Blaise
Pascal (1623–1662). Thoughts.
Section
IV
OF THE MEANS OF BELIEF
242
PREFACE
to the second part.—To speak of those who have treated of this matter.
I admire the boldness with which these
persons undertake to speak of God. In addressing their argument to infidels,
their first chapter is to prove Divinity from the works of nature. I should not
be astonished at their enterprise, if they were addressing their argument to
the faithful; for it is certain that those who have the living faith in their
heart see at once that all existence is none other than the work of the God
whom they adore. But for those in whom this light is extinguished, and in whom
we purpose to rekindle it, persons destitute of faith and grace, who, seeking
with all their light whatever they see in nature that can bring them to this
knowledge, find only obscurity and darkness; to tell them that they have only
to look at the smallest things which surround them, and they will see God
openly, to give them, as a complete proof of this great and important matter,
the course of the moon and planets, and to claim to have concluded the proof
with such an argument, is to give them ground for believing that the proofs of
our religion are very weak. And I see by reason and experience that nothing is
more calculated to arouse their contempt.
It is not
after this manner that Scripture speaks, which has a better knowledge of the
things that are of God. It says, on the contrary, that God is a hidden God, and
that, since the corruption of nature, He has left men in a darkness from which
they can escape only through Jesus Christ, without whom all communion with God
is cut off. Nemo novit Patrem, nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius
revelare. [No one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
will reveal him Matthew 11:27]
This is what Scripture points out to us, when
it says in so many places that those who seek God find Him. It is not of that
light, “like the noonday sun,” that this is said. We do not say that those who
seek the noonday sun, or water in the sea, shall find them; and hence the
evidence of God must not be of this nature. So it tells us elsewhere: Vere tu
es Deus absconditus. [Truly you are a God who hides… Isaiah 45:15]
243
It is an
astounding fact that no canonical writer has ever made use of nature to prove
God. They all strive to make us believe in Him. David, Solomon, &c., have
never said, “There is no void, therefore there is a God.” They must have had
more knowledge than the most learned people who came after them, and who have
all made use of this argument. This is worthy of attention.
244
“Why! Do you not say yourself that the heavens
and birds prove God?” No. “And does your religion not say so?” No. For although
it is true in a sense for some souls to whom God gives this light, yet it is
false with respect to the majority of men.
Recently, I read an
article in The Federalist in which
the author stated that Pascal’s Wager was a proof of the existence of God. Pascal’s Wager is no such thing. In fact, as one can see above, Pascal took a
dim view of the “proof of God” project.
Not that numerous people haven’t tried.
Many philosophers have labored valiantly to prove the existence of a
Supreme Being by means of reason. Each
one, however, have been found to have essential flaws by other philosophers.
Roman Catholics are fond of St. Thomas’ Quinque viæ (five ways). But, as Richard Swinburne noted, St Thomas’ five arguments are only
strong when collected together, and that individually each of them is weak. In
other words, it is in the overlapping of the five the argument finds
success. The problem with such
arrangement is that, if one or several these arguments are shown as false, the
overall proof falls apart. And defeating
each of these arguments (often time with unseemly glee) has been pretty much
standard stuff in the philosophical conversation at least since the end of the
thirteenth century. Thomists have
insisted all the critics of Quinque viæ misunderstand Thomas—that the
comprehension of Thomas begins in the context of Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Thomas’ other writings. Nevertheless, for the most part, St. Thomas
and much of Aristotle himself have been left behind in the philosophical
conversation. One may think these developments are
unfortunate; but this is the state of the modern world.
In any event, I pretty much take Pascal’s reflections to heart. As a one time Philosophy major, it seemed to
me that the logical “proofs” of the existence of a Supreme Being hit a dead end
long ago. As Pascal himself notes,
nothing provokes the derision of agnostics and atheists as the faithful trying
to convince them that there is a God.
More importantly, such an attempt does nothing toward pronouncing the
Gospel.
All the
above merely sets the stage behind my reply to the article in which I tried the
correct the author’s assumption that Pascal’s Wager was a proof of God:
Mick Lee:
If
you actually read Pascal's Pensées, you would note in Section IV that Pascal
wrote that attempts to prove God are set to be impossible and doomed the fail.
