
Darren> In an earlier article, I explained that what many people find
Darren> arrogant about Christians is that some Christians profess
Darren> absolute certainty about their beliefs and doctrines.

and

Darren> In short, the problem is that no matter how good your sources
Darren> are, if any part of your doctrines or beliefs rest on your own
Darren> thinking and reasoning, then those doctrines are suspect.

The point that Darren raises is a very Lutheran viewpoint.  
While reason is a gift from God, it is also infected by sin.
Yet we do not reject reason entirely--and neither, I think, 
does Darren.  We need reason, as Darren himself has pointed
out, to comprehend God's revelation of himself in the Bible.
But reason alone is not sufficient to comprehend and believe
the Word.  We need, first and foremost, faith.  For "the sinful
mind is hostile to God.  It does not submit to God's law,
*nor can it do so*"  (Romans 8:7).

Luther accepted Scripture as the sole means of revelation
("Sola Scriptura"), but accepted the necessity of the use
of reason (with faith) in comprehending that revelation.
Yet Luther also said, regarding baptism, "But mad reason
rushes forth, and, because Baptism is not dazzling like
the works which we do, regards it as worthless." (Large
Catechism, Fourth part, Baptism).  To make matters more
complicated, Luther was the sort of theologian that many 
people would describe as an `absolutist'.  I've seen him 
described as a `take no prisoners' theologian.

We might conclude, given these observations, that Luther
was inconsistent or mad.  And surely at least some have
come to that conclusion.  But it might be useful to
recall that Jesus was also called mad.  And Peter felt
compelled to defend himself and the apostles against
a charge of drunkenness on Pentecost.  So we as Christians
ought to be careful about rejecting Luther (or others) 
as mad.  Rather, we should imitate the Bereans, who
examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul
said was true (Acts 17:11).

The basis for the confidence with which Luther, Peter, Paul, and many
others preached the gospel was not just reason, but faith and the Holy
Spirit.  This is not faith divorced from reason, but a faith that
guides, informs, and uses reason.  The Spirit enables us to know the
truth and to proclaim it boldly.  God does not want us to preach the
message that "I think that Jesus might have risen from the dead" but
rather "I know that my redeemer lives!"  (Job 19:25).  The Christian
does not side with Pilate in saying "What is truth?" but rather
follows Christ, who said, "In fact, for this reason I was born, and
for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth.  Everyone on
the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37).

We can know the truth because God has promised us that we can
know the truth.  Jesus said, "If you hold to my teachings,
you are really my disciples.  Then you will know the truth,
and the truth will set you free" (John 8:31,32).  The Proverbs
urge us "Buy the truth, and do not sell it." (Pr 23:23).
The Psalmist prayed "Do not snatch to word of truth from my mouth"
(Ps 119:43).  Evidently he believed that the word of truth
was in fact `in his mouth'.  

Yet we do indeed appear arrogant if our claim to the truth
is motivated by self-glorification.  But if we present the
truth as the teachings of Scripture, revealed by the 
Spirit, and not our own invention, and if we stand ready
to be proved wrong on the basis of Scripture, as Luther
did, then we are not arrogant, but humble.  We should humbly
trust in God's promise of truth, just as we trust in his
promise of forgiveness.

REXLEX> It is only because of God's own revelation that we can be 
REXLEX> absolute about a thing.

Darren> But how far does that get you?  Once God's revelation stops,
Darren> and your own reasoning begins, possibility for error appears.

I agree that we must make a distinction between the clear teachings
of Scripture, and the products of our own reason--even when such
reasoning is based on Scripture.  However I think I would draw
the line of distinction more `reasonably'  :-)  and less `academically'
than you would.

Darren> For example, let's suppose that our modern Bible translations
Darren> include a perfect rendering of Jesus words at the Last Supper,
Darren> and that Jesus said, exactly, "This is my body."

Darren> We'll presume that what he said was totally without error and
Darren> absolutely true.  What can we be certain of?  Not much.

Darren> At the moment he stops speaking, and people start
Darren> interpreting, the possibility of error appears.  Did he mean
Darren> that literally or not?  We do not have any record that he
Darren> elaborated on the words.  Was he thinking of Tran- or Con-
Darren> substantiation?  He didn't say. 

Darren is almost at the point of making a very Lutheran statement
about the Lord's supper.  The Lutheran approach is to say
that if Jesus said, "This is my body," then that is what we
should believe.  Other interpretations are rejected simply because
they are not taught in Scripture.

Recall that Jesus' words do not stand alone on this subject.  We also
have Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34,--in which he passed on to
us, what he received from the Lord.  In particular he said, "For
whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the
Lord's death until he comes."  By these words we should believe that
the bread that we eat in the Lord's Supper really is bread (as well as
the Lord's body)--as our senses in fact tell us.  Does this *prove*
that tran-substantiation is false?  I suppose someone could say that
Paul spoke metaphorically of the Lord's body as bread, simply because
that is the way the body appears when we eat it.  But this thought is
found nowhere in Scripture.  So we reject it.  Thus the primary
reason for rejecting tran-substantiation is not that we can
prove it false, but that it is simply not found in Scripture.

[side remark]
I've been told that the Lutheran doctrine on real presence is
con-substantiation.  But it has been non-Lutherans who have told
me this.  We tend not to use the word.  I almost think that this
is used more by professors of comparative religion, who need labels
to compare Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed teachings on the Lord's
Supper.  But almost every church wants to call their own teaching
"real presence" because that was the traditional teaching of 
the church.
[end side remark]

Darren> When Christians speak as if they believe their own reasoning
Darren> can never lead them astray -- when we implicitly claim that we
Darren> are infallible -- the non- Christians around us rarely believe
Darren> that implicit claim.  Witnessing is hardly going to work when
Darren> the person you are talking to believes that you are either too
Darren> foolish to recognise your own limits, or intentionally trying
Darren> to cover them up.

This is precisely why Christians should not rely on rationalizations
in their witnessing.  It is far better to take the approach,
"I'd like to show you what Scripture says.  You decide for 
yourself whether to believe it or not."

Darren> `REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not
Darren> Silent_, by Francis Schaeffer.  I didn't think very highly of
Darren> it, but I think that Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many
Darren> Evangelical Christians.  Somebody else might like it, though,
Darren> so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it.

Darren> If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On
Darren> Certainty_, by Ludwig Wittgenstein.

As long as we're trading references, I'd like to suggest Dr. Siegbert
Becker's paperback, "The Foolishness of God: The place of reason
in Lutheran theology," published by Northwestern Publishing House.
This book was based on Becker's doctoral thesis at the University
of Chicago.