfectly fine with that.

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
(Hebrews 11:17-19 NIV)

Notice that within the context of obeying God, Abraham really relied a lot on his own knowledge, his own reasoning, and his own ideas. God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac; Abraham filled in the blanks, and as things turned out Abraham was only right in the most general possible sense.

I'm quite sure that there are many areas in life where God expects us to learn by ourselves and explore by ourselves. (That's what brains are for, right?) It seems that in the area of physical sciences God has made both brains and a universe so conducive to exploration by said brains; that can hardly be a coincidence. Even within the area of moral knowledge of what is right and wrong God has left so much ambiguity that you will find Christians taking up well-reasoned positions on different sides of the fence in such areas as pacifism, abortion, embryonic research, etc. Can that be sin? I doubt so. Wrong knowledge can certainly lead to sin, but in and of itself it is not sin. Again, sin can lead us to wrong knowledge (for example, an arrogant person is not easily corrected), but still that doesn't make wrong knowledge in and of itself sinful.

A well reasoned position.

Even if I were to moralize to the extreme on mistakes of fact, Rom. 8:28 makes such mistakes and their consequences efficacious.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.

I agree with you in part (with a shudder over the a-word), but I think your view is informed by grace and would not be correct without that which is implied in it.

Perhaps where we part is that I think the acts and the reasoing in and of themselves are sin -- that is knowledge that is seperate from God. Sin also means seperation. (And Chuck Missler will be getting a strong letter of outrage about his misuse of Old English.)

Frankly, I can't think of a better explanation for what the fall was, but for a very literal view of "Lean not upon your own undestanding."

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

I think this is also one of the five points of Calvinism, essential. Total depravity or something like that.

 

[shernren]

A well reasoned position.

Thanks.

Frankly, I can't think of a better explanation for what the fall was, but for a very literal view of "Lean not upon your own undestanding."

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

I think this is also one of the five points of Calvinism, essential. Total depravity or something like that.

Certainly the Fall came about in looking to self instead of God for moral knowledge. Having said that, one must ask why this was wrong. To me, it seems that the only reason this was an error on Adam and Eve's part was because the knowledge they were seeking was precisely the kind which only God could give. Their problem wasn't merely that they looked to themselves for guidance, but that they looked to themselves for divine guidance.

Divine guidance was needed in the question of what to do with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil; but is divine guidance needed to know what the universe looks like, how it works, and how to govern it wisely and use it for the benefit of mankind? I do not think so. I'm quite sure Adam needed to learn to walk and talk and run on his own (whether evolved or created fiat); in all these things he could not have erred in looking to himself. Beyond the fruit I expect that God would have relished seeing Adam as an independent, autonomous spirit, able to do his own thing in all areas where doing his own thing would have been appropriate.

 

[vossler]

Divine guidance was needed in the question of what to do with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil; but is divine guidance needed to know what the universe looks like, how it works, and how to govern it wisely and use it for the benefit of mankind? I do not think so.

Why wouldn't divine guidance be something we should seek in everything we do? Proverbs 3: verses 6 and 7 go on to say:

"In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes"​

I'm quite sure Adam needed to learn to walk and talk and run on his own (whether evolved or created fiat); in all these things he could not have erred in looking to himself. Beyond the fruit I expect that God would have relished seeing Adam as an independent, autonomous spirit, able to do his own thing in all areas where doing his own thing would have been appropriate.

There is nothing in the Bible to support the idea that God wants to see us "as an independent, autonomous spirit, able to do his own thing..." If anything He wants the complete opposite.

 

[artybloke]

If anything He wants the complete opposite.

What, you mean automatons? How can an automaton choose to love God?