Scripture teaches us that God is a hidden God. He is not discoverable by human
reason. Scripture never bothers to "prove the existence of God".
Instead, it is only in hearing the Proclamation of the Gospel that one may
ENCOUNTER the living God.
Very
soon, a person only identified as “Jim” attacked Pascal’s teaching; and not so
subtly me.
Jim:
Wrong.
According to Scripture, the existence of God is "proven" (to
"children of God") by His indwelling Holy Spirit and the "new
birth" of regeneration. And the existence of God is "proven" (to
"children of Satan") also... Clearly you need to consider 1 John and
Romans 1 before claiming that
Scripture "never bothers to prove the existence of God".... In fact,
Scripture insists the existence of God is "proven" to all men.
Mick Lee:
Scripture makes no attempt
to prove the existence of God. It speaks of God as a fact—not a proposition. It
speaks toward weightier matters.
The glory of God is made
manifest throughout His creation and is obvious to people of faith. But the
“natural man” lives in darkness and is deaf and blind to the things of God
because he is in bondage to sin. The natural man’s blindness is not an excuse.
Instead, it is his condemnation.
1 John actually makes my
point: that it is through the Proclamation of the Gospel that men may encounter
the Living God.
Romans
10:17 “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
Jim:
You
are constructing a straw-man. I never said that Scripture attempts to prove the
existence of God.
Instead, I said that Scripture declares that all men have the ability to know that God exists.
----
Mick... you prove NOTHING when you create
a straw-man.
-----
If you want to be taken seriously you will need to (a) address what was actually SAID instead of some straw-man that you want to disprove and (b) try to REFUTE what was actually said. I cited Romans 1 and 1 John as Biblical validation of what I SAID.... address the Scripture instead of simply express your "feelings" or your "opinion". Can you do that?
Instead, I said that Scripture declares that all men have the ability to know that God exists.
----
Mick... you prove NOTHING when you create
a straw-man.
-----
If you want to be taken seriously you will need to (a) address what was actually SAID instead of some straw-man that you want to disprove and (b) try to REFUTE what was actually said. I cited Romans 1 and 1 John as Biblical validation of what I SAID.... address the Scripture instead of simply express your "feelings" or your "opinion". Can you do that?
I
must admit that, even at this remove, I still don’t know what “straw-man” it
was that I supposedly constructed. It
is very clear to me that Romans says that sin distorts what is usually referred
to as “general revelation” into something(s) it is not. If one accepts the reality that sinful
nature is both inherited by an individual and actively committed by him at the
same time, this is not hard to understand.
Being that as it is, one has to remember that wide swathes of Christian persuasions
reject the entire notion of Original Sin.
So I was prepared to let it go at that.
But “Jim” would have none of it.
Mick
Lee:
Interpretation
of the texts depends on how seriously one takes the doctrine of Original
Sin--or rejection thereof.
Jim:
Wrong
again son... the (correct) "interpretation" of Scripture depends on
ONE THING... harmony of all related Scripture. If your
"interpretation" contradicts even ONE VERSE of Scripture - it is
proven incorrect. There is only ONE
measure of Biblical Truth and that is the harmony of all relevant Scriptures.
----
This is Christian Theology 101...
why is it "news" to you son?
----
This is Christian Theology 101...
why is it "news" to you son?
Mick
Lee:
"Scripture
Interprets Scripture" is a principle that goes back to a theological
tradition it appears you otherwise ignore.
Jim:
Son...
the phrase "harmony of Scripture" and the phrase "Scripture
interprets Scripture" mean the EXACT same thing...why is that
"news" to you son?
Jim
obviously missed the point I was making.
What I found confusing at this point was Jim’s display of contempt.
Mick
Lee:
I am puzzled by the
condescending tone in your responses. Usually, I get this tenor only from
atheists and (oddly enough) some Catholics. “Son”? Really? It is quite possible
I am old enough to be your grandfather. In any event, no one is old enough nor
wise enough to so belittle a fellow believer. It displays a lack of the respect
and gentleness 1Peter recommends.
“Scriptura
Sacra Sui Ipsius Interpres”, “Scripture Interprets Scripture”, or “harmony of
Scripture"” all roughly mean the same thing. In doing so, in the gathering
of Biblical passages, we should cast a wide net. Perhaps, in this particular
matter, we should also consider John 1: 17-18.
17 God gave the Law through
Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God.
The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made
him known.
Jim :
Son...
what make you think you are a "fellow believer"? What makes you think you are a
"wheat" instead of a "tare"?
----
Are you aware that the Bible PROMISES the Saints "shall understand" the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies? [Dan 12:8-10] I understand those "unsealed" mysteries son...do you? Can you NAME what Daniel's Four Kingdoms represented in history (I can)? And, before you pretend, be sure your "theory" harmonizes with Dan 7:11-12
----
You see son... your position is BASED on the notion that real Saints will NOT "understand" what the Bible insists they "shall understand".
----
Gee... I wonder whether the Bible is wrong...of if YOU are wrong. Which do you think it is son? Remember... if the Bible is not wrong, then YOU are not demonstrating the "understanding" that the Bible PROMISES from the Saints.-----BTW... since you are so clueless... let me show youwhat the Bible COMMANDS the real Saints to do during this current "Season and Time" on earth:
-----
Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and SLAY THEM before me.
----
Are you aware that the Bible PROMISES the Saints "shall understand" the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies? [Dan 12:8-10] I understand those "unsealed" mysteries son...do you? Can you NAME what Daniel's Four Kingdoms represented in history (I can)? And, before you pretend, be sure your "theory" harmonizes with Dan 7:11-12
----
You see son... your position is BASED on the notion that real Saints will NOT "understand" what the Bible insists they "shall understand".
----
Gee... I wonder whether the Bible is wrong...of if YOU are wrong. Which do you think it is son? Remember... if the Bible is not wrong, then YOU are not demonstrating the "understanding" that the Bible PROMISES from the Saints.-----BTW... since you are so clueless... let me show youwhat the Bible COMMANDS the real Saints to do during this current "Season and Time" on earth:
-----
Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and SLAY THEM before me.
I
have been told I was not a Christian several times in my life—once by a
Lutheran minister to boot. I found it
hopeless to try to “prove” I am a Christian to those who doubt it. They generally have already answered the question to
their own satisfaction already. So I
leave it as an open question.
How
Daniel comes into this was not immediately obvious. One thing apparent out of this was that Jim
was not too delicately saying that, if I were a true Christian, all Scripture
would be readily fathomable to me.
Since he was sure I would not be able to pass his Bible quiz, he was
certain I couldn’t be a Christian. Oh,
well. Can’t win ‘em all. This smacked a bit like some form of
Gnosticism; but I let that go.
Nevertheless, it was evident what Jim was talking about was not Luther’s
perspicuity
of Scripture.
The
part about “since you are so clueless... let me show you what the Bible
COMMANDS the real Saints to do during this current "Season and Time"
on earth”, at first (like the whole subject of Daniel) seemed to be beside the
point. Meaningless. “…bring hither, and SLAY THEM before me”
even less so.
I
returned to my objection to Jim’s
contempt.
Mick
Lee:
If, as you indicate, you
believe I am an unbeliever, then I commend the following Scripture for your
meditation:
Be wise in the way you act toward those who are not
believers, making good use of every opportunity you have. Your speech should
always be pleasant and interesting, and you should know how to give the right
answer to everyone. Colossians 4:5-6
It is at this point Jim
gives the game away.
Jim:
Son...
what part of Luke 19:27 did you NOT understand?
As I told you, we are currently living in the period the Bible calls the
"Season and Time". The verses you cited are past, just like verses
about animal sacrifices.
----
Son, you must understand the CONTEXT of a verse before you can even PRETEND to understand the meaning. The time for Colossians 4:5-6 is past and you were left-behind in the fulfillment of THIS event in Mat 25:1-2.
----
Mat 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. Mat 25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
----
Son, do not gloss over the words "Kingdom of Heaven". Those words are very important because it is talking about the time also described as (a) Daniel's FOURTH Beast and (b) the 7-Headed Revelations Beast and (c) the Reign of the person called the "Anti-Crist" and (d) the period known
as the "Great Tribulation" and (e) Satan's "Little Season".
