The Religious Inquiry Argument
1. All Christians are persons who ought to seek the truth about Jesus.2. All persons who ought to seek the truth about Jesus are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus.
3. Therefore, all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus.
The Christian Commitment Argument
1. All Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesus.
2. If all Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesus, then it is not the case that all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus.
3. Therefore, it is not the case that all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus.
Given that the conclusions are contradictory, it can't be that both arguments are successful. At least one must be bad. But which? And where? And, of course, what reasons do you have for rejecting that argument? Be sure to interact with each other. And as always, be gracious and charitable.
56 comments:
I think that the second argument, The Christian Commitment Argument, is the one that goes wrong. I think it goes wrong in the second premise by saying that in committing totally to Jesus, there is no room to revise your beliefs about Jesus. I think that you can be more fully committing to Jesus by revising your beliefs. I think this because the truth of Jesus does not depend on your belief in Him. I think that the truth about Jesus stays the same, but that does not mean that sometimes we can misunderstand who Jesus really is and what He really did. I think that the first argument, The Religious Inquiry Argument, allows for a person to error in their beliefs, but then to take a second look at the evidence and to improve their belief. I think that the second argument does not allow for common human error, but instead insists that once you believe something about Jesus you must stick with that belief to the end, even if you start to find evidence in opposition to it. I may even go as far as to say that the first argument may suggest that once you come up with a belief about Jesus, you must stop looking for truth about Jesus in that area study.
-Annelise
I'd...really have to totally agree with you, Annelise.
If we first accept that people are fallible creatures, that they don't immediately perceive truth about even physical aspects of the world (belief that the earth is the center of the universe instead of the sun), then it would be illogical to accept the Christian Commitment Argument because it assumes that whatever we first believe about Jesus is completely true and nothing can be added to it.
At least, this is what I presume the second argument presumes.
Perhaps the second argument doesn’t presume that we are capable of knowing complete truth from the beginning. Perhaps their argument means to imply that there is no room to revise the beliefs of Jesus that one learns from the Bible. In that case, they are really saying that one cannot revise a biblical understanding of Jesus.
However, even if this were the case, it still wouldn’t hold up because the Bible is not an easy book to understand, nor is Jesus an easy teacher to understand. By claiming we cannot revise any belief about Jesus—well, sometimes it’s hard to know what you believe about various passages in the Bible. They simply don’t make sense to you, a 21st century Christian. It’s hard to revise a belief if one doesn’t exist or hasn’t formed completely.
So, to say one cannot revise beliefs about Jesus at all, never and ever and forever, is presuming that all beliefs are completely formed in the first place.
Does this make sense, everyone?
I personally believe that the Religious Inqiry argument is not actually true. It does present good ideas as far as what a Christian should do, but it actually comes across to me that Christians should be willing to revise all their beliefs about Jesus. I think that is actually false. We should be willing to learn and revise our opinions as it may go, but ultimately, we need to stand firm in our beliefs especially the basics that Jesus is the Son of God. We should be willing to revise our understandings and opinions on minor details that are not crucial to our faith.
Denida Chapman ~11am~
Denida-I would disagree with you because I would say that our most basic beliefs about Jesus are the ones that we must be most willing to revise even though it is the hardest to do emotionally since we have invested so much in these beliefs. Our core beliefs should be the most vulnerable to revision because they are the foundation for all of our other beliefs. If we are wrong in our foundational beliefs, all of our other beliefs are wrong as well. I'm not saying that we should be easily swayed by any teaching that conflicts with our core beliefs, but we should be open to criticism and critically evaluate the arguments.
-Annelise
Both arguments seem incomplete and sketchy. I cannot fully accept either one and at the same time I cannot fully reject either one. It makes sense to be willing to revise our beliefs about Jesus because there are some beliefs that are thrust upon us either by our families or through our church denomination. At the same time it seems biblical to commit ourselves totally to Jesus and not be willing to compromise on any of our beliefs. Even though both are contradictory there has to be a third option. I just do not fully understand either one enough to accept one of them. Both the arguments just confuse me.
I would have to say I agree most with The Religious Inquiry Argument. While it may be an extreme example, the Christian Commitment Argument reminds me of the situation that Megan Phelps- Roper found herself in. Certainly, her church had false ideas about who God is and how he interacts with His creation. If she had not been willing to reconsider her opinions out of commitment to Jesus, she would have never discovered that they were, in fact, incorrect. If we are not to be constantly seeking the truth and testing what we consider to be true, we will never make progress and run the risk of becoming stuck in an incorrect mindset.
This is not to say that I expect my core beliefs about Christ to be proven incorrect. The Bible has much to say about the person of Jesus and I have extremely good reasons to believe that what the Bible says is true. Leftow pointed out that, just because we are willing to entertain arguments against our Christian faith this does not mean we should enter the conversation expecting it to fail. He referred to this attitude as a way to show respect for our previously held theistic beliefs.
My principle issue with the Christian Commitment Argument is in premise two. Premise one is certainly valid; all Christians should be fully committed to Jesus. However, I am not sure that I quite agree with the fact that total commitment should entail a refusal to being willing to revise all beliefs about Jesus.
-Kaitlynn H. 9:00
I think I would have to agree with Leanna. I am not completely sold on either argument. The Religious Inquiry argument seems like such an extreme situation. However, I will concede that in certain factions of Christianity, it may be necessary to completely revise their views on Christ. However, the Christian Commitment Argument strikes me as only working in the perfect situation. Theoretically, we are supposed to be totally committed to Christ but are we? I would say probably not 100% of the time. They are both very extreme examples that probably apply to a small amount of the Christian population. I don't necessarily see how through seeking truth we should be accepting of giving up ALL previous beliefs about Jesus. But we should certainly be willing to admit our fallibility as well. I think that the ultimate test for who Jesus is will be found in Scripture, not our own intellect.
Nicole Steddom 9 am MWF
Premise one states that all Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesus. This premise seems to be correct because the point of being a Christian is showing you are committed to Jesus and his truth. I believe it is premise two that is plausible. Committing yourself totally to Jesus but not being willing to change your beliefs about him seems to me to be a contradiction. If you are seeking Truth and are totally committed to Jesus and you discover or come across a Truth that does not line up with your beliefs, you would not be totally committed to Jesus by denying these truths. It seems to me that you can’t be fully committed as a Christian if you are unwilling to turn from your beliefs and values if your beliefs and values are wrong.
Jessie Comeau- 9 MWF
I prefer the Religious Inquiry Argument to the Christian Commitment Argument. It seems that the second premise of the Christian Commitment Argument is incorrect. Just because one is totally committed to something does not mean that one is unable to revise all her beliefs on that subject. If new indisputable evidence is found that contradicts one’s commitment, that person ought to revise his beliefs even if he was previously in a state of total commitment.
