Into the Wardrobe

Hi Rus,

Jesus' family thought he was just a little bonkers. When he told the crowd they had to drink his blood, they concluded he was possessed. A little later, Jesus turned his face to Jerusalem, tantamount to suicide in Peter's judgement. Then he attacked the stock exchange and got himself nailed to a cross. Not very bright.

Why did Peter stick around? Because he thought Jesus reasonable? Why did those words of betrayal break Peter's heart? Because he'd let emotion cloud his logic? No. Peter was near mad with confusion, uncertainty, terror and grief. Perhaps the Pharisees had been right about him all along? Perhaps he was a fraud... But he loved this Jesus. Everything about him. He was his master and dearest friend. That was why he wept with such bitterness.

I've also wept with bitterness, from time to time, when it seemed certain God was so dead he'd never even existed. But things always drew me back from the pit:

Terror: A universe empty of God is unbearable to contemplate.

Desire: I hunger and thirst for God. In my best moments, I find myself adoring him.

Reason: If I cannot be certain God is alive, I cannot be certain he is dead, either! What do I lose by hoping in a good God? Nothing. Rather, I find my spirit lifting.

Experience: My own, and the experience of many people I have good reason to respect and trust.

Fellowship: A rope of three strands is not easily broken.

Habit: I just keep chugging along until the dark nights pass.

Like Puddleglum, I choose to head off into the unknown seeking for Narnia, even if it's not there. But this is my story. Not everyone is a Wiggle. And it's not as bad as it sounds, either. Puddleglum was almost sure Narnia was real, and he had friends with him who (rightly or wrongly) were quite sure.

And Allan, the quote you used didn't say "unknowable" - it said "unkwown".

Allan, Jesus family, the detractors, and the stock excange were crazy and irrational. They had all the evidence (let me repeat that - evidence) they needed to understand. They didn't because it was inconvenient to do so. Under the weight of evidence and considering the stakes, they were insane.

You've been saying that there's no reason to believe in God - no evidence. Peter had Jesus right there, His miracles, and His personality. He had reaso to believe.

Every example you bring up defeats your thesis. You should pay attention more to what you say.

Puddleglum believed in Aslan and Narnia through the whole thing except under the witch's enchantment. And it would have been insanity for him not to have because he had actuall been there. He had the exeriece as evidence. Perhaps you're under an enchantment.

Allan etc.

Interesting … this would appear to be an old saw, and it is difficult to explain. If I read you right you are saying there is no proof that God is, but that you none the less believe for the reasons you give, among others, the paucity of the alternative.

John Calvin has a challenge to this and articulates three useful distinctions in Book II that are good to think on. I only endorse them, as with all things in faith, because they meet with my personal experience, the only subject I can really study closely.

First, faith is not reducible to understanding doctrinal assertions. Every person of faith I know, that also tries sooner or later to understand their faith, meets with the same sort of problems as are being wrestled with here. Calvin is bang on – faith is larger, higher, and bigger that the rationality used to defend it. So be it. This allows the kind of exchange you and Rus. are having. That is my experience of faith. I always, however slightly, feel I do faith a disservice when I defend it intellectually.

Second, faith, said Calvin, is a singular kind of knowing, not an alternative to knowing or a vagueness that falls short of knowing. Faith, then, is a kind of knowledge, unlike the way we know that rocks fall or music is sweet, the knowing of faith is unlike to these, but is nonetheless a kind of knowing. This is an astute observations. You can only really find out if it is true by having faith, and then by seeing if it matches what you experience. Myself, and others I hope, react to the faith we have as though it were knowledge. It is not fully defensible, but it is held to as if it were as concrete as the screen in front of me. That alone, requires explanation. I myself am one who came to faith against my will, and from time to time, in the beginning, tried my best to shake off.

Last, Calvin observes, faith entails assurance. This is critical and the point to which I have been travelling. He writes: “Where there is no assurance of faith there is no faith.” And cites Romans 8:16:The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.He also writes: “As assurance of this nature is a thing that is above the capacity of the human mind, it is the part of the Holy Spirit to confirm within what God promises in his Word.”

Again, how lovely, and meeting my experience. It is the testimony of many Christian’s, also, that faith is a form of knowledge, and that they also have about their faith, an assurance that it is true. Believe me, no one is more surprised to discover that they believe in Christ, than the believer. Many have forgotten. Many believers, those that have rapid conversions find within them one day, perhaps, an incredulity and disbelief, sometimes anger, and sometimes scoffing, sometimes a resignation to the fog that any such thing is true. And then, perhaps the next day, find within themselves a belief that it is all true, that is perceived inwardly as knowledge, and is attended to by an inward mental assurance that what they believe is true. Then they have the awkward task of feeling hampered by believing a thing that only the night before they were ridiculing.

There it is – the unbelievably of it all. That aspect of every Christian that truly believes that is itself a form of miracle. That is the way of it. It can’t finally be explained, but it can be testified to.

I do not mind anyone for scoffing at it. I understand how ridiculous it appears. I am, at times, embarrased among learned people to exclaim my belief, because I know laughter will follow, if not a definite steering away. I remember thinking that way too.

But there is a trouble in all meaningful dialogue of the nature set down in this thread recently. Where one has not experienced the new life, she cannot also cannot say that it is not true. This, Pascal presents in the Pensees. Christ, say Christians, is elusive. If found, he is known and precious. If not found, he seems ridiculous. But to those who have not found, what can say of meaning, unless they have tried with all their might to believe, and found nothing. The divide will always exist.

But on this understanding, the Christian has all the cards. He can see his belief cards, but he can still see those of unbelief. But the non-believer has not seen the believers cards. He speaks only from what he sees. The two will always have trouble.

John

Hi JSD,

The problem with all that is the same can be said for any devout convert into any religion.

Yesterday, I mocked at Allah. But today, to my amazement (and to my family's horror), I find myself kneeling in a Mosque. But I just know it's true. I have this burning, inner assurance. I will now act on this faith, however I feel. Whatever the cost.