Must Beliefs Be Verified To Be Meaningful?

Verificationism is the belief that any meaningful statement must be empirically falsifiable or verifiable.  

     Antony Flew (b. 1923) offered his contribution to the falsification debate by arguing that religious statements must be empirically falsifiable in order to be cognitively meaningful.  He illustrated this view with a story of two explorers who found a beautiful flower garden in the middle of a clearing in a jungle.  One explorer believed that the tended garden was a clear indication that there must be a gardner tending to it, but the other explorer disagreed and stated that there was no gardner.  They began to empirically observe the garden and never found any evidence (other than the existence of the garden and its beauty) of the gardner’s existence.  The two explorers never saw him nor heard him in spite of various tests that were implemented to do so.  Flew’s conclusion was that since the gardner’s existence was not empirically verified then any claim of his existence must be considered cognitively meaningless and totally void of conceptual content.  My first response to Flew’s argument would kindly be to ask, “by what authority do you become the one to determine what is cognitively meaningful?”  Why should Flew get to be the one who regulates for everyone else what concepts provide meaning.  The response might be that he is merely applying a universal standard of meaning according to what is falsifiable.  To which one should respond by asking, “by what standard do you verify the falsifiability of your proposition?”  The falsificationist is offering a rule by which meaningful statements are to be measured which is itself not a falsifiable idea.  Flew concluded his article with this question, “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?”  But the question should also be considered by the one asking in this manner, “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of your proposition that meaningful statements must be empirically falsifiable?”  There is no way to empirically falsify such a statement and is therefore by its own definition a meaningless statement.  The argument which requires falsification in order to determine meaning is therefore a self-refuting argument.  

The self-refuting nature of falsificationism is interesting enough but that’s not really my point.  I wish to point out that each of the explorers in the story were making decisions of faith.  The believer chose to believe that the best conclusion of the data presented was to affirm the presence of the gardner or better yet, maybe he just believed in the existence of the gardner and therefore interpreted the maintenance of the garden as further proof of the gardner’s existence.  He believed it to be so.  The unbeliever also chose to believe that there was no gardner.  He believed that the lack of verification during his empirical observations indicated that there was no gardner, or possibly he believed already that there was no gardner and found no reason to adjust his belief based upon a lack of verifiable evidence (in spite of the curiously obvious planting and maintenance of the garden).  He believed it to be so.  Both made decisions based on faith.  The role of faith in the metaphysical presupposition underlying falsificationism is that one’s ability to falsify is reliable.  It is an assertion of faith to presume that one’s ability to process data empirically is a dependable exercise.  My intent is not necessarily to criticize processing data empirically, but merely to point out that it ultimately involves assertions of faith.

Another example of falsification has been offered by A.J. Ayer who wrote, “A sentence is factually significant to any given person, if and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express.”  The key phrase is “knows how to verify” which indicates the meaningfulness of a proposition depends upon the ability of the given person’s ability to verify such a statement.  The subjectivity of such a statement reveals its inconsistency.  A small child knows not how to verify the provision of her mother but she certainly finds tremendous meaning in that provision.  The reply may be that this is too simplistic and childlike of an objection, but that would miss Ayer’s point.  Ayer’s point is exactly that the significance of a statement depends upon the person knowing how to verify its propositional expression.  The inconsistency may not matter to Ayer considering his other views that “psychological states are irreducibly mental and the self is just a bundle at a time and a series through time of discrete, otherwise ownerless mental states (feelings of pain, thoughts of lunch, desires for love).”

  These “ownerless mental states” involving such significant events as the feeling of pain and the desire for love may not have created trouble for Ayer but for most of the rest of us these are meaningful and not “ownerless” states.  Again this expression of falsification is self-refuting but in another fashion.  If the significance of a statement is found only in the ability of a person to verify the statement then what happens when two or more people offer contradictory statements that they each consider to be meaningfully verified.  Who determines which person gets to be the referee of such a contest?  Why should Ayer’s statement that it is meaningless to say that God does or does not exist be any more or less significant than my statement that God does exist?  His quest for falsification cannot be falsified and is therefore an expression of faith developed from certain metaphysical presuppositions.  It is an expression of faith in man’s ability to build rational arguments upon empirically observed data but also an expression of faith in man’s ability to falsify statements according to what is not even falsifiable.