If it were discovered that Jesus had written a letter to one of his disciples bragging about all of the people they had deceived, and it was determined that this letter was authentic and actually from Jesus (which would be nearly impossible to determine), I think Christians ought to completely revise all their beliefs about Jesus. It would be foolish for one to continue following him holding onto beliefs known to be false. In this case, one should begin searching in other areas for truth.
Fortunately, I do not think this all-or-nothing situation would ever present itself. At most, Christians may be required to reevaluate some of their beliefs and should be willing to do so. If we actually want to grow in our relationship with Christ, we must be willing to search for the truth about him. If that truth contradicts our current beliefs, we would need to change.
-Dave D. 1100
When talking this through with my family, we came to the conclusion that Jesus stays the same, it is our perception that needs to be changed. Not all beliefs of Jesus are true. The Jews believe Jesus was not the son of God at all, that the true son would come as a conqueror to free them. This is a belief that should be revised, since it is untrue about our Savior. But this is a Jewish view, not a miss-concepted Christian view. If a Christian believes Jesus is the son of God, but does not believe (or maybe know) that to continuing to sin separates him from salvation, should he not revise his beliefs and correct his path? If Jesus is the truth, then by craving and going after truth should we not be closer to Jesus? If we refuse to accept truth, even if sufficient evidence is presented, are we not separating ourselves from Christ?
In conclusion, I don't agree with either premise. I believe that there are base beliefs in the Bible about Jesus, that are clearly stated, that we should not change. But, if we are taking the base, and corrupting it in our minds by taking the words out of context, then we do, in fact, need to be corrected, and revise our beliefs accordingly.
Dave, I agree to your premise. I do find the Christian Commitment Argument flawed. Based on the facts available, one who searchs for the truth have found that truth in Christ. Revisions are only needed in the evaluation of traditions of Religion, not in Jesus himself. It is a Christian's duty to pursue truth.
The Religious Inquiry Argument is also flawed because it includes Christians who need to change their beliefs in Jesus. Christians aren't changing their beliefs but enriching their beliefs, it is the unbeliever who needs to revise their beliefs in Jesus. Based on what I have studied about other religions, and what I know about Jesus, even with all the flaws of Christian traditions people come up with in the name of Christ. I believe Christ is the truth and in that truth I strive to know better, regardless the cost.
Connie D. 9am M-W-F
think that there seems to be a missing link in both of these arguments, which is the Word of God, I believe that these arguments should be rewritten as such:
Religious Inquiry stating that all Christians are persons who ought to seek the truth about Jesus. All persons who ought to seek the truth about Jesus are persons who ought to be willing to deem His word as more weightful than other resources. All persons who ought to deem God’s word as more weightful than other resources are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus that do not hold true in His Word, first and foremost. And therefore, all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus that do not hold true in His Word.
The Christian Commitment argument stating that all Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesus and the Word of God. And if all Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesus and the Word of God, then it is not the case that all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus that do not hold true in His Word. And therefore, all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus that do not hold true in His Word.
Therefore, because Jesus is the Word of God, the arguments do actually have the same conclusions and therefore are not contradictory. And Christians in return can participate in philosophy intellectually by willing to change certain views about Jesus that are not foundationally in the Word of God. Views such as explaining how the Trinity works, but not if there is the Trinity; or how to explain Jesus in full deity and full humanness, but not that Jesus is fully man and fully God.
I agree with the Committed Christian Argument because we should not be willing to change ALL of our beliefs about Jesus. The word willing means that you are at least considering the possibility of something being true or not. There are things that we know are undeniably true, so if we start questioning those truths, how can we know anything is true? I believe that we should seek the truth about Jesus, but some things cannot be questioned, like the fact that He is the Son of God or the fact that He was born of a virgin. We need to make sure that we question things that may have more than one possible answer to them. If it only has one answer, then we should not be questioning it.
I don't believe that either argument is complete in it's reasoning; the definitions and their ramifications are not clear to me. I would, however, have to agree with the Christian Commitment Argument. The reason why I choose this is because of premise 2 of the Religious Inquiry Argument. What is wrong in this premise is the phrase, "willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus". Some beliefs that a Christian has in Jesus cannot be revised. An example of this is Jesus resurrection. This belief should not be revised because it is one of the greatest truths about Jesus.
Premise 2 in the Christian Commitment Argument states that not all Christians should be willing to revise their beliefs about Jesus. I agree with this statement because all Christians are not commanded to ought to be willing to revise their beliefs about Jesus.
I am still unsure about the direction of both arguments, but I do believe that not all Christians who are committed fully to Jesus ought to revise all their beliefs about Jesus.
-Kayleigh Wideman, 9am
If the Religious Inquiry Argument is correct then what backbone does Christianity have? If all of our beliefs are open to interpretation then how can we have affirmation in our faith? I feel that if we are Christians then we need to be wholly committed to the basic foundations of Christianity. Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again conquering death. That is the foundations of Christianity. If we are open to revision for that then Christianity no longer exists. It is just a random assortment of beliefs and opinions. I think history proves this part. You can see over thousands of years that the core values of Christianity have not changed. There have been drastic changes to outlying branches (Catholicism, 7th day Adventist, and even different denominations) but Christianity has never revised its core values. I don’t believe we should be open to change in that area. Our core values are what shape Christianity. The outlying beliefs and denominations alter our views on Christianity and different aspects of it, but never the core. This is a faith based religion. If your beliefs are subject to change in your core values then you do not have complete assurance in your faith. In my opinion the Religious Inquiry Argument should say “be willing to revise the non-core beliefs about Jesus.”
Josh Helminiak
If you had commitment to someone who was living, you could ask them what they wanted, follow what they say to know, and know exactly what they wanted. Commitment to someone who is no longer living is different. Even though we can have a relationship with Christ, the relationship does not always seem like there is two way communication, and when there is, it is not always audible or even explicit instructions. Because of this, I think that total commitment to Jesus and His Word requires us to be willing to revise our beliefs about Him. We have been given a book of truth that explains to us what the life of a Christian should look like as well as what Jesus’s life was like. The Bible is an extremely complicated and deep book that is not easy to follow most of the time. Due to this, there are vastly different views on what a lot of the stuff in the Bible is actually teaching. If we held one view of Jesus from our reading and then continued reading and learning about Him and discovered a new truth, it would be heretical to not change our original beliefs to what we now see as truth. There is objective truth about Jesus and His Word but we do not know for sure, because of this, as we are constantly learning more about Him we need to be revising and revisiting our old beliefs to make sure the conform to what He is teaching us through the scriptures. I believe that if we were to say that we were totally committed to Jesus but not willing to revise what we thought about Him, we would be totally committed to an idol. We would be committed to an idea of what we thought Jesus was like. If we knew everything we would be able to say that we were totally committed to what we knew, but we do not, and our total commitment to Him should be a constantly changing thing as we learn new things about Him.
