As Surely As The Lord Lives
SM
Believe it or not, the Bible presents a different picture, a "presuppositionalist" picture, if you will. 35 times God's people use the phrase "as surely as the Lord lives" or "as the Lord lives." Why? Well I think the answer is obvious: God's existence, above all else, is what is absolutely undeniable. It would have been just as easy to say - as traditional apologists assume in constructing their method of defending the faith - "as surely as I exist" or "as the law of identity stands sure." But, for some reason "As the Lord lives" remained the prophet's declaration of choice, century after century.
This seems to fit the overall attitude of Scripture towards the existence of God: it's assumed. Genesis 1 begins with "In the beginning God," not "here's how God exists." John 1 begins with "in beginning was the Word" not "here's why we need a first cause." And Paul's speech in Acts 17 begins with "The God who made the heavens and the earth." Just, bam! There it is! If it isn't clear enough that a creation presupposes a Creator, design a Designer, and on and on and on, then something is wrong with us, not God. Hence, "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God" (Ps. 14:1, 53:1).
In listening to such atheist debates as White vs. Barker, "Does the Triune God of Scripture Live?" and Bahnsen vs. Stein "Does God Exist?", it is easy to see that White and Bahnsen's attitude towards the existence of God is the same as Scripture. Indeed, it is as the same as the prophets of old: as surely as the Lord lives, the Lord lives! That is our starting point. Our firmest foundation. The ordering principle for life, thought, and the source of our salvation.
e_space
atheists can intellectually debate its existence, or its
"characteristics" ...
is god conscience? is god physical? did god consciously create the
universe? did *he* do so in 6 days? did god create time? did god
"create man in *his* image"? did god create eve from adams rib? is
jesus the son of god? was he resurrected? is there a place called
heaven? is it a physical place that has pearly gates and gold paved
streets? will believers be able to continue their relationships with
friends and family in heaven? are those who have not heard of jesus
denied a place in heaven? the questions are endless ...
since there seems to be no foreseeable way to answer these questions,
belief, and the lack thereof, will govern any such debate, ensuring
their ongoing existence, vagueness and circulatory nature ... from
what i have witnessed, nothing new has been accomplished by religious
debates ... there has been no advancement, no evidence uncovered, no
battles won ... eternal fodder ---->
On May 5, 7:40 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When creatures sit back and think about what's absolutely certain, history
> usually shows that we arrive at conclusions like "I exist," and "2+2=4" and
> "blue is blue" and so forth. It's not hard to see why. How could we assert
> the contrary? As Descartes observed, to deny that I am thinking would lead
> to the loss of all reason - for if we cannot at least believe that we are
> 2+2=4 is "self-evident." Most certain. Absolutely sure.
>
> Believe it or not, the Bible presents a different picture, a
> "presuppositionalist" picture, if you will. 35 times God's people use the
> phrase "as surely as the Lord lives" or "as the Lord lives." Why? Well I
> think the answer is obvious: God's existence, above all else, is what is
> absolutely undeniable. It would have been just as easy to say - as
> traditional apologists assume in constructing their method of defending the
> faith - "as surely as I exist" or "as the law of identity stands sure." But,
> for some reason "As the Lord lives" remained the prophet's declaration of
> choice, century after century.
>
> This seems to fit the overall attitude of Scripture towards the existence of
> God: it's assumed. Genesis 1 begins with "In the beginning God," not "here's
> how God exists." John 1 begins with "in beginning was the Word" not "here's
> why we need a first cause." And Paul's speech in Acts 17 begins with "The
> God who made the heavens and the earth." Just, bam! There it is! If it isn't
> clear enough that a creation presupposes a Creator, design a Designer, and
> *has said in his heart, there is no God" (Ps. 14:1, 53:1).
> In listening to such atheist debates as White vs. Barker, "Does the Triune
> God of Scripture Live?" and Bahnsen vs. Stein "Does God Exist?", it is easy
> to see that White and Bahnsen's attitude towards the existence of God is the
> same as Scripture. Indeed, it is as the same as the prophets of old: as
Brock Organ
> When creatures sit back and think about what's absolutely certain, history
> usually shows that we arrive at conclusions like "I exist," and "2+2=4" and
> "blue is blue" and so forth. It's not hard to see why. How could we assert
> the contrary? As Descartes observed, to deny that I am thinking would lead
> to the loss of all reason - for if we cannot at least believe that we are
> thinking, then what on earth should we believe? Truth would be unobtainable
> to deny our own existence. Logic, likewise, is undeniable. 2+2=4 is
> "self-evident." Most certain. Absolutely sure.