The Advantage of a Local Baptist Association - Doing More Together

In many ways local Baptist associations are struggling and even denominational life as it was known in previous generations is passing.  Some predict that we live in a “post-denominational” age and others don’t seem to care much about even having the conversation.  I personally still believe that we can do more together than we can individually.  I believe in the power of cooperative efforts internationally, nationally, throughout the state, and most personally through local associations of likeminded churches.  I offer these four primary benefits regarding the usefulness of a local Baptist association with the hope of seeing this most important cooperative relationship restored and enjoyed.

A local Baptist association should be...

RELATIONAL -  We need each other.  There is strength in numbers.  The sheep who tries to run alone will be eaten by the wolves.  These are truisms we preachers preach to our congregations but too often do not live ourselves.  Jesus called His disciples to follow Him and He taught them to love one another as a group.  They were not just known individually but also as “The Apostles”.  Paul was supported by Barnabas, worked with Silas, traveled with Luke, depended upon Timothy.  He dared not think that he could do ministry without accountability and support.  The relationships that need to be built for lasting power in ministry most naturally occur locally.  Paul was glad about the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus because “they refreshed my spirit and yours.” (1 Cor. 16:17)  I know we have social media, phones, Skype and other modes of communication but there will always be something especially refreshing about sitting face to face with brothers to pray and encourage.  They need you and you need them.  We all need each other.

CONFESSIONAL -  Amos 3:3 says, “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?”  The answer is obvious and its implication clear.  We need likemindedness to be most effective.  It should be clear to all that confessional agreement does not mandate rigid conformity on every minute doctrinal matter but provides parameters which define who we are as Christians and distinctively as Baptists.  There is the “no-creed-but-the-bible-crowd” who decries confessional accountability but they still offer explanations for what they believe, which is some sort of confession.  Confessions of Christian belief are found in the New Testament, the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, and on down through the ages.  The early Anabaptists unanimously endorsed the Schleithem Confession (1527).  English Baptists made their contribution to confessional testimony (17th-18th centuries) and then in America our early Philadelphian brethren, the New Hampshire Confession (1833) and our own Southern Baptist statements (1925, 1963, 2000).  It is only reasonable to expect confessional agreement in our cooperative relationships.  It seems strange to me that anyone would expect this confessional agreement for extended ministry relationships but be willing to ignore it on the most intimate level of local association.  B.H. Carroll once said, “The modern cry: "Less creed and more liberty," is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy.  Definitive truth does not create heresy it only exposes and corrects.  Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly.” 

RESOURCEFUL -  As churches work together to reach their communities for Christ they should be able to network together and share resources with one another.  1 Cor. 16:1 mentions “the collection of the saints” that was collected for Paul’s journey to Jerusalem and the missionary efforts in which they shared.  They also seem to prayerfully share with him in the “great and effective door” which has opened and has “many adversaries”.  It may be something as simple as sharing some tables and chairs with a sister church for an outreach event or sending evangelism teams to help saturate a community or joining together in prayer, but we have more resources together than we do individually.  In the day of mega and super sized churches (which do a great work) larger churches may not need to depend on others for ministry capital but they certainly have much to offer smaller churches.  Smaller to medium size churches can harmoniously unite their gospel shining brightness for a more intense illumination.  This opportunity to share with others in their efforts to lead people to Jesus most naturally takes place through local relationships and can effectively be coordinated by an association.  