-Laramie H (MWF 11:00)
I do not believe either argument is necessarily correct. I think they both take the debate to extremes which do not reflect how we should approach the continuity of learning about Jesus. If I had to choose out of the two I would tend to side more with the Christian commitment argument, though just because there are specifics about Jesus's life that I believe should not be debated does not mean that I completely close myself off to trying to evolve my understanding of who he is. It could be the case that over time we develop a false representation of Jesus's character, this would be one of the inherent flaws of the total commitment argument. We could find ourselves moving farther away from the truth by wrongly stagnating our belief in our own misconstrued assumption.
Nick D. 9:00
I tend to think that it is the Christian Commitment Argument that goes wrong, and I agree with Kaitlyn H. on where it goes wrong: premise 2, that to be fully committed to Jesus one should not be willing to revise their beliefs about Jesus. Ideally, all our beliefs about Jesus would be true, but we know that cannot be true if by nothing else than the sheer number of different denominations. To be unwilling to budge on your core beliefs would be dogmatic, and it would seem to follow that if you are unwilling to budge on your core beliefs, then you are also unwilling to entertain questions about them, let alone search for the truth about those beliefs. It is unreasonable to assume that all our beliefs are true, seeing as we are undeniably fallible in our thinking. However, the Religious Inquiry Argument seems extreme, with the key word being “all” their beliefs about Jesus. In order for all beliefs about Jesus to need to be revised, there must be zero truth in any aspect of Him. This is obviously an extreme. It also seems to me that the flaw in the Religious Inquiry Argument is in premise 1. It seems that the first premise should be that all people are persons who ought to seek the truth. This seems fundamental to arriving at any belief, and it seems that if the base of the belief is not true, then the components comprising that belief will be found to be false as well. Therefore, Christians, being people who are seeking the truth, believe that they have arrived at the truth. Therefore, in seeking the truth inside of the truth, is it really necessary to be willing to revise, or to put it bluntly, be willing to give up all their beliefs about Jesus? After all, if the foundations of those beliefs are true, then couldn’t it be concluded that while some of our beliefs about Jesus may be wrong, they cannot all be wrong?
Bottom-line, I don’t believe that either argument is complete in its reasoning, but I tend to prefer the Religious Inquiry Argument.
Kayleigh, I see your point, but how can we truly know the truths about Jesus if we are not willing to examine the beliefs? If one is unwilling to budge on their beliefs, are they really able to seek the truth? Now, we should not easily give up our beliefs, by any means, but if in seeking the truth, we are tasked with asking difficult questions, is it better to ignore them than to ask them?
Both arguments are funny to me. They are worded in a way that seems incomplete and intricate. However, If I had to pick one of the two it would be the Religious Inquiry Argument because as weirdly worded as it is, it is somewhat true. Firstly, all Christians ought to seek the truth about Jesus. Yes all Christians ought to seek the truth about Jesus, but shouldn't nonbelievers as well? It says in Isaiah 55:6-7, “Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." This passage applies to everyone, not just Christians. Christ died for all of mankind, and EVERYONE should seek him diligently.
- Dante Williamson 9:00 AM Class
I must agree with Annelise. I also think that the Christian Commitment Argument if where it goes wrong. By definition of a commitment, for example, a marriage commitment is a pledge and promise towards complete loyalty towards their partner and denies all other possible marriage duties outside of their current one. It is true that if one were married, it would be “offensive” to consider their spouse keeping their “options open” solely for the sake of seeing what other “better” options could be available to them. This is where I believe that this argument is at fault. A commitment is never blind, or at least it shouldn’t be. One should know exactly to what and who they are making a commitment to before doing so. One cannot always know another person inside and out and similarly one cannot always, in that specific moment, know all about Christ. There is always more to learn, consider, and develop within this relationship. If one is truly pursuing knowledge, wisdom, and pure truth about a matter, they must be willing to deeply consider other’s logical cases and arguments against their beliefs. If one were to adapt their original beliefs based off of overwhelming evidences against theirs, I would not consider them a traitor or idiotic, but quite the opposite. There is freedom and truth found after deeply considering thoughts, beliefs, and arguments and then adapting their personal beliefs and worldviews based off of these found truths.
(9AM)
@Denida Chapman...
Could you explain more by what you mean? You believe that the Religious Inquiry Argument is false based off of what? You said, "It actually comes across to me that Christians should be willing to revise all their beliefs about Jesus...We should be willing to learn and revise out opinions as it may go, but ultimately, we need to stand firm in our beliefs, especially the basics..." I must disagree with how you disagreed with the argument. How can you said that certain things are up for change and adaptation, but others are off the table for consideration? It seems as if Christians so easily accept these solid "truths" about God, Jesus, and theology without having thought through these ideas on their own? How can one solely accept "that Jesus is the Son of God" without considering the arguments and beliefs that come against Jesus being the Son of God. In order to be an effective Christ-follower, I think that it is key for one to not accept truths because others "said so," or "God's Word says it, so that settles it," but to really attempt to fully understand these beliefs in order to solidify one's personal beliefs and to be able to combat against these other opposing arguments. If these efforts of consideration and study lead oneself to adapt their beliefs, they should freely do so! You said that "we should be willing to revise our understandings and opinions on minor details that are not crucial to our faith," which I find to be true that we should be willing to revise our understandings, but not only on minor details. Susan Haack similarly states that, "You ought not to have certain beliefs about Jesus that are evidence-and-argument-proof and unbudgeable, to have no motivation to follow evidence where it leads, to have a steadfast willingness to retain certain convictions you already have about Jesus. You ought to be willing to revise all of your beliefs about Jesus." I hope that just makes you consider more deeply about what you were thinking.
(9AM)
Since I have spent most of my time lately in class, in class assignments, and in out of class conversation talking about why I do not like Religious Inquiry, I do not really want to break it down again. Instead, I want to just make a simple observation about things. The two arguments differ in whether it is plausible for a Christian to revise ALL of their beliefs as part of their desire for truth. Religious Inquiry asserts that ALL beliefs can indeed be subjective, but Christian Commitment says that NOT ALL beliefs are negotiable in face of new evidence.