----
Son.... there is SO MUCH about the Bible that you have no CLUE about... and yet you pretend that you actually know something. That is hilarious.
---
You see son... the Bible speaks of a time when the Saints go forth preaching the "Great Commission" ... Colossians is speaking about THAT time. However, the Bible also has much to say about the period AFTER that time and Luke 19:11-27 is about THAT period.
----
Son... you can hardly handle the "milk" of the Gospel so do not be surprised when you do not understand the "meat". You read the Bible and you see it declare that the Saints "shall understand" what you DO NOT understand...and yet you actually want to argue that YOU are correct. That is just pathetically sad... total denial and delusion.
----
No son... you can file Colossians 4:5 away with all of the verses commanding animal sacrifices and you can get a clue about the CONTEXT of passages before you pretend to understand something.
----
But thanks for the laugh son. Your profound darkness and delusion is AMUSING to me - does that HELP YOU to better understand the meaning of Luke 19:27 (it should).
----
Son, you must understand the CONTEXT of a verse before you can even PRETEND to understand the meaning. The time for Colossians 4:5-6 is past and you were left-behind in the fulfillment of THIS event in Mat 25:1-2.
----
Mat 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. Mat 25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
----
Son, do not gloss over the words "Kingdom of Heaven". Those words are very important because it is talking about the time also described as (a) Daniel's FOURTH Beast and (b) the 7-Headed Revelations Beast and (c) the Reign of the person called the "Anti-Crist" and (d) the period known
as the "Great Tribulation" and (e) Satan's "Little Season".
----
Son.... there is SO MUCH about the Bible that you have no CLUE about... and yet you pretend that you actually know something. That is hilarious.
---
You see son... the Bible speaks of a time when the Saints go forth preaching the "Great Commission" ... Colossians is speaking about THAT time. However, the Bible also has much to say about the period AFTER that time and Luke 19:11-27 is about THAT period.
----
Son... you can hardly handle the "milk" of the Gospel so do not be surprised when you do not understand the "meat". You read the Bible and you see it declare that the Saints "shall understand" what you DO NOT understand...and yet you actually want to argue that YOU are correct. That is just pathetically sad... total denial and delusion.
----
No son... you can file Colossians 4:5 away with all of the verses commanding animal sacrifices and you can get a clue about the CONTEXT of passages before you pretend to understand something.
----
But thanks for the laugh son. Your profound darkness and delusion is AMUSING to me - does that HELP YOU to better understand the meaning of Luke 19:27 (it should).
Jim
evidently subscribes to some form of dispensationalism. The time of preaching the Gospel is over and
a season of the saints rendering judgment over the rest of humanity is at
hand. I’ve heard something like this
explained several ways about as many time by a few Charismatics and
evangelicals in our church many years ago—except the “season of the saints” was
always a future event.
Classic
Lutheranism rejected dispensationalism long ago. Lutheran teaching concerning the end of days
is much simpler and essentially can be summed up in the Nicene Creed: “From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead”. No division of time between
Jesus’ ascension and return into separate ages. The apocalyptic visions related in Daniel
and Revelation are not to be read literally.
Life on earth continues with all its joys, pains, and sorrows until one
day Jesus abruptly returns. Lutheranism
is strictly amillennial.
How
Jim came to believe that the time for the Church to proclaim the Gospel is over
he does not explain. Spreading the
message of Christ teachings to all the nations of the world baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, according to Jim, is no longer the Church’s mission. This is appalling theology and its implications
are horrifying; but it accounts for Jim’s hostility toward anyone who does not believe as he does. Moreover, the overt
threat of violence toward unbelievers reinforces the worst stereotypes many
outside the Church have about Christians and Christianity itself.
In my experience, you cannot
talk someone out of their goofy notions about the end of days. At least I can’t. Usually, such a person is heavily invested in
these teachings in thought and emotion to the degree it is impossible to engage
them in reasonable, respectful dialog.
I ended our conversation
with a confession of faith and a warning:
Mick
Lee:
I trust in Christ and the
Cross. Jesus stands as my advocate before the Father. It is Him I place my
hope.
You
have forsaken the Great Commission. For this, you will have to answer on the
day of Christ's return. May God have
mercy for you.