MISSIONAL - The Great Commission was not given to an individual or even a group individually.  Jesus commissioned a group of disciples collectively to “go and make disciples”.  They understood the urgency of their hour and once the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost they wasted no time in taking the gospel of Jesus to the ends of the earth.  We also are motivated by a great evangelistic emphasis.  We want people to know Jesus, it drives much of what we do.  But the disciples realized an interdependence among the churches that is mysteriously scant today.  New churches were birthed out of missionary efforts that were supported by other churches and when there was conflict they depended upon each other for help.  Local church autonomy was preserved but independent operation was not even a thought.  They shared in sufferings and rejoiced in victories.  1 Cor. 16 describes Paul coordinating efforts of multiple churches and the strategic maneuvering of Timothy, Apollos, Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus, Aquila, and Priscilla for maximum gospel effectiveness.  The DFW metroplex welcomed over 375,000 new residents in 2013.  There are now over 300 languages spoken in our local area and the most ethnically diverse zip code in America is in west Irving.  We need each other to start new churches and reach those who are lost.  I recently read that David Uth said the only thing worse than being lost is to be lost and have nobody looking for you.  Brothers, let us not be guilty of such tragedy.  “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you (2nd person plural) you all.” (John 20:21)

Of Course Heaven is for Real: A Biblical Response to Extra-Biblical Claims

Of course Heaven is for real.  The Bible says so.  In the recently released and wildly popular book “Heaven is for Real” by Todd Burpo the author gives his eyewitness account of what he presents to be his son’s eyewitness account of Heaven.  After a near death experience due to a severe case of appendicitis little 3 year old Colton Burpo claims to have gone to Heaven and returned.  The book seeks to affirm the reality of Heaven based on the eyewitness testimony of what the elder Burpo experienced as his son began reporting visions of Heaven to him after his son’s death-type experience.

I have a few concerns about the book and its influence upon Christians.  These are not angry postulations, but concerns.  Disagreement does not need to equal defensiveness nor anger.  Please realize that the propositions set forth in the book have serious and eternal theological implications and therefore deserve a thorough and lucid examination.

Of course Heaven is real.  Unfortunately this book never tells the reader how to get there.  There are three times that Pastor Burpo offers a few hints about how one might receive Heaven in the next life.  On pg. 57 Colton expresses concern for a man that has died by stating that he could not go to Heaven unless he had “Jesus in his heart.”  Of course the Bible never uses this language specifically to describe salvation and the eternal life that accompanies.  Romans 8:9 does say that anyone who belongs to Christ has the “Spirit of Christ” but the way to Heaven certainly needs more explanation.  As Todd describes Colton’s visit with “Pop” in the afterlife he admits that his grandfather was “a guy who went to church only once in a while” and that even his mother had persistent doubts about Pop’s salvation.  He does share a story on pg. 90 about a preaching event in which “Uncle Hubert” asked if “anyone wanted to give his life to Christ” and Uncle Hubert “saw Pop raise his hand.”  Let me be clear, I hope to see Todd’s Pop when I get to Heaven, but even here this does not tell someone how to arrive at the heavenly place.  My hopes were high on pg. 111 when Todd reports a discussion he had with Colton about the meaning of Good Friday.  The father asked, “Colton, do you know why Jesus died on the cross?”  Colton responded, “Well, Jesus told me he died on the cross so we could go see his Dad.”  This is a tender way in childlike terms of describing some sort of fellowship with God but still there is not direction to the reader on how this may become a reality in one’s life.  The Bible states the importance of repentance from sin (Psalm 51:8-13; Jer. 3:22; Ezek. 33:5; Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 9:13; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; 2 Tim. 2:25) and trusting in Christ as Savior (John 1:12; 3:15-16; 3:36; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25-26; 14:6; 20:28-31; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 13:38-39; 16:31; Rom. 5:1-2; 10:9-10; Gal. 3:26; Eph. 2:8-9) in order to be saved from sin and be reconciled to God.  All of this is missing from Burpo’s book about Heaven, but God’s book is explicitly clear.  Although this book had a great opportunity to share the gospel with a large audience and explain to people how they may receive the work of God’s grace through faith in Christ it simply does not do so.  Todd’s testimony about Colton’s experience is preeminent in the book rather than Christ and the Heaven He provides for all who repent and believe in Him.

