Systematic Theology (part 2)

Systematic Theology as a Study of God, Doctrine, and Dogma

Well, good morning everyone if you're here a couple of weeks ago We started to take a look at our summer series, which is going to be on systematic theology. Steve wasn't done yet. There were a couple more weeks of looking at simply Trinity, but Mike is leaving this week, which means that it is time to start our summer series.

So we're gonna be looking at systematic theology primarily using Lewis Burkhoff's book, that's this one. I got a very apologetic message from Ben Roberts. I think he texted me even this morning that for the first time ever whoever it is that we order books from sent him the wrong books.

Not the best time for that, but I'm sure he's working on getting some more of these. Lewis Burkhoff's systematic theology. We also have the high schoolers with us. Whoo-hoo go high schoolers. Oh if you are a high schooler, and you don't have this book Come see me after class.

Yeah, I I think I made a comment last time about the the incredible cover design of Burkhoff but Knowing God's truth. It has two circles. It's much nicer. I guess I don't know. But is it even more I find Burkhoff to be readable.

I think that Nielsen's book is even more readable. But yeah, so this is for the high schoolers although if you are Daunted by Burkhoff it is acceptable for an adult to read this it would be okay. I will add a third Recommendation which is another introduction to systematic theology that I really like everyone's a theologian from R .C. Sproul you may have heard of him.

This is an excellent book. This is a little bit more. A little bit less interactive. There's a lot of like pause and pray pause and think about this question do this stuff whatever. There's actually a workbook that goes along with this.

So if you don't want to stop and start so much you just want to read Systematic theology everyone's a theologian by R .C. It's pretty good. I even quote him in our lesson today. All right, so we're running a little late, and I have a ridiculous amount of content.

I'm just gonna apologize. Now I will probably be skipping stuff. This will probably sound a little bit disjointed. I was texting with Corey Mostly yesterday, but a little bit through the week saying like man I don't know I got a lot to go and I'm already halfway through you know what I have allotted so I ended up Chopping off like literally half the lesson.

I just said goodbye, but we're still. Yeah, all right. Let's pray Heavenly Father. Thank you for this morning. We just thank you Lord that we can come together in this place to worship you father. We we know that worship is found in many forms through study and discussion father through singing which we know Lord but also Proclaiming the Word of God listening to the Word of God proclaimed we praise you for BBC this this light in in Massachusetts for pastor Mike for pastor Steve Lord and all of the ministries that go on even amends breakfast yesterday.

I just thank you father for all that we have here, and I pray that it would all glorify you your name. We pray Amen. All right. Okay, so our goal for the summer is to help you get comfortable. Looking at theology in a systematic way.

We all have Bibles. I hope and we all read our Bibles. I hope. But a Bible is not a systematic theology, and I can say that with confidence because pastor Mike said that last week, so I'm okay. So when we when we started a couple of weeks ago.

We're going to do a very quick review. We talked about what? Systematic theology was. What is systematic theology. Does anybody want to hazard. An attempt and by the way if you have your quiz from before I didn't do a quiz because I heard the copier wasn't working.

I hope that's been resolved, but I just didn't want to take a chance. So there is no handout this week, but if you have your quiz you might you might be able to cheat cheating's okay. In this context so what is systematic theology?

Good yeah, so it's it's a systematic look at a given doctrine or set of doctrines. And how the understanding of that doctrine has progressed over time how a doctrine has been understood through history.

Here's the official lexem. Dictionary definition lexem's not super whatever anyway. An approach to the Bible that seeks to draw biblical teachings and themes into a self-consistent coherent whole in Conversation with the history of Christian theological reflection and contemporary issues confronting the church.

This is distinct from yet related to the approach of biblical theology. Which focuses on the development of theological themes within individual books of the Bible across one or both? Testaments the practice of biblical theology is often more closely intertwined with the practice of biblical studies.

Whereas systematic theology is usually viewed as a discipline that goes beyond the scope of biblical studies into church history. Philosophy and pastoral application that's a. I didn't expect you from the school to say all of that so.

You were it was great you were great you were great. I I do not worry about you. And what we're gonna see today if we get to it is some looks over history some some ways in which Understandings have evolved well and and poorly.

All right, so we talked about Dogma. Anybody remember dogma. We talked about religious dogma. What is dogma now? Let's not see the same hands. What is dogma. Talk about doctrine a lot right. The word doctrine comes up in our jargon frequently?