Well, I would consider that self-evidence is not an adequate
epistemological litmus test. For example, God's existence was not
self-evident to Pharaoh:
"But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and
let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover, I will not let
Israel go.”"
http://bible.cc/exodus/5-2.htm
So this doesn't mean God does not exist, it means that self-evidence
is not a valid basis with which to competently measure or assess the
issue.
> Believe it or not, the Bible presents a different picture, a
> "presuppositionalist" picture, if you will.
Yes, it does, the set of pre-suppositions represent a kind of
sociological habitus, a group of normative truths, first principles
that are not necessarily demonstrable. Of course, that is no
different from other competing beliefs, as Bahnsen noted:
"At the most fundamental level of everyone's thinking and beliefs
there are primary convictions about reality, man, the world,
knowledge, truth, behavior, and such things. Convictions about which
all other experience is organized, interpreted, and applied. Dr. Stein
has such presuppositions, so do I, and so do all of you. And it is
these presuppositions which determine what we accept by ordinary
reasoning all of our reasoning - even about reasoning itself. "
> 35 times God's people use the
> phrase "as surely as the Lord lives" or "as the Lord lives." Why? Well I
> think the answer is obvious: God's existence, above all else, is what is
> absolutely undeniable. It would have been just as easy to say - as
> traditional apologists assume in constructing their method of defending the
> faith - "as surely as I exist" or "as the law of identity stands sure." But,
> for some reason "As the Lord lives" remained the prophet's declaration of
> choice, century after century.
It is the standard by which all other standards derive. Even
non-believers have acknowledged this; for example, Nietzsche writes,
regarding the implications of his "death of God" premise:
'Where has God gone?' he cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him
- you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were
we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the
entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its
sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from
all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward,
in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying
as through an infinite nothing?'
God is completely associated with, and deeply involved in his creation
as its ultimate standard of reference. Even to the point that the
implication of Nietzsche's "death of God" premise implies the entire
universe is affected:
* "Is there any up or down left?"
* "Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?"
> This seems to fit the overall attitude of Scripture towards the existence of
> God: it's assumed. Genesis 1 begins with "In the beginning God," not "here's
> how God exists." John 1 begins with "in beginning was the Word" not "here's
> why we need a first cause." And Paul's speech in Acts 17 begins with "The
> God who made the heavens and the earth." Just, bam! There it is! If it isn't
> clear enough that a creation presupposes a Creator, design a Designer, and
> on and on and on, then something is wrong with us, not God. Hence, "the fool
> has said in his heart, there is no God" (Ps. 14:1, 53:1).
It is the 800-lb gorilla in the room human-centered epistemologies
fail to deal with. :(
> In listening to such atheist debates as White vs. Barker, "Does the Triune
> God of Scripture Live?" and Bahnsen vs. Stein "Does God Exist?", it is easy
> to see that White and Bahnsen's attitude towards the existence of God is the
> same as Scripture. Indeed, it is as the same as the prophets of old: as
> surely as the Lord lives, the Lord lives! That is our starting point. Our
> firmest foundation. The ordering principle for life, thought, and the source
> of our salvation.
> http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4315
Not only does the Lord live, but, as Van Til, Bahnsen, and others have
pointed out, even the arguments of those who reject Him rely upon Him.
It is like the person shouting at the top of his lungs "there is no
such thing as air", exhaling air in advancing the very argument! :)
Thanks for the good read, SM. :)
Regards,
Brock
e_space
let Israel go.” http://bible.cc/exodus/5-2.htm
"So this doesn't mean God does not exist, it means that self-evidence
is not a valid basis with which to competently measure or assess the
issue."
measure or assessment may be deemed competent by yourself, but this
has no relationship with any truth or reality that you can
present ...
On May 5, 9:31 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
> When creatures sit back and think about what's absolutely certain, history
> usually shows that we arrive at conclusions like "I exist," and "2+2=4" and
> "blue is blue" and so forth. It's not hard to see why. How could we assert
> the contrary? As Descartes observed, to deny that I am thinking would lead
> to the loss of all reason - for if we cannot at least believe that we are
> thinking, then what on earth should we believe?
I've heard that some philosophy professors, in receiving a question
from a student "How do I know that I exist?" respond with:
"And whom shall I say is asking the question?"