No More Contradictions and Additions Please.  God is particularly clear about the importance of not subtracting from nor adding to His revealed word.  Deuteronomy 4:2 says, “you shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it.”  Proverbs 30:6 states, “do not add to His words” and Revelation 22:18 offers this warning, “If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.”  God commands at the beginning, middle, and end of His Word, “do not add to it.”  Christians have historically understood that the Bible is God’s Word and that we are not intended to add to this special revelation.  When someone claims to have gone to Heaven or received some type of direct vision from God they are actually claiming to have direct revelation from God Himself.  The problem is that now the report of the revelation they claim to have experienced is an authoritative claim, placing their credibility on the same level as the Bible.  Moreover, so many of these revelatory claims are contradictory not only with the Bible but also with each other.  My concern here is not to compare Burpo’s testimony with others who claim similar experiences (a multitudinous and profitable literary genre) but to address the multiple extra-biblical claims in his book.

Here is a list of the multiple experiential claims which offer revelation that is way beyond the Bible.  On pg. 63 Colton says that Jesus rides a “rainbow horse” and that the boy “got to pet him.”  A culturally popular and non-biblical idea is mentioned on pgs. 72-73 as Todd says that Colton knows that “everybody’s got wings” in Heaven and “everyone kind of looks like angels.”  This motif continues in Colton’s description of Pop on pg. 87 as he is said to have “really big wings.”  Again on pg. 90 Jesus is described as riding a “rainbow horse” which is of course completely foreign to the biblical record.  As Colton describes God’s heavenly throne on pg. 101 he says that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God which is something any preacher’s son will know but then problematically says that the left seat beside God’s throne is occupied by “the angel Gabriel.”  Pastor Burpo then attempts justification for this extra-biblical assertion by referring to Gabriel’s appearance to Zechariah before John the Baptist’s birth.  There is nothing in the Bible that refers to Gabriel sitting at the left hand of God.  The description provided of the Holy Spirit on pg. 103 is somewhat alarming as the young Burpo says, “he’s kind of blue.”  Although he admits “that’s kind of a hard one” we must be extremely concerned about descriptions of the third person of the Trinity which go beyond the Biblical revelation which He Himself superintended.  Todd continues his testimony of Colton’s experience about Heaven and the need for swords for all who dwell there.  He says, “angels carry swords so they can keep Satan out of heaven!” (pg. 133)  Burpo then mentions the spiritual warfare that takes place in Daniel 10, but the biblical account speaks of battle in the spiritual realm not some desperate heavenly need to prevent Satan from entering Heaven.  As he goes on, “the women and children got to stand back and watch...but the men had to fight.” (pg. 136)  What are they fighting in Heaven you might ask.  According to Burpo, “we’re fighting monsters...like dragons and stuff.”  He tries to connect this vision to Revelation 9 and 20 but this requires a great deal of creative hermeneutical maneuvering.  In response to many Catholic inquisitors Colton says that he saw Mary, the mother of Jesus, “kneeling before the throne of God and at other times standing beside Jesus.”  That may coincide with Catholic beliefs but is not a part of the Bible.  

The amount of extra-biblical claims should be alarming for Christians who believe in the sufficiency of Scripture for our faith and practice.  Those of us who believe the Bible is God’s inspired word will be cautious about embracing claims of anyone who adds to the revelation that God has so carefully preserved for us.  Heaven is real and we already have reliable eyewitnesses.  The Holy Spirit inspired them to write the Scripture.  The Old Testament prophets, New Testament apostles and prophets, and of course Jesus are sufficient eyewitnesses.

The Question of Motives.  I cannot fairly respond to the motives of Todd Burpo in the writing of this book.  I assume he has the best intentions.  He certainly gives every indication of being a wonderful father.  I was profoundly encouraged throughout the book as a preacher-father myself when I found many of the descriptions Colton gave about things he heard his father preach and teach him both nightly and weekly.  Our children hear much more than we many times think and Colton provides great encouragement to any preacher wondering if children are hearing the ideas he is communicating.  It was heartwarming to read about a father who in spite of a very hectic life, which required the juggling of bi-vocational ministry, still made nightly Bible reading and prayer a priority in his family life.  I was bi-vocational for 10 years and I found myself relating to Todd in many ways.  He provides a great example of a pastor-worker-father-husband-community servant and I am thankful for men who sacrifice so much of themselves for the sake of others.  