It seems that a good many people are gravitating toward Religious Inquiry because Christian Commitment is "dogmatic." The reasoning behind this is that Christian Commitment is negative in the face of change. However, when the statement NOT ALL is made, it is to point out that there is at least one area (commitment to Christ) that is nonnegotiable due to the very definition and meaning of what a Christian is. Because at least one is not negotiable, that means all but one, which means NOT ALL. Therefore, NOT ALL is stated. Again, this is reactive to Religious Inquiry. Were the argument set up without the context of Religious Inquiry, the argument would likely be set up differently. Because of this, the Christian Commitment can also read something like "everything but commitment to Christ is negotiable." Of course, commitment can mean different things to different people, but commitment (actual or alleged) is the common denominator of Christian belief. As seen in premise one, there is no Christian without that commitment to Christ. It is exceedingly unlike that one could find evidence to overturn that premise. Religious Inquiry technically denies that premise. Therefore, I find Religious Inquiry to be errant.
In summary, Religious Inquiry holds no set beliefs and allows all to be revised. Christian Commitment holds at least one set belief and does not allow all to be revised due to the fact that there is one belief that is essential. If a Christian has no set beliefs, then what makes a Christian a Christian? The title then has no meaning. It is the set beliefs behind the name that give the name meaning. That is why I hold to Christian Commitment over Religious Inquiry.
Personally, I do not find either argument to be completely correct. This is all because the of the word "all." For the religious inquiry argument, I do not believe that their are things about Jesus that someone should be willing to change. If a Christians changes their belief to not believe that Jesus was who He says He is, then are you a Christian? That is a very basic belief about Jesus and the Christian faith that, if changed, a person's Christianity would be in question. When it comes to the Christian Commitment, there are things about Jesus, as a person, that if you change your belief on something, then no harm is done. The word "all" really makes both wrong as, in the case, some things it is okay to change. I think that there needs to be an in-between where the core beliefs about Jesus are not willing to be changed, but the smaller minute things are willing.
Kara 9:00
Annelise and Whaleshoes, I think that you are misunderstanding the Christian commitment argument. You seem to think that it states that once you pick a belief that you can’t revise it, but that is not what it is saying. Notice that it says that Christians should not be willing to revise all of their beliefs, not any of their beliefs. This may not seem like a big difference, but let me use an example of this. If I tell you that you can’t have all of the cookies. You could still eat some of them; in fact, you could eat all but one of the cookies. If, on the other hand, I tell you that you can’t eat any of the cookies, then you can’t have even one cookie. This is what the Christian commitment argument is saying—we can revise some of our beliefs, but there are some that we can’t give up. This is true for Christians as well. If you are willing to revise all of your arguments and you decide that Christ did not die for our sins, then you can no longer consider yourself a Christian, and if you can’t consider yourself a Christian then premise one of the religious inquiry argument no longer applies to you. Annelise, you reminded us (truthfully) that Christ does not change. Since that is the case, it seems like we could say that we don’t have to revise all of our arguments, since it seems like Christians would have landed on some truth in 2000 years. Also, you said that we should be able to revise all (as in every one) of our beliefs about Jesus but, like you said, we are fallible creatures. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that we can’t trust all of the revisions we could make? So we revise our revisions. But where does it stop? If we can’t hold on to any truth about Christ, then is seems like we can’t ever be sure about anything.
I think both arguments fall apart in the second premise. Both first statements are true, but the premises are twisting that truth to be a misunderstanding of the first statement, which is then further blown out of proportion in the third premises.
Let's take The Christian Commitment Argument: All Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesus. This concept in general is widely accepted by Christians. But in order to do this, the Christian must know who Jesus was and is: that is, the truth about Jesus. There are many faulty examples and incorrect doctrine about who He was, since He is a historical figure and we can't have an in-person face-to-face conversation to ask Him what He's like, doing, and all about. So Christians MUST be willing to seek the truth about Jesus, and be willing to revise their incorrect beliefs about Him in favor of truth, if they are going to totally commit themselves to Him. If they do not know the truth about Jesus, they cannot fully commit themselves to Him; rather, they would be committing themselves to a false notion of Him.
The Religious Inquiry Argument also fails in the second premise more on the basis of misunderstanding. Yes, it is true that Christians need to be willing to revise all of their incorrect beliefs about Jesus. This does not mean all their previously held beliefs are wrong. Yes, they should be examined and not just assumed to be true, but that doesn't mean totally forsaking all knowledge and starting from scratch, as the second and third premises of The Religious Inquiry Argument suggest.
Overall, the first argument is probably more correct, but it needs to be revised in order to get rid of any misunderstanding. The second argument is also slightly correct, but still falls short of complete accuracy.
Layna, I like how you incorporated a source of knowledge into your argument. Most Christians would probably agree that the Bible should be treated with weight over all other sources of information on God. But what about the Christians that don't? When you incorporate this belief into your argument you ostracize the Christians that would not agree with you. Your beliefs closely follow the Christian Commitment argument, and while I respect you for that, I think it's wrong. The problem that I see most clearly in the Christian Commitment argument is that you have to define these key Christian beliefs. You would include the Bible in your analysis. I would probably not. And if that doesn't make me a "genuine" Christian than that's fine. Some Christians would even include the 7 day creation story (this University being one of them). And, some would include really trivial beliefs like tongues.Honestly, no one is going to agree on those "key" beliefs. This line of thought follows a need for conformity. It ostracizes people not like "us". How this most clearly materializes itself is in evangelism. Christians who evangelize without the deep consideration that their bibles and their beliefs could be wrong, are unethical. It's not very loving or kind for the matter. Those people, do not genuinely value their neighbor or the knowledge they could impart to them. They are narrow-minded, and the reason why a lot of people find Christians to be jerks and their god to be joke. If not for the sake of the truth, and living a life based on what is true, I advocate for the Religious Inquiry argument because it is more ethical and loving (more like Jesus, ironically).
- Green
We do need to be willing to revise, but there come a point where, when we have revised, we can no longer consider ourselves Christian. If we stand firm on the Word of God, and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, then some points are non-negotiable. However, as believers, we can learn more about Jesus, who He is and who He should be in our lives...and allow this to draw us closer to Him, to love Him more, and to want to serve Him more...in truth.
Denise
In the end I did choose I agreed more fully with the Christian Commitment Argument. I came to this conclusion because I believe that when someone takes on the title of Christian that there are taking on as well a certain set of beliefs, especially about the personhood of Christ. I feel that people should take a hard look at reasoning and objections to Christianity before deciding to commit to Christ, the Son of God. While the existence of many Christians who have not thought deeply enough about who Christ truly is and the serious objections many people have to Christianity certainly does come into play. I do think that many of the people who are readily willing to walk away from Christ at the first hint of objection are those who did not think deeply enough about their commitment to Christ as their savior when they supposedly did become a Christian.