Making the point that the asking of the question pre-supposes the very
existence the question is asking.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
> re: ""But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice
> and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover, I will not
> let Israel go.” http://bible.cc/exodus/5-2.htm
>
> "So this doesn't mean God does not exist, it means that self-evidence
> is not a valid basis with which to competently measure or assess the
> issue."
>
> it also does not mean that the abrahamic god does exist ...
Actually, it means that God exists regardless of my beliefs.
> your
> measure or assessment may be deemed competent by yourself
Which is why I am clear to NOT note:
God exists because I find Him self-evident.
Instead I note that God exists regardless of my findings or beliefs[1]. :)
Regards,
Brock
[1] of course, I do so believe :)
e_space
how so?
how can one note "that God exists regardless of my findings or
beliefs"? ... if one cant find it, even if it does exist, how can one
emphatically claim it does? i agree that something can exist without
our knowledge of it, but to claim factually that it does exist,
without such knowledge, does not make any sense to me ... thats like
saying ... it exists, but i dont know it exists ... which fails to add
up in my way of looking at it ...
On May 5, 10:37 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
i think that the word "god" must first be defined, before theists and
atheists can intellectually debate its existence, or its
"characteristics" ...
is god conscience? is god physical? did god consciously create the
universe? did *he* do so in 6 days? did god create time? did god
"create man in *his* image"? did god create eve from adams rib? is
jesus the son of god? was he resurrected? is there a place called
heaven? is it a physical place that has pearly gates and gold paved
streets? will believers be able to continue their relationships with
friends and family in heaven? are those who have not heard of jesus
denied a place in heaven? the questions are endless ...
since there seems to be no foreseeable way to answer these questions,
belief, and the lack thereof, will govern any such debate, ensuring
their ongoing existence, vagueness and circulatory nature ... from
what i have witnessed, nothing new has been accomplished by religious
debates ... there has been no advancement, no evidence uncovered, no
battles won ... eternal fodder ---->
SM
re: ""But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice
and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover, I will notit also does not mean that the abrahamic god does exist ... your
let Israel go.” http://bible.cc/exodus/5-2.htm
"So this doesn't mean God does not exist, it means that self-evidence
is not a valid basis with which to competently measure or assess the
issue."
measure or assessment may be deemed competent by yourself, but this
has no relationship with any truth or reality that you can
present ...
e_space
pages of a book written by man ... that may be where you source your
information about god, and therefore you may have lost your way by
relying on man to answer your god questions?
On May 5, 3:01 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
SM
actually, i have found my way, and it was not discovered within the
pages of a book written by man ... that may be where you source your
information about god, and therefore you may have lost your way by
relying on man to answer your god questions?
SM
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:40 AM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:Well, I would consider that self-evidence is not an adequate
> When creatures sit back and think about what's absolutely certain, history
> usually shows that we arrive at conclusions like "I exist," and "2+2=4" and
> "blue is blue" and so forth. It's not hard to see why. How could we assert
> the contrary? As Descartes observed, to deny that I am thinking would lead
> to the loss of all reason - for if we cannot at least believe that we are
> thinking, then what on earth should we believe? Truth would be unobtainable
> to deny our own existence. Logic, likewise, is undeniable. 2+2=4 is
> "self-evident." Most certain. Absolutely sure.
epistemological litmus test. For example, God's existence was not
self-evident to Pharaoh:
"But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and
let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover, I will not let
Israel go.”"
http://bible.cc/exodus/5-2.htm
So this doesn't mean God does not exist, it means that self-evidence
is not a valid basis with which to competently measure or assess the
issue.
> This seems to fit the overall attitude of Scripture towards the existence ofIt is the 800-lb gorilla in the room human-centered epistemologies
> God: it's assumed. Genesis 1 begins with "In the beginning God," not "here's
> how God exists." John 1 begins with "in beginning was the Word" not "here's
> why we need a first cause." And Paul's speech in Acts 17 begins with "The
> God who made the heavens and the earth." Just, bam! There it is! If it isn't
> clear enough that a creation presupposes a Creator, design a Designer, and
> on and on and on, then something is wrong with us, not God. Hence, "the fool
> has said in his heart, there is no God" (Ps. 14:1, 53:1).
fail to deal with. :(
> In listening to such atheist debates as White vs. Barker, "Does the TriuneNot only does the Lord live, but, as Van Til, Bahnsen, and others have
> God of Scripture Live?" and Bahnsen vs. Stein "Does God Exist?", it is easy
> to see that White and Bahnsen's attitude towards the existence of God is the
> same as Scripture. Indeed, it is as the same as the prophets of old: as
> surely as the Lord lives, the Lord lives! That is our starting point. Our
> firmest foundation. The ordering principle for life, thought, and the source
> of our salvation.