I cannot interpret all of the reports of Colton Burpo.  He was 3 years old at the time of his special event and 4 years old at the time his father began recording his reports.  It is evident throughout the book that Colton was a wonderfully imaginative boy and that he has a father who has loved him and taught him the Bible.  There are certainly many possibilities which could explain any of the descriptions in this book.  I know from my own experience as a parent that there have been conversations which my wife and I assumed were private but later found out the kids heard more than we thought.  Some people presume that since Colton was a little boy there could not have been any deception in his reports.  This is not an accurate logical presumption because nowhere is it proven that youth equals lack of guile.  Actually human experience has shown us just the opposite.  Children are capable of deception from even their earliest days and any parent knows this.  I am certainly not saying that Colton was deceptive, I do not know, but just because he was a child does not mean that he was not.

I should also say to those other multiplied authors who offer books in the genre of “gone-to-afterlife-and-write-book-about-it” that there is one way to help clarify your motives.  Don’t write for profit.  There are many things that are different about the biblical authors and contemporary authors about heavenly claims.  Isaiah, Ezekiel, John, and Paul each claimed to have had heavenly visions.  These occurred for the purpose of prophetic vision for the writing of scripture.  They were not on some near death journey to heaven and back.  Each time the men were terrified concerning what they saw as they were confronted with the mighty holiness of the glory of God.  They were not concerned about trite details such as wings and halos but they were humbled by the magnificence of the Almighty.  Each of these biblical authors were so impacted by what they experienced that they were also afraid to speak much about it.  They certainly did not profit from anything that they wrote.  And another thing, they were all willing to die for the truth they experienced.  

The Evidence is Concrete.  I have wondered why so many people have been so intrigued with these stories about people seeing Heaven.  A good friend offered the  suggestion that many people are seeking what they consider “concrete” evidence about the reality and content of Heaven.  Possibly seekers are thinking that an eyewitness in this generation will provide them with more certainty than the biblical accounts, or at least that it might subsidize their faith.  This should be carefully thought through, for what is at stake is exchanging faith in the concrete evidence of prophetic eyewitness accounts which make up the Bible for the eyewitness account of a father about what his 3 year old son claims to have witnessed.  One may not see the distinction so I will remind you that Burpo offers multiple testimonies of details that do not exist in the Bible.  These details are at best imaginative additions or at worst blatant contradictions.  The Bible is sufficient for all we need to now know about Heaven.  If God wanted us to know more in this life about the life to come He would have included it in His perfect revelation to us.  Since He didn’t do that we must now keep our faith founded upon the firm foundation of His Word rather than contemporary claims of heavenly experiences.  “We walk by faith and not by sight.”  (2 Cor. 5:7)  One day we will know more, for to be “absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8) but for now...God’s Word is enough.  Of course Heaven is for real, the Bible says so.

Further Recommended Reading:

Luke 16:24   “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, “Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’
Luke 16:27   “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, “No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”

BIBLICAL REFERENCES ABOUT HEAVEN:

No less than 530 times Heaven is mentioned in the Bible.  Here are some of them:

Genesis 1:1; Revelation 10:6; Psalm 89:29; 2 Corinthians 5:1; Jeremiah 31:37; Psalm 103:11; Isaiah 57:15; Deuteronomy 26:15; Psalm 20:6; Isaiah 57:15; 1 Kings 8:30; Matthew 6:9; Isaiah 66:1; Acts 7:49; Daniel 5:23; Matthew 11:25; Psalm 11:4; 135:6; Daniel 4:35; 1 Kings 8:27; Jeremiah 23:24; 1 Chronicles 21:26; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Nehemiah 9:27; Psalm 20:6; Genesis 19:24; 1 Samuel 2:10; Daniel 4:13, 14; Romans 1:18; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 6:20; 9:12, 24; Matthew 28:18; 1 Peter 3:22; Matthew 18:10; 24:36; Luke 10:20; Hebrews 12:23; Matthew 5:12; 1 Peter 1:4; Luke 15:7; Matthew 6:20; Luke 12:33; 1 Corinthians 15:50; Revelation 7:16, 17; Ephesians 5:5; John 14:2; Hebrews 11:16; Hebrews 4:9; 2 Corinthians 12:2, 4; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; Hebrews 11:5; 2 Kings 2:11; Revelation 4-5; 7:9-17; 14; 21-22

Why I Baptized a 94 year old Church Member:

Pete Grundy has been a blessing of a church member.  He has been a part of Harvey Baptist Church for several years and served in our AWANA ministry until 2 years ago.  Pete was baptized this past Lord’s Day.  He just turned 94.  I know that it seems odd to some people that I would baptize a 94 year old church member so in the midst of my tears of rejoicing I thought I would explain. 

First, some may think Pete was confused, after all he is 94.  There could not have been more lucidity and more clarity about his desire to be baptized.  He came to me during the invitation a few weeks prior and explained to me that he had been dunked in a creek 82 years ago.  Herbert Hoover was president and the Great Depression was in its early years.  Church membership had been continual for Pete since that day in the cold water of that creek but he had not actually understood the gospel until years after that day.  Pete was raised attending church although the Christian practice of prayer and Bible reading were not a regular part of his home life as a child.  For years the thoughts of obedience to Christ’s command for baptism upon believers of the gospel had been persistent in his mind and for the past few months he said with each sermon I preached he felt as though Jesus was calling him to be obedient to what he had missed so many years ago.  I decided to give my friend a test to make sure there was not dementia driving this decision so I told him to call me during the week and set up a time to talk and to be baptized.  I do this often with people to verify the seriousness of their decision to profess Christ publicly through baptism.  You might be surprised how many people never follow through and their mental clarity is not in question.  Pete called promptly at the time prescribed and told me exactly when he wanted to be baptized.  We spoke and I was encouraged by my friend’s desire to be obedient to Christ.

Second, some may think we Baptists are overly concerned about the timing and/or the amount of water used for baptism.  These concerns are important to us not because of our stubbornness to a particular tradition in which we were raised but because of our desire to obey God’s word.  The issue for Pete (and others) is not obedience to a denominational tradition but obedience to the clear teaching of Scripture.  The new covenant is clearly signified through the practice of believer’s baptism by immersion exclusively recorded in the New Testament.  Although there are various traditions that have developed involving other modes and practiced at a time previous to being born again, those practices lean primarily on arguments of silence only sometimes involving the New Testament.  The Baptist position of baptism for believer’s only by immersion only after one receives God’s saving grace is not a traditional preference about baptism, it is a deeply cherished conviction that God’s word is prescriptive and authoritative.

Pete asked if he could address the congregation from the baptistry.  I gave him the microphone, he has earned it.  He told the church family that he knew exactly what he was doing and had been convicted about this decision for many years.  His encouragement to all was to be obedient to Christ and to “be certain that when you meet the Lord you don’t hear the words ‘depart from me I never knew you’ but ‘well done good and faithful servant’”.  I wept as I laid him “buried in the likeness of Christ’s death and raised again to walk in newness of life”.  In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Incoherence of Classical Foundationalism

In "Warranted Christian Belief" Alvin Plantinga sets forth the parameters of classical foundationalism as "believing one proposition on the evidential basis of others." The deontological link to this type of foundationalism requires evidence for the believing Christian in order to justify his basic beliefs.  Rene Descartes presented the foundation for his beliefs upon the certainty of his existence as determined by his ability to doubt that existence.  John Locke proposed the foundation for his beliefs upon his experience.  Here we find the two primary articulations of classical foundationalism as that which presents basic beliefs built upon the foundations of rational thought and sensory experience.  Descartes sought to start over and "rid myself of all the opinions which I formerly accepted, and commence to build anew from the foundation."  One must consider the absurdity of such a claim.  As noble a task as it may seem Descartes was only using his existing opinion(s) to replace and/or increase his basic beliefs.  Locke set forth the elevation of empiricism with his rule that I should "proportion my degree of assent to the probability of the proposition in question."  We find in these two highly influential thinkers the foundational thoughts for classical foundationalism.  

Plantinga and others have pointed out the self-refuting nature of classical foundationalism.  He states, "classical foundationalism appears to be self-referentially incoherent: it lays down a standard for jsutified belief that it doesn't itself meet."  I do believe Plantinga has accurately diagnosed the failure of classical foundationalism and its epistemological presuppositional basis.  As Joseph Wooddell states, "the knowledge claim that for knowledge claims to be valid one must hold the claim based on self-evident, incorrigible, or empirically verifiable propositions is not itself self-evident, incorrigible, or evident to the senses, and it is not grounded on any propositions that are."  In this modernistic approach to philosophical thought we find the use of senses to prove what is supposed to be already basic to the senses.  As Plantinga states, "if the classical picture is true, those who are within their rights in believing (CP) must believe it on the evidential basis of other propositions -- propositions that are properly basic and that evidentially support it." (pg. 95)  The classic foundationalist refutes himself because his statements of what is an evidentially basic belief require dependence upon other basic beliefs, those which he is not willing to admit are basic.

The problem for the modernistic thinker lies in the reliance upon the epistemological question.  There is a fundamental flaw in first asking, "how do we know this?" because it is a question that depends itself to answer itself.  To avoid much confusion and difficulty it is more functionally beneficial to join such premodern thinkers as Augustine who recognized presuppositions are at play in every person's worldview because "before humans can know anything, they must believe something."  Some metaphysical presuppositions are appropriate, which has also been called "expanded foundationalism" and includes properly basic beliefs such as "God exists" and "murder is wrong".  These beliefs begin with what we know about reality although they may or may not be self-evident, incorrigible, or empirically verifiable according to epistemological expectations.  The self-referential incoherence of classical foundationalism is not found in the self-evidential nature of a proposition but in the seeking to prove it is self-evident.  The moment one seeks to prove it is self-evident then one is depending upon rationalism or empiricism to attempt to prove its self-evidential nature.   If something is self-evident, it just is.  It does not require an epistemological basis (how do we know this) but it is a metaphysical (what we know) presupposition and therefore a properly basic belief.  The incoherence of classical foundationalism is the epistemological desire to prove something as self-evident, incorrigible, or evident to the senses.  A broader foundationalism proposes there are certain things that just are...and I don't need to prove they are.

Simple Contemplations of Connecting with IMB

The International Mission Board (IMB) is in another transition of leadership after 3 years of blessings with Tom Elliff in the top spot.  Although this may be a little sooner than some expected, it is certainly no big surprise considering Elliff’s age (no offense intended).  The IMB is at a pivotal point in its existence and many missions-loving Southern Baptists like me are earnestly praying for a strong, loving, and capable leader to lead this far-reaching ministry at this momentous time.  I offer these simple contemplations of connecting with the IMB with the hope that they may in some way make a contribution to our cooperative missions efforts across the globe.

1.  We Need To Win Souls.

I realize that bridge-building needs to take place and in some areas it may take longer than in other areas.  However, too often there are missionaries (and local pastors) who spend so much time building bridges that they never cross over and actually share the gospel.  I also know that different situations around the world sometimes require our missionaries to work through various vocations just to be allowed to be present in the region without persecution and/or expulsion.  We may also want to reconsider any missiological strategy that focuses the vast majority of our personnel in areas of the world that are least responsive to the gospel.  Definitely we should be wise in these matters and be sensitive to where God has prepared people’s hearts to receive the gospel, but we must always be intentional about the one purpose for which we are alive - to preach the gospel and make disciples.  I also don’t want to do construction work that robs local workers of employment and call it missions.  Nor do I see much sense in spending thousands of dollars to send people across the world to have only a “cross-cultural experience” and call it missions.  This is not meant as a grumbling criticism at all, rather it is a clarion call for Southern Baptists to stay focused on what made us the largest missionary sending agency in the world.  May our hearts beat for the winning of souls!  May we constantly be focused on leading people to Jesus!  When people are getting saved, God and His people get excited and there will be great blessings.  “He that winneth souls is wise” (Prov. 11:30)