But what is dogma and are they the same thing by the way. Sure yeah? So this is dogma is what it is if there's no black and white there's no gray air, and that's absolutely correct. So dogma would be we would call it a self-evident truth derived from Scripture.

We would look at it, and we would say okay. Well Jesus was crucified. That is a dogma. There's no conversation about whether or not that happened again in the context of Scripture, right? Burkoff defines three characteristics.

He says their subject matter is derived from Scripture. They are the fruit of the reflection of the church on the truth as it is revealed in the Bible. And they are officially adopted by some competent ecclesiastical body.

I like the word competent being included there. All right our dogma and doctrine the same thing. No they are not the same thing, okay? What's the difference between dogma and doctrine? Anyone remember this is cool.

That's fine. I said everybody can cheat everybody should have notes oh. That speaks right to my heart. As an engineer yeah dogma is something that we can look at it's undeniable right. Doctrine is a step back.

It is a gathering of dogmas to create a cohesive theological understanding. So from this we can best understand the building of our theology. When we look at dogma doctrine and dogmatics, right? Dogmatics is the Method by which we assess the dogmas we assess the clearly evident truths to create doctrine to build Doctrine so we have this idea that we have observable truths and We have a process by which we observe those truths and through this observation of truth.

We build what are essentially Theories which we can then test through additional analysis of the truth. What does that sound like? Somebody said this last week Science stand back. I'm about to try science.

It's the foundation of science. That's a scientific method here. We have theology the study of God. All right, so for those of you high schoolers that have the book and have actually read some of it the very beginning of The chapter on theology Nielsen says as you read this book You are going to be learning and doing theology learning and doing theology.

It's not a separate thing theology is something that we do we study God. Then we got into some weird Latin terms we talked about the Principium Ascendi the primary source of being which is God and from that the Principium Cognizant the externum the foundational source of knowledge.

Which is scripture right in the context of of the church? God provides scripture Revelation and everything else that we understand those dogmas those doctrines all that stuff. Derives from that we talked about a lot more stuff.

I'm Read that you can go watch the video or something from from two weeks ago three weeks ago, so our goal today is to cover some more of the introduction and I Pulled a bunch of bullet points out of this because as I was going along.

I realized that we had no chance so Today we're gonna talk about religion, and we're gonna talk a little bit more about the Principium Cognizant the externum. Which is what I just said it. What is that?

It's a massive Scrabble word. It's well it's three words in the Latin, and I don't think you're allowed to use Latin and Scrabble, but maybe in special Scripture. Yes, yes, so we're talking about scripture.

It is the the primary way by which we can understand the truths of God. I Would also say by the way if and when we do get more copies of the book I know Ben's working on it, then I already I already told everybody that you sent me a message this morning.

It's not your fault this time. I'm just kidding. I love Ben. I love Ben in his ministry so much, so we're working on getting those. We'll get that figured out, but it is a 200 page introduction. It's worth it.

It's it's pretty pretty heavy, but I'm not gonna get anywhere near through all of it all right. So high schoolers read chapter 2 this week to catch up, and then I don't know Cory. Do you know what you're teaching on next week?

The what's that the doctrine of God so open up your book look at the chapters. Figure it out. You're high schoolers. You're almost adults all right. So let's talk about religion. Shall we figure we're here.

Religion as Relationship, Worship, and Obedience

So there's many thoughts about where this word religion comes from. But most scholars believe that it logically proceeds from Cicero who lived 50 to 100 years before Christ. In his use it comes from the word relegare.

Which I'm confident that I've mispronounced which means to reread to repeat and to carefully observe to reread to repeat and to carefully Observe and if you think about it. The word religious in a secular context means what what can somebody use the word religious in a sentence that does not refer to the church.

Anyone I haven't. I have a modest example here. Hey. Yeah, that does not involve the church. We think about the way that it can be used. At the gym or going to the store or going fishing right or one of these things and what does that mean it means that?

They're consistent. They do it over and over again. All right, it's regular with repetition right and so certainly when we look at this definition It it tracks right we kind of understand that and again.

This is that look in history of where these words come from but there's no doubt That the roots of religion are not in the secular, but in the sacred. This is what Burkhoff says. He says there is a very close relation between religion and Theology this is evident from the very fact that many regard theology as the science of religion.

While this is certainly a mistake. The fact remains that the two are inseparably connected. There is no such thing as theology apart from religion. Religion consists in a real living and conscious relationship between a man and his God.

Determined by the self revelation of God and expressing itself in a life of worship. Fellowship and service. One furrowed brow means I can continue all right religion and theology are tied together at the hip.

So we'll start looking at this this idea of religion by looking at more Latin the term religio objectiva. Now anybody want to guess what that means? The Imagine that right? I wouldn't have asked the question if I didn't think it was relatively self-evident that which determines the nature of man's religion the object of Man's religion, which is what the revelation of God?

Right. That's how we know him. We talked a lot about language of accommodation and that's exactly what scripture is. This is the method by which we know who God is, right? This idea is consistent when we look at scripture and we look at words that that would Convey the same idea in the Old Testament.

We see things like law or precepts or commandments. In the New Testament, we would see this idea manifests with the gospel. Right, so we have religio objectiva and then we have religio subjectiva. Which is our response?

To that right? So the objectiva the object, right? It's something that is external from us. It is something that does not change our response to it. Right, what do you think would be words maybe in scripture that would kind of describe this a response to the law commandments gospel.

Praise worship obedience reverence towards God godliness faith all of these things. All right now now we get to look back. We get to look at at how this this understanding of religion is spelled out because if we start at scripture, by the way.

Does anybody can anybody think of an example of religion the word religion being used in scripture in the English at least? James 1 26 if anyone thinks he is Religious and does not bridle his tongue, but deceives his heart this person's religion is worthless.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained from the world so. It's weird because in here the working out of religion is not worship praise it is service through obedience.

Because of who we are by extension in Christ. Right. Interestingly the same word here. It's it's threes. Kaya is the word that we have in James is in Colossians 2 talking about worship. The same word is translated not religion, but or religious but worship.

And in that case, it's talking about the worship of angels. It's so it's very clearly an action word Right that it's not necessarily coupled with righteous action. It's just an action word. It's a verb.

So scripturally we see the word religion Being used to describe a practiced working out of reverence likely with repetition involved lactantius in The post scripture early church described religion as quote the right manner of knowing and serving the true God.

Again, that's action. Right, that's not a kind of a like. Oh, well, I hate religion because they do blah blah Right, like that's what we hear. All right, I'm spiritual, but I hate religion. You're right, you know.

This idea is not it's not an institution, right? It is an it is an action is an active thing. He doesn't really define at least in in this brief passage that burkhoff is talking about what the right manner is but at this time the Religion is still closely tied to scripture.

It's still tied to the religio objectiva and. So we can take from this saying okay. Where do you understand the right manner of knowing and serving the true God you understand that from? Scripture then we talk about the Middle Ages.

The Middle Ages the Church of Rome and this is where the balance shifted and and it becomes a much more of an external idea. Right the this idea of religion as this external thing and I'll get into some of this.

Don't worry. This is where we see the Church of Rome doing a lot of what the Pharisees essentially did, right? That's what the Pharisees did. They they would stand there and say thank you God. I I'm not like, you know, this tax collector.

They would have these external showings that are ostensibly derived from some sort of Old Testament scriptural basis. But really it's about the external. It's about that action and and that's what this term religion began to evolve to refer to.

Scripture is still said to be the basis for all the actions of the church and all the all the church tradition. But gotta remember what's going on in the Middle Ages. What are the common people doing in the Middle Ages when they go to church?

What are they hearing? They're hearing Latin. Do they know Latin? No. Probably not. I mean, maybe some of them heard like a word All right. It's like when I come up and I'm like, oh just Greek word blah blah blah means blah blah blah.

I can't speak Greek like let's be clear no matter what if I suggest something. It's probably because I was studying it for a while. I can't speak Greek. They can't speak Latin. Can they read? No, they can't read so it's not like they're studying scriptures.

They can't they can't do that. They couldn't believe they couldn't base their religio subjectiva on scripture because they couldn't read it everything that they had their. Their truth about God was a study diet of what the Roman Catholic Church would teach them.

Certain church scholars at the time and like Aquinas would hearken back to to scriptural truth when discussing religion but the pre-reformational church was a church of tradition. One man famously said that religion is Not a matter of feeling it is a matter of the will and of action and consists in following out the principles.

That God has laid down. Which of course the common people would only get through the Catholic Church. And they had no ability to discern between what was scripture and what was. So here we see religion being further defined as this kind of personal external outworking of theology and doctrine.

Unsurprisingly reformation comes along right and and we see a call to reclaim the inner conviction of scripture. And our relationship with God through the external working out of religion. This is Calvin such is pure and genuine religion sounds almost like James, right?

Namely confidence in God coupled with serious fear. Fear which both includes in it willing reverence and brings along with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed by the law. And it ought to be more carefully considered that all men promiscuously do homage to God.

But very few reverence him talking about what's going on at that time. Right they do homage to him, but they don't revere him. On all hands there is an abundance very Calvin on all hands. There's an abundance of ostentatious ceremonies.

But sincerity of heart is rare. All right, so religion has become this thing where there's this external outworking going through the motions and There's no internal Conviction. I mean if that's not a condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church I don't.

I don't really know what is but we look at this and we we see it today, right? The religio objectiva remains scripture but Calvin repoints the subjectiva the religio subjectiva to refer to the Dispositions of the heart as it falls to sin and is restored by the spirit.

It's not really a surprise that the Reformers See sought to redefine our obligation in religion to address the whole state of man from sinfulness through salvation but the Church of Rome clearly. They just expected a response to what they declared to be the truth, right?

Oh, you've confessed say 17 Hail Marys, and I don't know what all those things are. I don't. I don't know what the Ave Maria is. I don't know. I don't know what you're supposed to say. I never went to confession so I but right so but there's this very very Transactional idea to the Catholic Church and has nothing to do with your inner heart disposition and everything to do with just Thing you know put this key in that shape lock and whatever.

I don't know. Finally Burkhoff moves on to the modern conception of religion, which is honestly, I think the biggest mess. We come to rationalism 17th century. This is Descartes Leibniz can't different can't than the can't we have here.

Don't worry. This is the epistemological view to that five times fast that regards listen Reason as the chief source and test of knowledge. Reason as The chief source and test of knowledge never a theological or even really religious concept.

But it's cultural influence changed the church. Religion stopped viewing the religio objectiva as purely God's revelation. Remember all until now religio objectiva. That's that's God's revelation. That's scripture.

We just like we kind of assumed that now. This is changing at least in in this context now instead of it being scripture. It is God virtue and immortality. Canton Schleiermacher began to redefine what modern theology and religion represented for reference Schleiermacher is Referred to as the father of modern liberal theology.

I'm not going to dig into all of these. I will give you the just the prefix note here all of these definitions Of religion are bad, so just Arnold morality touched with emotion. Rhinoc a sum of scruples which impede the free exercise of our faculties.

I Hear that now right ah I don't want to go to church. It's a bunch of rules right. That's what that is hofting faith in the conservation of values. That's a very subjective idea of what this of what?

The religio objectiva and even religion is and then James not Bible. James different James the belief that there is an unseen order and That our supreme good lies harmoniously lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.

So when we talk about sanctification, what is sanctification come on? This is an easy one. This is a softball question. What is sanctification? Becoming more like Christ. Thank you. Thankfully Bev Kranz is here becoming more like Christ.

Whereas this says we need to harmoniously adjust ourselves thereto this unseen order. Right, that's the same kind of an idea, but it's very misdirected. None of these definitions talk about God. None of them talk about objective truth.

None of them talk about Scripture. And there's more again read the book when you can get it. We move on we move on from religion into Revelation. I'm skipping some stuff. So if something doesn't make sense, please come talk to me after.

General Revelation, Special Revelation, and the Limits of Rationalism

At the beginning of the chapter in Revelation Burkhoff talks about the fact that every religion in the world has some sort of defined Revelation whether it is Christianity with the Bible or even Buddhism.

Because they basically revere Buddha and anything that Buddha says is it's pretty much Revelation. All right. At the bottom of The quiz from a couple of weeks ago. I can email the quiz out by the way.

I still have it there was a grid that we put we put out there and we talked about the Principium Cognizante externum of the theology and the non theological sciences all right, so if we remember the Principium Cognizante externum is the the.

So basically the source of truth the method by which we discern things, right. And. What did we say? Does anybody have their sheet in front of them? I asked that question because I know the answer is yes was the can I can I say just whatever?

Principium Cognizante externum of the non theological sciences the world nature, right. The observable world and then of theology the PCE as I will call it from now on until the end of this lesson. Is scripture which we've already kind of talked about.

All right. So I want to focus our conversation because if we just talk about Revelation in general. We'll be here all day and we don't have time for that. So we're gonna talk about the context of Christian theology.

Okay, so I don't want you to get distracted. This is a scope conversation. The variable is Christian theology. That's where we're gonna stay. But again read the book, please. The idea of divine revelation for us assumes a few things by the way, if anybody has any questions just raise your hand.

I will stop I promise. The idea of divine revelation assumes a few things. Number one. If there is divine revelation, that means that there is a personal God who actively communicates knowledge. Right that makes sense.

Number two, there are truths facts and events which would not be known without divine or special revelation. Number three, there are rational beings to whom the revelation is made who are capable of appropriating it.

Yeah, I've been on I've been on Facebook right. So that's those are some kind of presuppositions as we look at divine revelation. Someone's got to give it. Someone's got to give it in a way that that makes sense.

There are things we wouldn't know without it and Someone's got to understand it. Right pretty simple so up until the popularization of rationalism which threw everything out the window there were generally two distinct forms of revelation and We still actually use this definition even today.

We talk about the revelation of God in nature and. Then we talk about special revelation. All right, common special. There's a couple different words that we use and and up until the 17th century. Really the only disagreement that you would have would be where you would draw that line like what constitutes things that that you would learn from nature and and what are things that you absolutely need special revelation for and and.

Obviously, there are certain things like clearly the gospel require is a special revelation situation, right? But like what about some of the things in between like well, we can clearly see from nature that God Superintends everything there's order in the world.

So does that can we presume from that that God knows everything about us because he clearly is is Maintaining all of creation like those are the kinds of things where like you could say well No. You don't know that he knows everything about you because you've got free will and then on the other side you might say well God knows everything about you because God is sovereign so that line was basically the primary part of the debate with regards to common versus special revelation pre-rationalism but These rationalists are so incredibly hubristic and arrogant.

Listen, listen to this quote. The idea was that the light of nature is quite sufficient for man. This is the the premise of rationalism and that the Christian revelation really adds nothing to it. But is merely a republication of the truths of nature for the benefit of those.

Listen for the benefit of those who cannot discover or reason things out for themselves. I didn't say it. I'm reading the quote spent the idea that Christian revelation is A republication of the truths of nature for the benefit of those who cannot discover or reason things out for themselves.

What does this idea suggest about Christians? Where. What does this sound like to you? It sounds like 1st Corinthians 1 to me. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling brothers. Not many of you were wise according to worldly standards. Not many were powerful. Not many were of noble birth, but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise.

God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. So I use the word rationalism, this is the Enlightenment. Right. That's this period of time I mentioned some of these guys cantor Schleiermacher and their influences on Revelation.

Just like their influences on religion. They follow Descartes. They follow rationalism. They blended the ideas of natural and special revelations suggesting that they were both equally valid ways to understand God.

Is that true? Yes. No, is that true? No account trying to ask some easy questions to make sure that people are engaged Steve the Dark Ages, right? Yeah, so Steve just said This idea of the Enlightenment is really a kind of a repositioning of world Perspectives with man at the center not God at the center, right?

Listen to this quote both of these men Cantor Schleiermacher are quote convinced that the only argument capable of reaching deity is one that starts not from external but from human. From nature and they believe too that it is in human nature and not in its abeyance in trance or dream or frenzy that God characteristically reveals himself.

God reveals himself through human nature. I hope not is a great answer. Well, I'll skip my next paragraph. I Need to did not read my notes, but you're a hundred percent, right? This is what the Greeks did right you think about Greek gods.

Greek gods were Magnified humans in every way in good and bad. They were the strongest. They were the fastest. Anybody read any Greek other than Asher. Asher's not here Greek like God creation myth. That's a weird stuff.

Really weird Steve. I mean, it's fun, right? Like we read about Superman too, you know, but it's weird it's very very odd and and just like a nature said it's a repackaging of all of this this stuff that we've seen before which brings us to The the some modern Modern views on revelation again.

I'm skipping stuff. So something doesn't make sense. Please come talk to me afterwards. Okay. Deism the deistic concept of revelation, which is essentially the evolution of what we just talked about. What does a deist believe right God created the world?

He's kind of like kicked the ball off the hill and walked away right is no longer involved. He created everything. Okay, sure fine. You want creation fine, but he doesn't get involved. All right, so the logical conclusion of the deist position is that you can observe the world and understand all of revelation.

Because if he's not around to give you special revelation, then the only revelation that exists is what he created at the beginning. Right thumbs up thumbs down. Thumbs up thumbs up you like that idea.

You think that that's good that God did not give special revelation. Oh. Okay, good. Oh, all right. Oh, I was a little nervous about this. This is the guy who's teaching the high school kids. Okay, it makes sense, but this is a bad thing don't thumbs down deism bad.

He just doesn't care he's just like he's gonna watch it and there's also like I Mean, maybe there's this idea of open theism that goes along with deism to where it's like God just watching. This is like the Michael Jackson gif with the popcorn, right?

He's just like, oh cool. Look at these guys. This is amazing, right? He's not involved. So I mean if he came back it wouldn't be because of anything we did, you know, I. Yeah, so I mean Sure. Well, I mean there's a there's a good thing to that.

Which is that at least there's some kind of comprehension of the otherness of God, right? Like that he's fundamentally unlike us, but We want a God that is closer than our brother, don't we? I mean, that's a that's a scary thing but but I also think that and I don't I certainly don't mean to speak ill of your dad, but.

Okay, well, you know a Lot of that is pride. It's like how. How could we possibly allow God to have influence on our own lives? There are lives do what I want, right? Is that kind of an idea? Okay, so we have deism any other time is anything okay, then we have idealism.

You know what idealism means? The beliefs of the idealists. Uh, I think we most prominently see this in Christian scientists who are famously neither Christian or scientists. Unlike deism which suggests that we could discern from natural revelation everything we need to know about God.

Theological idealism stresses the imminence of God in all things which is different from this idea that God just kicks things off and but it's. It's it's far beyond What it what it ought to be it kind of sounds good, right?

But it almost is this like pantheism kind of an idea where God is in everything. It rejects special revelation like deism for the same reason because if God is in everything Then surely you can discern what you need to know from God because he's in everything.

All right so There's clearly issues there because there is a rejection of special revelation. There's a rejection of Scripture. That's a problem. And there's more there's the Barthian theology and crisis and some other stuff that I'm just gonna skip.

All right. Yes, ma 'am. Yeah, I mean what Christine said is absolutely true. It is important to understand some of these things because it helps us in our own Discernment when we look at Scripture when we talk to two family because let's face it family that are like wow I'm spiritual.

I'm gonna church. I kind of think that God's in everything, right? I guarantee you that person's not studying idealist scholars. They think they've drummed this up on their own, right? So there are no well-formed beliefs that are influencing these kinds of perspectives.

Yeah, or maybe or maybe something in school sure sure sure. Right. That's a surefire way to discern the truth, right? It's to figure out, you know. Well, I have that clocks wrong. I Have like five minutes left and nine more pages, so let's see what we can do.

All right. My watch and my iPad both played 944 and that says 933 so yeah. Okay. As we try to wrap up this segment we're talking about the revelation of God there's more stuff. We're just gonna skip the rest of this.

How Christians Know Revelation: Historical Method vs. Theological Method

Now we can take a look at something called the proper conception of the nature of revelation. What is the proper conception of the nature of revelation this is. What the Council of Nicaea wrestled with this is?

How do you know what? You know, how do you it goes beyond epistemology? But how do you know what is divine revelation because remember we're looking at this in the context of Christian revelation. How do you know how do you understand?

What is the the closed canon like the white smoke didn't self-generate they had to burn the right thing to make them the white smoke. So how did they figure out? When they were or were not to burn the whites did to burn the stuff for the white smoke.

Like how do we figure this stuff out? If Anybody has done a study in apologetics, which I'm sure some of you have. You know that you have to start an argument or a position with some fundamental presuppositions.

You have to it's the only way this works that makes this idea that we're trying to independently verify the validity of supernatural revelation without anything supernatural. Very difficult, it's hard to do.

So there's two methods for this. There's the historical method and there's the theological method. The historical method would suggest that one should set themselves outside of any religion. Put aside any presuppositions they have observe the claims of each of these bases of faith bases of religion and Determine discern from them their accuracy in a historical context.

Some would say that this is the only way that you could possibly truly determine what revelation is. But there are problems with that. Can anybody think of any problems with trying to do this? There's lots of them actually.

Sure, it's we can't we can't actually completely disassociate ourselves. I say this all the time. We are a product of our experience. That is who we are. There is we are not objective like human beings are not and will never be objective.

It's not possible for us to be truly objective and the idea that we would even try to do this goes back to that Hubris that I talked about before like we don't have the capacity for this. We can only understand things with our through our own through the lens of our own experience.

Like how do I know that my red is the same as your red? I have no idea and there's really no way to prove it either right? We just don't know and that's a very simple example, Janet. Right as you study these what is the measuring stick you need to have a measuring stick.