> http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4315
pointed out, even the arguments of those who reject Him rely upon Him.
It is like the person shouting at the top of his lungs "there is no
such thing as air", exhaling air in advancing the very argument! :)
e_space
personally informed that god was in fact a male? or is that somehow
garnered from your religious upbringing?
On May 5, 4:31 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
14SM.jcil
> if you are relying on god to answer your questions, were you
> personally informed that god was in fact a male? or is that somehow
> garnered from your religious upbringing?
Well, I didn't have 'a religious upbringing', and as far as being 'personally informed' I suppose that could be closer to the truth in that I've 'personally' read and believed what God teaches man through the Bible.
e_space
men wrote the book ... yet you believe all of their words came
directly from god? is that correct?
On May 5, 7:02 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
you read and believed what man teaches man through the bible ... 200
men wrote the book ... yet you believe all of their words came
directly from god? is that correct?
e_space
before the bible was written, and not a single one after the bible was
written? in other words, is the bible, and only the bible the written
word of god [in your opinion of course]? if so, why was a large
percentage of it left out of the final translated, modified and
censored edition?
BTW, reading your responses in no way affects my appreciation of the
"facts" ... you can claim that there was "a single Author of the
Bible" until you are blue in the face ... that doesnt mean its true,
and it definitely doesnt mean i agree with your assumption, or your
acceptance of what someone told you about it ... trust you appreciate
or comprehend this?
On May 6, 12:35 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > you read and believed what man teaches man through the bible ... 200
> > men wrote the book ... yet you believe all of their words came
> > directly from god? is that correct?
>
> You suggest that man's understanding of God is constrained by the notions
> that he comes up with on his own, but I observe that your inability to
> conceive that God can, would, and has communicated an understanding of
> himself to the created beings that he loves and desires relationship with is
> itself a constraint for you.
>
> BTW, as stated in a previous response to you there is a single Author of the
> Bible, and 40 men who articulated the words of the Spirit of God, not 200.
14SM.jcil
> so, is it your contention that god did not inspire men [or women]
> before the bible was written, and not a single one after the bible was
> written? in other words, is the bible, and only the bible the written
> word of god [in your opinion of course]? if so, why was a large
> percentage of it left out of the final translated, modified and
> censored edition?
No, that's not my contention.
Yes.
None of the words that God intended to be in the Bible have been left out.
> BTW, reading your responses in no way affects my appreciation of the
> "facts" ... you can claim that there was "a single Author of the
> Bible" until you are blue in the face ... that doesnt mean its true,
> and it definitely doesnt mean i agree with your assumption, or your
> acceptance of what someone told you about it ... trust you appreciate
> or comprehend this?
Yes, I comprehend what you've written, and at least one us is certain to remember it - if you're able to recall it too it'll be a welcome change! :)
e_space
left out" ... this is the type of comment that gets the reaction from
me that you dont seem to be able to "stomach" ... you have NO idea
about the accuracy of that claim ... let me rephrase that, your belief
allows you to say that ... but you have NO facts to substantiate
that ... you cannot speak for god, yet you do so all of the time ...
men decided what words were to be included in the bible ... in fact, a
roman emperor who once killed xtians did, from what i remember ... as
long as you continue to state your belief as facts, you will get these
types of responses ...
well, i like to say that senility is not such a bad thing if one has
had a crappy past ;-^) ... although some parts of my past were not all
that wonderful, i am not senile, and possibly reiterate myself in
regards to your repeated claims, that you have never substantiated
with any satisfaction from my viewpoint ...
you have a tendency to make specific claims, and when questioned on
them, often answer with generalizations such as "well, i happen to
view the bible as a trustworthy and reliable source of information,
and thats what it tells me" ... this equals blind faith, something
that you are quite comfortable promoting as the "truth" ... what
supportive words can you provide to substantiate that "None of the
words that God intended to be in the Bible have been left out"?
also, please keep in mind that this is a debate forum ... and not a
place to proselytize, as is quite often the case here ... what kind of
reaction are you looking for when you make the comments of "truth"
that you cannot support?
On May 6, 9:18 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote: