nd arguments. His fundamental argument that knowledge and practice begin with the existence of God seems to me to be quite in agreement with the sum of Biblical truth. From the existence of God stems a necessity of relationship, and a character God who is knowable, and in due process all knowledge. That this ontological starting point must be taken upon faith does not weaken Sire's explanation, as any opposed epistemological foundation assumes that knowledge, the thinker, or the topic of thought pre-exist. In the same vein, the language system or cognitive framework used in the rational thought process, “I think therefor I am” itself demands external true existence, despite the thought being internal.The centrality of ontology seems to me to be synonymous with a basic belief in absolute truth. If one's world view assumes that what is really real is unchanging, constant (present - future), and can be known at least relatively, one quickly falls into naturalism or theism. When a man commits to the understanding of this truth framework having always existed (eternal) and being unchangeable by verdict of society or one's own intentional decision, one has essentially accepted the existence of absolute truth. It only remains at this time to decide how that truth can be identified. I would offer, as does Sire, that the Bible is as close as one can get to discerning these absolutes. I argue with the one who says the Bible encompasses the entirety of truth, as it does not grant man with a complete understanding of God and existing things, but as God's specific revelation, scripture when accompanied by the wealth of natural revelation in agreement with the scriptures, does embody the whole of the vastness of knowledge that God has determined to reveal to man at this time. In this way it can be said that the Bible is truth. And this the character behind the Bible is the basis for truth. Indeed, it is God all the way down.
0 comments:
Post a Comment