2.  We Need To Train National Leaders.

Jesus is coming back at the pre-appointed time.  We don’t know when that is and we can’t make it happen.  I appreciate the zeal of those who are in a hurry to reach every people group with the gospel and there must be a sense of urgency to our task.  However, we must not stop short of the fullness of the Great Commission.  We must make disciples who will do the same.  2% of a people considered to be evangelized hardly seems like a sufficient number.  I have been in parts of the world where the numbers are much higher among those who are considered “reached” peoples only to find cults that are called churches and faithful members who have heard the name of Jesus but not the Jesus of the Bible.  If there is not faithful pastoral leadership training following the initial evangelistic efforts the work either dissipates altogether or the leadership falls into heresy and departs from the faith once delivered.  I have personally talked with indigenous pastors who say they are thankful to the IMB for bringing them life in Jesus, but now they are infants and still need help only to find that personnel is either not available, not being appointed to that area, or not very helpful.  Some experts may dismiss me as naive or even somewhat ignorant.  I must admit that there is always more that I don’t know but I do know what I have seen and heard in various parts of the world.  Let us be committed to the fullness of the Great Commission and may we train pastors to biblically lead the churches Jesus loves so dearly.  “commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim. 2:2

3.  We Must Improve Connections With Local Churches.

The days of local churches blindly sending CP gifts is rapidly vanishing.  Churches want involvement in their missions efforts in the least and some even want complete ownership.  The IMB has done well in the attempts to connect churches through the EMBRACE program.  Although there should be extra careful attention to avoid the usual pitfalls of a denominational bureaucratic program these efforts deserve thundering applause.  Churches want to know who they are supporting and are now even adopting people groups for long-term relationships of reaching and teaching.  Praise God!  Be careful, I have been invited on 2 separate occasions to bring a team of volunteers halfway across the world that we might provide childcare for our missionaries while they have a regional meeting amongst themselves.  Please take note, that does not excite missions-minded churches in the U.S.! We want hands on soul-winning and to work side by side with national church leaders in Christ’s building of His church.  Read 1 Corinthians 16 and see how well Paul informed the churches regarding his missionary efforts.  The churches were involved and Paul’s “missions agency” thrived. 

The church I serve loves the SBC Cooperative Program.  We love the IMB.  I have greatly benefited from the CP efforts of faithful Christians in Baptist churches.  I love being a Southern Baptist.  I don’t really care how young or old the next IMB President may be.  I don’t really care if he has been a pastor, missionary, or VP.  It makes little difference to me how “famous” he is in SBC life.  I do think he should be a man who weeps for souls to be saved and strategically works to get it done in the power of the Holy Spirit.  I love the IMB and I will continue to support our CP efforts, but I really hope the next President agrees with these 3 simple contemplations.

Appreciation Letter from Edmond W. Weyusia

The following is an appreciation letter I received from Edmond W. Weyusia 

of the Chongoyi Baptist Church in Kenya, Africa.

"I first of all thank our almighty God to have given me life of which has enabled me to thank you. Particularly Pastor Richmond, Pastor Charles and Brother Scott to have your time travel a long way from Texas USA leaving your family members and friends coming to Africa Kenya and East Africa to teach us how to be effective pastors, in order to be good messengers of God, to preach the word of God country wide. Also have made us to interact with different pastors from different parts of our republic. 

In fact, let me be open and say that we have been less active and now I am sure every one of us who has been in the course has been activated. Sir, learning without practice is nothing. Therefore, I humbly and respectively request you to organize another course of which will enable us to be more effective than before. 

I don't also forget to thank Pastor Samson Kisia of Ruiru First Baptist Church, including all his staffs of Ruiru Baptist Church and all interpreters Pastor David Gitau, Pastor John Kisia, Pastor Pius Nato and  Pastor Andrew Sore who made us to go smoothly. Also, I don't forget the catering section. I hope and trust that you will come back again to check on your pastor students you trained or taught.

In Genesis 12:2-4 says, 'I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you. I will make your name great and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse and all people on earth will be blessed through you'.

May our almighty God cover you with the blood of our Lord Jesus on your way to USA. Also, pass our greetings to your family members and all members of your churches.

The grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you forever more. AMEN." 

Prepared by,

Edmond W. Weyusia

Chongoyi Baptist Church

Bungoma County

Kenya E. Africa