- Patrick Flynn
First off, I would like to say that I don’t know enough at the time to believe that I am correct in what I’m going to say here. But I’ll say what I think at the moment. I go more with the Christian Commitment argument than Religious Inquiry. The problem I have with the Religious Inquiry argument is that it (in the way I see it, again, I could be wrong) rules out faith’s extreme importance. It treats a Christian’s commitment to God as simply accepting a convincing argument. It treats it like some sort of scientific observation, like a court case where evidence reigns supreme. While I certainly believe that evidence is in the favor of Christianity (because I believe it’s true), I believe that we come to Christ by so much more than evidence! There are spiritual, experiential factors at work that go so much deeper than argumentative evidence. Christianity isn’t something you are convinced of, it’s a complete and total change of who you are. It becomes your identity, literally and completely in all aspects of your existence, from physical to mental to spiritual. Because of that change, I simply don’t think you can look at things being willing to revise all your beliefs about Jesus. I think that’s as impossible as being willing to believe that you don’t even exist at all (which I’m sure someone has an argument for.)
Anyhow, I think it comes down to who you consider yourself first: a philosopher who accepts Christianity or a Christian who practices philosophy. The difference is what is your core, what you are most dedicated to. The first option shows a person who, till the day he dies, will call himself a man of philosophy. He may also call himself a Christian while he accepts the argument for the faith by his reasoning abilities, but he will never not be a philosopher. The other will consider himself a child of God who practices philosophy till the day of his death. The difference between this man and the first is that this man puts faith first, which, at its heart, is a condition of mental humility. It is humility to realize that his own brain isn’t capable of knowing all truth and is capable of mistakes, and must therefore unwaveringly hold a commitment to a transcendent Truth outside his mind and outside the universe he inhabits. This he cannot be swayed from, and from that foundation he practices philosophy on all matters of reality. He is a Christian who practices philosophy, in that order.
Josh Helminiak, I like what you said, the whole thing. Green, how do you feel that evangelism is affected by accepting the Christian commitment argument?
Both of these arguments are difficult to sift through because of the many different variables or assumptions we can apply to them. Assessing both arguments, and providing the assumption that one's belief may be false in any form and quantity, the Religious Inquiry argument is the only argument that would allow one to revise these false beliefs. In other words, I think that the Christian Commitment argument communicates handcuffing a Christian into not being able or willing to revise their beliefs. If the Christian Commitment argument is upheld then one would be doomed to not revise their beliefs even if they were convicted to do so. In all, I think the Religious Inquiry argument at least gives a safety net or the opportunity to be willing to revise beliefs if need be. It doesn't state that one is required to revise their beliefs but only willing. If one's beliefs are thoroughly true, revision wouldn't be needed. In addition, the Religious Inquiry argument helps prevent dogmatism while the Christian Commitment argument almost promotes it.
Isaac M. 11am
Some students here believe that we should stand firm in our convictions. Otherwise, what good is our faith? However, this assumes that they are already correct. Academic skepticism, not to be confused with religious skepticism, requires that question everything before we stand firm on our conclusions.
How can we know if we are ever right? What is truth? If truth is just our cognitive beliefs, then truth is merely electrical signals in the brain generated by our own thoughts. Truth has to be something more. It has to be something we always pursue. We have to constantly interrogate everything, even the Bible.
God the Father and God the Son are powerful forces that transcend all understanding. This requires careful investigation and a dedication to truth so purely devoted that the interrogator must be willing to revise everything he or she knows. Otherwise, you will likely emerge with a flawed understanding of Christ's identity.
-Jordan Ryner
9:00 AM Session
If we are seeking for the truth, as believers, we know and can be sure that God's word is a firm and worthy source of total truth. We are not doubting the reliability of the Bible. What we must be careful of in regards to the truth is how we interpret the Bible. Both of these arguments have "truth" to them if you dissect them to their full capacity. The Religious Inquiry Argument suggests that maybe Christians are called to be willing to revise our beliefs about Jesus. Is it requiring the actual change of our beliefs? This argument sounds "safer" because of its statement of "being willing." As long as we have a willingness to revise our beliefs, however, are we actually revising them when necessary? And if not, is this argument even valid? I think it has holes in it, and it is doesn't require any action to actually be taken.
Ashtyn B.
The problem with addressing each of these arguments is that each seems to hold some truth, but both can’t be true.Due to the seeming truth yet evident contradiction behind each argument, I would say that both arguments are in and of themselves false, or at least falsely presented. This seems odd as, with the conclusions contradicting each other, one conclusion must prove true. I say they are both flawed because premise one of each argument seems relatively the same. To seek the truth about Jesus and to commit oneself to Jesus could be defined as the same action as Christ is Truth and is the ultimate source of Truth. In fact, Christ tells Pilate that he came “to testify to the Truth.” Thus, if Christ in fact is the Truth, then committing to Christ is committing to Truth, and is the same as seeking the truth about Jesus. Because premise one is arguably the same in each argument, then the flaw in each argument must be found in premise two. The flaw in premise two of each argument is the absolute nature the premise takes on in each argument. For the Religious Inquiry Argument, the absolutism is in the statement “all of their beliefs.” However, if Christ is the Truth and the Christian is seeking the truth about Christ in knowledge that He is the Truth, that individual cannot stray away from the fact that Christ is Truth. Other factors regarding their beliefs about Christ may change, for example: His passibility, His human history, or the specific words He spoke. But the fact that Christ is Truth and Christ is God cannot change. In the Christian commitment argument the absolutism is found in the phrasing using “not” and again “all.” At this point, premise two seems to suggest that Christians should change none of their views on Christ. Yet, to do so is to fail to seek the truth about the one who love them and the one they claim to love. So, in mind that premise one for each argument is the same, premise two can be tweaked in such a way that the conclusion fits the Christian walk with a less absolute attitude toward the truth in Christ. Thus, premise two for each argument would state something to the effect of all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to change some of their beliefs about Jesus. This is because changing all of one's views about Jesus seems to then defeat the purpose of even seeking the truth about Jesus because it is the significance of Jesus that causes one to seek the truth about him.
At first glance it seems as if the two arguments both have some merit. As Christians we are "religious inquirers" in that we have supposedly already sought out the most reasonable and logical sounding religious belief system, and have presumably concluded, after careful examinations of all of the available belief systems, that Christianity is the one right religion. Although our first attraction to Christianity might have been based on only partial understanding of even the fundamental Christian tenants, it seems as if only part of the truth we discovered was enough to bring us full circle into following Christ. However, based on our past exploration of religions, we are pretty certain that we probably don't have it all right. That there is still some truth about Jesus that we have yet to encounter. Therefore, it seems plausible that we would continually revise our beliefs to correlate with new truths we have explored and accepted, as we study Christian literature (the Bible) and seek out spiritual wisdom (the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit).
Although we should be constantly be striving to grow in our understanding of Jesus and Christianity, we should also be committed to this one belief system. We shouldn't be easily swayed into believing another worldview, else it would seem we aren't genuinely following Jesus. A sincere Christian should be totally 100% committed to Jesus. No turning back. However, I would disagree with premise 2 of The Christian Commitment Argument because I don't believe this premise has fully considered what it means to be committed to Jesus. If I am totally committed to Jesus, then I should be totally committed to his teaching and seeking out His full character. Therefore, I should be studying his Word the Bible daily, applying it to my life, and allowing His Holy Spirit to bestow wisdom and understanding that could not come from myself. It seems that if I was regularly partaking of Christian disciplines, I would quickly discover how much I don't know about Jesus. This doesn't mean I'm not committed to Christianity, but that because I'm so committed to this lifelong belief system, that I will be willing to adjust certain false presumptions based on what is revealed in His Word.
Adam Olson - 11:00am
I believe the Religious Inquiry argument to be wrong. I believe this to be wrong because a Christian cannot be willing to give up all truths about Jesus because if one does this they are willing to completely change the character of the Jesus of the Bible. There are certain beliefs we can change without completely changing the character of Jesus. In fact some revisions to our beliefs may give us a more accurate belief of the character of Jesus. But there are certain belief that are in the Bible that are facts they are not subject to interpretation, therefore, we cannot revise those without changing the Jesus of the Bible. I am not saying that we should not seek to know the truth about Jesus, but we cannot be willing to change all beliefs about him or we are willing to believe in something that is not Jesus at all.
-Hannah H. (9:00)
Response to Tim Powers:
I find your argument for Christian Commitment intriguing, mostly because of your statements about the humility of faith. This concept seems to have at least a healthy realization of our inability to know anything fully, the necessity of faith in Christianity, and the recognition of our own finite nature (which makes the humility you reference so appropriate). But, given the need for this sense of humility, it still seems inappropriate to order things the way you have. At what point is an individual justified adequately in their reasoning to step out in faith and become a Christian? Before settling on Christianity it seems necessary or at least beneficial to come to some philosophical position stating that this leap of faith is worth taking. Even if one does not support this statement, it is likely that they made some philosophical and reasoned decision whether they recognize it or not. So in this way philosophy precedes faith.
By stating that we believe “Christianity” we inherently state that we disbelieve all that is opposed to “Christianity.” Certainly, in our humility we may not claim to know every attribute of Christianity clearly or fully and would claim a willingness to revise slightly, but in the grand scheme of things (in the sense of switching from Christianity to not-Christianity) we are prone to dogmatism as one “committed” to this faith. This dogmatism doesn’t seem so bad as a follower of Christ who believes we have the truth already, but if any other religion were to express the same perspective we would work tirelessly to explain to them why they are wrong.
Therefore it seems necessary to have a good amount of the attainable knowledge related to a commitment before making such a commitment. Now, certainly, faith plays a part since we humbly recognize our own inability to know so many things… and yet we do have some responsibility to know what we CAN. To know about what we inherently do not believe when stating that we do believe one thing is important. It would seem then that some individuals, however, cannot do that. Children and even individuals of lower critical thinking ability could not develop all the same reasons for faith as another individual, so perhaps they could commit with less reasoning. But, as they develop, their responsibility to understand the background and inverse beliefs will increase and therefore so will their responsibility to re-evaluate. However, full commitment disallows unbiased evaluation. The cycle continues. Just some things to think about
Grant M. 11:00 am MWF
I find that the Christian Commitment Argument is not a successful argument. The first premise is reasonable, and there does not appear to be anything worth objecting against it. The second premise is where I think the argument becomes unsuccessful. The second premise is that if all Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesus, then it is not the case that all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all their beliefs about Jesus. At first glance, this seems true. However, how do we find out who Jesus truly is in order that we may commit to Him? Both a Jehovah Witness and an Evangelical Christian would say that they are committed to Jesus right? But Jehovah Witness’s believe that Jesus was not the Son of God and He never was divine, and Evangelical Christians believe that Jesus is the divine, Son of God. So how do you know who is truly right? Both are committed to Jesus, but have two totally different views about Him. One of them has to be wrong, and in order to find who Jesus truly is and commit yourself to Jesus, then you need to be seeking the truth about Jesus. And if you seek the truth about Jesus then you ought to be willing to revise your beliefs about Jesus to align with who Jesus truly is.
On a side note, I believe that the Christian Commitment Argument is an argument that people like if they are scared that doing philosophy will change their views about who Jesus is and that philosophy will lead them away from the faith. If already believe the truth about Jesus, then you do not have anything to fear. You can commit to Jesus totally and still seek truth about Him.
-Madison P. 9 AM
I have thought about both of these arguments for a while now. In my BAP, I discussed how I found a flaw within the Christian Commitment Argument by saying that Commitment should be a thing where you are able to change your views about Jesus especially if you don't(and won't) understand and know him fully. In class, however, I think I misunderstood the 2nd premise of that argument, because I thought I was trying to show how their views should in fact change. Now that I understand how I misinterpreted the premise, I think the problem lies within the 2nd Premise of the Religious Inquiry Argument. The statement that those who seek the truth ought to be willing to revise all their views about Jesus, seems illogical to me. Here's why; If someone was trying to find truth, once they arrive at a place of truth, should they easily let it go? Say someone determines that Christ is the son of God, which I understand as truth. The next day, someone opposes them with a new argument that also seems logical. Should this man, who found truth a day ago, be willing to change his view just because there is a logical argument? I think not. Honestly a person who is that flaky in their opinions is worse to me than someone who is dogmatic. There is truth. If you arrive at truth, I see no reason to let it go, not matter how convincing an argument. Call me dogmatic, it just makes sense like that to me. There are many people who have and will lead Christians astray with a convincing argument, that doesn't mean it's true.
-Matt Jackson
Annelise makes a very good point that our understanding of truth is fallible. The truth of Jesus never changes but our perception can change as we learn more. Thus I agree, the second premise of the Christian Commitment argument is wrong to say that committing ourselves to Christ means we can never believe a greater truth than we already know. If that were true, it seems there would never be any further progression in spirituality, never learning more about the nature of God.
To Denida, I agree that Christians should stand firm in our beliefs about God, although the ability to stand firm solely rests on your ability to defend it through the truths you currently believe. For any other topic, I assume you would agree that to stay dogmatic on a belief that can easily be disproved is nonsense. Why should our spiritual intelligence be any different? Surely early in your Christian faith you did not know, and thus you could not believe, that Jesus is the master and Lord of the demons. When people first come to Christ they are told Jesus died for our sin, and freed us from our own bondage, but later does the realization that Jesus, being Lord of the universe, has full dominion over all evil as well. As the story of Job explains, Satan had to ask permission to even touch Job. This character trait of Jesus you learned later and thus revised your belief of who Jesus really is thanks to this new found truth. Praise God for revealing these things! Likewise, don’t assume you know everything about the nature of God already that you are not willing to revise what you believe.
