Send us your comments. Mike ixthys@aol.com wrote the following point in the alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel newsgroup:
Would that be transrational or irrational? According to one on this NG, the twain are one and the same.
Baruch HaShem HaMashiyach Y'Shua
mike
This statement was not true as I will attempt to show herein.
Let's get our starting terms as clear as we possibly can. It will be a bit tough to get this going so hang in there a while.
To Mike, the rational is only those things that are empirically verifiable. The irrational things are only those that are empirically proven to be false. All other things (the things of ultimate importance) are transrational. As an incidental point, Mike asserts that transrational things are ultimately unknowable.
Here are the problems as I see them with what Mike is suggesting.
We can never know the truth value for things that are important since they are above reason. This leaves one serious and insuperable flaw in the system that Mike proposes here. The flaw is that Mike is argueing for a system of epistemology (theory of knowledge) that he can not test to be true. Since it is itself a claim about ultimate truth and not a minor trivial thing (such as the measuring speed of light, etc), there is no way to prove it without using transrationalism as the proof.
Hence, Mike attempts to use rational means to argue for a system that can't itelf be argued for with rational means. Hence, this is begging the question and not really a valid way of testing truth claims. He has to presuppose the very system that he is attempting to establish. He then has to use rational arguements to try to argue that one can't really use rational arguements. This self-stultifies in the final analysis. If something self-stultifies, it is irrational.
Hence, Mike's proposed worldview, although interesting, is irrational in the final analysis.
Mike came back swinging with this posting to the newsgroup.
From: "michael d macon"
Subject: Re: Transrationalism Demonstrated
Date: 8 Jul 97 22:18:31 GMT
Organization: calvary chapel east grand rapids
Mr. Simpson writes: >>We cannot arbitrarily decide what is transrational and what is not in order to make contradictions plausible. For instance, we cannot say, as per the process theologian, that God is evolving, and ALSO say, as per the evangelical conservative, that God never changes, holding both contrary views at once, and chalking it all up to the transrational. The appeal to mystery can become fallacious if used arbitrarily.<<
Quite correct. Only that which is clearly transrational in Scripture can be claimed to be so. God's "evolving" is decidedly contrascriptural (Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, etc.).
To meet the criteria of being transrational -- over against irrational -- two things must be stated in Scripture to be true simultaneously in such a fashion that the human mind cannot fully grasp it. For instance, Jesus' full Deity and full Humanity, the Triunity, the confluent nature of the Scriptural Text, and the fact of an absolutely Sovereign God Who created beings with the full capacity and obligation to choose.
--
Baruch haShem haMashiyach Y'Shua
mike
http://members.aol.com/ixthys/index.htm
I'm ALMOST convinced. Just one simple question. Is "transrationalism" itself-
Mike has dragged out an old chestnut of his, "Transrationalism". Mike admitted in a prior visit that the original source of his understanding of "transrationalism" was a book by John Wimber titled, "Power Evangelism".
John Wimber uses the idea of "transrationalism" to explain his peculiar use of signs and wonders (btw, potentially adding yet another category of "transrational things" to Mike Macon's list). Somehow Wimber's list of "transrational things" and Mike's list are totally different.
The discussion can be found on page 72 of "Power Evangelism" (c) 1986. The text reads:
The experiences of Christian signs and wonders are "transrational", but they serve a rational purpose: to authenticate the gospel. The gospel is opposed to the pluralistic lie that says all religious experience is equally valid. Signs and wonders validate Christ's lordship over every area of our lives, a relationship that can be described and understood.
Wimber attempts in his 1985 and 1986 editions of the book to explain transrationalism as a contrast to rationalism and materialism. As can be seen Wimber's purpose is to put signs and wonders into another category (an untestable one at that) which he terms "the transrational".
Hence, any bizarre thing (such as animal noises in church, etc) could be justified by simply calling it "transrational". The explanation that "God moves in mysterous ways and we can't understand them", is offerred in place of our Biblical mandate to "test all things and reject the false". Do you think it could not happen? Think again.
Fortunately, in the 1996 edition of the book, John Wimber has at least dropped the term "transrational" although the same concept is still there. Wimber now offers this explanation:
Christian signs and wonders are beyond rationality (not irrational), but they serve a rational purpose: to authenticate the gospel. The gospel is opposed to the pluralistic lie that says all religious experience is equally valid. Signs and wonders validate Christ's sacrifice on the cross and his lordship over every area of our lives, a relationship that can be described and understood.
This was an illuminating change. The signs themselves are not irrational (nor apparently rational either) but are instead in a third category of thing called "transrational". Hence, being "transrational" they are beyond all rational testing and unfalisifiable. This is a different gospel than the one that I read where Jesus says:
John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Signs and wonders are concrete. The incarnation, the greatest sign and wonder of all time, was concrete.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
This is not "transrational", but the Logos Himself taking on flesh. This is the ultimate refutation of "transrationalism" and a wholly other unknowable God. This God became one of us. He walked amidst us. He bore the likeness of man, so that we could bear His likeness. Nothing transrational there. Miraculous, YES. Singularity (never to happen again - Joe), YES. Transrational - NO.
Copyright © 1996, 1997 - webmaster@douglasgilliland.com
- All Rights Reserved
This page contains personal opinion and commentary on Calvary Chapel and its affiliates.
We reserve the right to have our own opinions and the right to state them publicly.
We believe that the Constitution of the U. S. gives us this right.
Some items may be copyrighted by others and are included here, in part,
as "fair use" for research and commentary purposes only.
Last Updated 7-9-97