-Ivan Priest
The second argument, The Christian Commitment Argument, goes wrong in that Christians are obligated to search out truth; because Jesus defines Himself as Truth. So if we are committed to truth, and Jesus isn’t it, then to dogmatically hold onto our beliefs is foolishness and against the cause of Christ. However the Religious Inquiry Argument also is incorrect. If all Christians are to seek the truth about Jesus, but can change their mind about whether they out to seek out truth, then they are also against the cause of Christ. There must be a middle argument that combines both principles because neither of these arguments are accurate.
I would have to agree with parts of both Annelise and Leanna. As I read their posts while scrolling through the comments it reminded me of what I had written in my BAP. I believe there is a flaw in the second argument, The Christian Commitment Argument. The second premise says. " If all Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesus, then it is not the case that all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus." Your understanding of your commitment is very subjective and when you hold it up to the objective light of the Scriptures it shines on new areas that were previously unknown. If you examined further and discovered that some area, possibly even a fundamental area, of your commitment to Jesus was incorrect when compared to the Word of God then that aspect of your commitment should also be examined. If you do not examine you would be not seeking truth, but in turn being arrogantly dogmatic. We know from class that being an arrogant dogmatist hinders one from intellectually engaging opposing view. That is why I think there is a flaw in this argument.
However, I do not know as I can completely go with The Religious Inquiry Argument either. There also seems to be a flaw in its development. The second premise of this argument states, "All persons who ought to seek the truth about Jesus are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus." The very fact that you have faith proves that there is some foundational part that if it was not true the whole faith would crumble. This would then seek to be a revision and instead be a disbelief. This does not disprove this premise but it is a small wedge in the crack that is the flaw. I am not really sure what the over-arching flaw is though. I do not know what to make of this argument but it seems to have a flaw. I might be because all my life I have been taught to hold on to certain truths and I do not know if I could let them be open to revision. I am not sure where to go from here.
- Tim Hull (9:00)
I absolutely believe that the Christian Commitment argument is the one that goes wrong. It seems very narrow-minded to assume that simply because you are supposed to be committed to Jesus, you should never revise your beliefs in Jesus. I of course think that you should not just go out searching for issues to raise with your faith, but you should be absolutely okay with admitting to, and searching into doubts with your faith in order to better understand what you believe and why. With this in mind, it seems obvious that the Christian Commitment argument is not the right way to go. The first argument, in contrast to the Religious Inquiry argument does not allow for the searching and strengthening of your faith, but rather following something you believe blindly. This does not seem safe or smart as a Christian. We cannot defend our faith or why we believe in it, if we do not understand it.
Johnna
I stand behind the Religious Inquiry Argument and firmly against the Christian Commitment Argument.
The CCA goes wrong with its interpretation of the word "commit." Princeton University gives us the definition of 'commit.' To "give entirely to a specific person, activity, or cause." This means that committing to Jesus means to give entirely to Him.
Giving entirely to Jesus means that you must base all of your giving off of your current perception of who He is and what He wants. If you find that any of these perceptions were actually flawed, you ought to be willing to change your actions and beliefs simply *because* you are committed.
An analogy to this might be a career. You can be totally committed to your career, giving all your energy and time to your employer. At the same time, you may find out later that your employer was engaging in some activity of which you disagree. Is it not rational that you should absolutely be willing to change your beliefs regarding that employer?
ULTIMATELY, everything we are committed to we know through our perception. We must be totally committed to such perception while simultaneously willing to critique the perception itself.
--Austin Becton (11:00)
I think the problem, or at least, my problem with the Christian Commitment argument is that it limits a person's commitment. I think that it would be a better argument if it said a Christian is a person who is totally committed to the truth about Jesus. Saying a person is totally committed to Jesus implies that a person is totally committed to specific ideas about Jesus no matter what comes. I feel like this denies intellectual honesty, which is backed up by premise 2 that claims that this person therefore ought to not be willing to change all of their ideas/beliefs about Jesus. If a person totally committed to the truth about Jesus their retain their Christian commitment without sacrifing intellectual honesty.
--L.M. Sizemore 11am
There is reason to believe that a person can totally follow Jesus but have some misconception about who Jesus is, and what the truth is. I believe that when a person gets saved he or she is endowed by the Holy Spirit with the truth about who Jesus is,and some where he or she gets lead away by Satan to believe something else about who Jesus is. No one has come up with a better way to describe who Jesus is then the Gospels. Any other description of Jesus is more then likely wrong. If you use critical thinking about any thing new about who Jesus is then you would see that is wrong, and you should not believe it..We have to believe that Satan will use our thought against us at every turn. When we start to follow any thing other then the bible we are opening our selves up to the wrong view of who Jesus is.So to follow Jesus as the bible state is right and everything else is wrong.If you are not sure you should take it to God, and ask him are discernment, and clarity before running off after another view of who Jesus is.Believing totally on the person of Jesus as the bible says is a good way to move closer to who God is.
The Christian Commitment argument also reminds me of the Megan Phelps-Roper situation. Because she was so committed to her faith, her dogmatism and unwillingness to change blinded her to aspects of who God really is. She was committed totally to Jesus, and did what she thought to be right. I agree with premise 1 of this argument--that Christians should be people who totally commit themselves to Jesus. There is a key word in premise 2 and 3 of the Religious Inquiry argument--“willing”. Yes, it is important that Christians are willing to revise their beliefs, should they find “truth” that demands any religion revision; however, this does not imply that they have to or must revise their beliefs.
Anna Z.
MWF 9am
Being forced to reject one, I choose the Christian Commitment argument. It is likely the case that if one is an authentic Christian, one has already considered the Christian religion from a stance of trying to attain truths about Jesus. Once this information is found and deemed to be true, then one can truly commit oneself to Christianity. If this is the case, one has already been willing to revise their beliefs about Jesus. When landing on Christianity, perhaps one should be revising beliefs until one reaches the truth with which one is satisfied. It would seem as though this is essentially what persons not raised in a Christian environment that become Christians have been doing to, indeed, become Christians.
I absolutely reject the Religious Inquiry Argument. Premise one looks to be ok at first glance. I have a problem with defining what exactly the truth is. In Christianity salvation is based on truth, you wholly accept the Gospel with your whole self. After obtaining salvation, which is an act of God and conversion, is the act of man, sanctification starts. Now you cannot have sanctification without justification. So, you must be saved and justified on truth before being able to start sanctification. Sanctification is past the process of seeking truth, I believe that the truth is already found and that sanctification is building upon that truth. It is not that you cannot find more truth but it is growing closer to Christ. The issue was brought up in class that if you find the truth, go with it but once you find other evidences, leave it. I know that if you truly profess your faith, nothing can take you from God’s hand, so if you believe in the truth you would never find it easy or possible to leave. Furthermore, if I just went off of how I felt I would not be here, if I found evidence that what in contradiction with the Bible, I would never just say, look there it is, I can leave now. No, if I did that, I would question my salvation and thus the truth lies with salvation. Premise two will also be rejected; I think my previous answer will help rejecting this one as well. We must not be willing to revise all our beliefs about Jesus, his deity and his person especially, because we would then not be able to call ourselves Christian. I would argue about, once again, their salvation. You should be able to revise some if you have a misguidance about what he did for a specific time in the Gospel or a dispute on when something occurred but it is not refusing the absolute truth of him being God and why he came.
The Christian Commitment Argument seems pretty fitting in my opinion but I have a problem with some of the wording. It is mostly in premise two, premise one seems to be holding up very well, other than the fact that it should not only be a commitment to Jesus but a commitment to the truth about Jesus and who he is. As I do believe that Christians should not revise their beliefs because of the loyalty to Jesus but I would say that they cannot say that all of their beliefs, because even with loyalty to Jesus, if you don’t have truth to work off of and because of the folly of man and reading the Bible, I believe that some beliefs could be revise if the situation was right and necessary, but did not contradict truths in the Bible. Thus in a sense, I would also reject the second argument.
Anna P. 11:00
Maybe it is far off to say but the two are fairly connected. I believe that the logical choice would be decided by a truth. If Jesus is who He says he was then believing the Christian Argument is logical and if He was not the Religious Inquiry is logical. Because this is unanswerable I think both are invalid. Practically if my hypothetical wife was a murderer and I believed this and began to investigate and found out she wasn’t then my search for truth was in vain and being willing to revise my beliefs were in vain. On the other hand, if she was then the search for truth was worthwhile. In this I’m actually evaluating the word “ought” in the Religious Inquiry argument.
-Will Coates
In the cases of the two arguments of Religious Inquire and the Christian Commitment I say that instead of one being wrong, they are both half right. Religious Inquire requires us to seek truth about Jesus and if that truth contradicts our beliefs then we should be willing to change that belief. This is where that argument goes wrong. There are some beliefs in Christianity that at their very core are the essence of Christianity. For example if I was to be open to changing my view of Christ's death and Resurrection then I would no longer be a Christian and therefore it is impossible for a Christian to be completely willing to change all of their beliefs. One has to discover what is essential to being saved and then all else can be questioned. Once this change has been made then the Christian Commitment Argument becomes valid. A Christian can change views about things not essential to their salvation and Christ is an essential piece of our faith, therefore if Jesus is not in question then to the best of our abilities at any moment we can commit ourselves to Him. This is the only flaw that I see in the conundrum that is these two current arguments.
Kyle Classen (9:00)
One of the crucial things which must be done as a part of analyzing these arguments is to define the word "all." If the word means "any" than there is nothing wrong with the first argument. Christians should be willing to revise their beliefs about Jesus. However, if the word means literally "all" than the argument doesn't even make sense. Christians by definition and by faith believe certain things to be true about Jesus, specifically that He is the embodiment of actual Truth. Therefore if a Christian were to revise their beliefs about Jesus, Jesus Himself would have to be the one providing the motivation. But in order to revise all their beliefs, the very belief motivating the revising of "all" beliefs would be nullified. Do you see how this is an impossibility.
As for the second argument, I believe the second premise is false. Yes, Christians should be totally committed to Jesus but it doesn't necessarily follow that therefore they should not be willing to revise their beliefs about Him. As many of my peers have stated, the opposite seems true. If one is totally committed to Jesus, than one is totally committed to learning from Jesus. No Christian begins their walk with perfect understanding of Jesus. Commitment implies vigorous pursuit. Why do we call Him wonderful counselor if we don't ever intend to revise our beliefs about who He is and what He is doing?
Andrew S. (11:00)
I stand on The Christian Commitment Argument on the basis of semantics. The Religious Inquiry Argument states that we need to be willing to revise all of our beliefs. On the principle of definition, I do not believe it is possible to revise all of your beliefs about Jesus, and assuming you are a Christian before hand, continue to hold Christian beliefs. So on this basis, I would say that if you are a Christian beforehand, it is impossible to change all of your beliefs about Jesus, and remain a Christian. Therefore it is on this basis that I support The Christian Commitment Argument.
-Austin K. (11:00)
It seems to me that the best argument between the two is The Religious Inquiry Argument. Christians ought to seek the truth about Jesus because, as Brian Leftow argued, Christians should seek to more fully and deeply understand certain cherished truths. Surely our understanding of Christ is one of these truths. That is not to say that we should consider chucking Christianity out the window, but that it is necessary to inquire deeply into who Christ really is. I tend more towards Religious Inquiry because it makes much more sense to me that as a Christian, I should be willing to revise my beliefs about Jesus in growing in knowledge of Him and who He is. There are a lot of “versions” of Jesus out there, and Christians should always be seeking to know who Jesus really and truly is, even if that means revising some of the deepest held beliefs and ideas we have of Him. If we love Christ, we should seek to know Him as well as possible.
Shelby F. 11:00
While at first glance it seems i would agree with both of these arguments, after further studying them I find one fault with the Christian Commitment argument. It seems to be undeniable that all all Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesus (as stated in premise 1). However, I would have to disagree with premise 2 which says that if all Christians are persons who ought to commit themselves totally to Jesu, then it is not the case that all Christians are persons who ought to be willing to revise all of their beliefs about Jesus. I would say that a totally committed person will remain committed, no matter what they find to be true about the person they commit themselves to. In this case, no matter what the Christian finds to be true about Jesus, they will continue to be faithful to Him. With this in mind, I would say that a Christian should be actively seeking out the truth about Jesus, while determined to remain committed to Him no matter what.
Emily Smith
mwf 9:00
Where both arguments become flawed is the use of the word "all". It is impossible and unfair to say that one will never revise their beliefs about Jesus. As humans we will never fully understand Him, and sometimes adopt false beliefs. Upon further study and gradual discovery of the truth, we find that some of the beliefs we hold need changing. However, the foundation of our faith like the birth, death, and resurrection of the Messiah should hold fast no matter what persuasion we face. If I needed to pick an argument, I would choose The Christian Commitment Argument. We cannot put all our beliefs up in the air. According to the Religious Inquiry Argument, you must put all your beliefs up to be revised. This is too dangerous, and we as Christians should not be easily persuaded. Our faith is strong enough to defend all other arguments, and we must stand firm in that.
-Erin
It is a wrong to say that one will never revise their beliefs about Jesus. As human beings it is impossible to fully understand Him. Because of this, it is easy to sometimes adopt false beliefs. It is important to stand firm in the faith and not abandon one's beliefs.
-Danielle
Post a Comment