Tag Archives | truth

The Beauty of Divine Reason

There are several parts to this book, and within them, numerous chapters span across topics that the authors wrote to help researchers write papers for academic interest and to produce written work of literary significance. In addition to carefully reading through the material of each chapter, it is necessary to zoom out and view the material and the intended purpose of the entire body of work to understand the authors’ point. The methods and techniques given are broadly relevant to academics and researchers who wish to organize, substantiate, and bring together material in a formatted way according to conventional standards and expectations.

While the read subject matter is understood and of pertinent interest, the following book review is given here to demonstrate the reading was completed as an acknowledgment of the material written to guide students in projects or their coursework.

Through my reading of the book, I’ve highlighted numerous areas with notes about what the authors meant about research to begin. The definition of research is explored with a discussion about its types, what it is to conduct research, and how to understand it as a process. The method of research isn’t mechanistic but organic, as it’s a process that isn’t linear but iterative. At least in terms of how sources are collected, read, and understood. And how data is organized to support assertions and conclusions.

Research makes its way into various kinds of writing. The numerous types are given at length, from short essays to Ph.D./Th.D. dissertations, with many more in between. It is helpful to recognize what authors clearly define or share as academic writing types, but it would be of further interest to see examples of those types and their length ranges. For example, the authors wrote that a book review is a short paper (1-4 pages), but I have written various book reviews that go well beyond that as I trace historical backgrounds, citations, and source materials.

The authors try to inform readers that research is not biased, emotional, or charged with loaded terms for dramatic effect. Research for theology students is not a sermon. Research is not embellished and makes use of neutral terms. Assuming the authors mean that terms chosen to convey meaning are gender-neutral, what material is written, and how it is presented. Generally, intentional or not, I believe there is no such thing as a complete absence of bias. While research should be derived from data, not information, sometimes that isn’t possible.

As the authors further wrote about the value of research, they listed the apparent favorable outcomes of problem-solving capacity, character development, and writing skill improvement, there are other research merits as well.

The seven steps to performing biblical exegesis are reminiscent of the hermeneutics coursework completed earlier in the program. With a lot of attention toward the resource types, readers are informed about concordances, dictionaries, atlases, software, commentaries, apparatuses, and the like. What’s especially useful is step (6) about how to establish the original theological meaning of the text under study. As this is a critical step to understand and follow, it is not appropriate to apply an interpretation developed and understood, but make certain the original meaning is understood and accepted even if contradictory to denominational interests, tradition, or popular reading.

It is especially beneficial to follow the outline structure given in this section. Categorical separation of key facts surrounding the interpretive work of a paper support conclusions and applications with ease of acceptance or push-back. This is the best outline I’ve seen of an exegetical presentation, as it covers relevant areas of interest. In fact, to serve as a template, it is repeatable for indexing, tagging, and retrieval.

This chapter’s primary points of interest concern the use of primary and secondary sources, theological analysis, and historiography during the course of research. Distinctions between primary and secondary sources are essential to understand as they pertain to the historical origination of the material. Primary sources closest to the origin serve as the highest documentary evidence as rationale or justification for material gathered and processed for research. Primary source materials come in many forms.

While secondary sources are generally one step removed from the source, they can reference primary sources that may no longer exist. These are source materials that include discussions and commentaries about primary material. There are numerous examples of secondary sources from many resource types (e.g., articles, monographs, reference works, testimonies, inscriptions, historical records, and so forth).

The authors clearly explain that the objective of theological research is to “document an orderly and coherent account of theistic beliefs.” Furthermore, Biblical Theology concerns topics derived from Scripture to further narrow macro or micro exegetical forms of literary research that concern theology students. Conversely, there are theological comparison studies that help researchers understand the historical positions of theologians.

The authors close the chapter by touching upon historiography and pastoral theology to indicate their types as having a bearing on how materials are analyzed, collated, and applied. The guidance about historical events, theology, and people together is helpful to scope time intervals and select figures by available materials. If it isn’t possible to focus on an individual during a theological course of study, it is helpful to redirect concentration to an institution.

The overall gist of choosing a topic rests on reading the relevant subject matter and asking content and feasibility questions about the material. Once the topic is chosen, the task then turns to limiting the scope and depth of the research project. Setting parameters in advance is necessary to accomplish research objectives within a defined period of time. The book’s authors lead readers to understand the differences between undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate research in terms of breadth and coverage of the subject matter.

There are basic steps offered to plan for the research undertaken. They together contribute to how a research project is proposed. Before outlining the elements of a proposal, it is first necessary to define the problem to resolve. Once it is determined what problem exists, what question is unanswered, or what gap in knowledge there is, it is then necessary to determine the research project’s purpose. For example, an analysis of a matter or event could be pursued to develop an understanding of a specific topic. The range of possibilities here is enormous, so determining the research project’s purpose is a necessary step to keep focus and remain within the boundaries established as the paper sets about resolving the problem. Finally, it is advised to design a methodology concerning the assembly and delivery of the research. By the examples given in the book and the final paragraph in this section (page 150), the author suggests that methodological reasoning should be deductive rather than inductive or abductive.

The proposal area developed here is very helpful for organizational effort, too. By beginning with the end in mind, the various elements of the proposal point to what effort and resources contribute to a successful outcome. The explanatory strength of each proposal area is of significant help in the preparation of the overall project. All three steps in the planning process also support the outline to build the paper’s body as it develops. The outline structure that guides the writing and interfacing elements of the subject matter enables coherent thought throughout the reading of the entire project. It is always best to use a conventional outlining format according to the institution’s guidelines where the research is conducted (if one should exist).

A further area of significant interest is the researcher’s library access and use. Whether institutional, municipal, regional, personal, or some mixture, efficient information mining and retrieval are necessary to produce a research paper. While the book has much to say about using physical hard copy books, that is a vital area of interest. However, too often, meta-data and the parsing of narrative verbiage within the body of such content don’t exist. From the book, it is clear that libraries have a lot of digitized subject matter available in databases. Still, when it comes to EBSCO or Atla Religion for journals and historical research papers, those two might be among the more prominent libraries and wouldn’t be found among municipal or community libraries. Universities and Seminaries often contract or subscribe to both for students and alumni. Master’s University provides both for its students, and they significantly help with assignments, research projects, and overall spiritual development. Master’s University does not provide access to EBSCO and Atla Religion databases for alumni. As I don’t live near a library that carries access to either, a few years ago, it was necessary to begin building a personal digital library as a permanent download via purchase and licensing. After continuous persistence, a personal library has grown to over 30,000 titles, mostly purchased (except for journals, which are a low-grade subscription to everything common to EBSCO and Atla Religion.

The purpose is not to hoard but to establish a framework to which retrieval of data and information is made feasible by materials derived and indexed from numerous locations (historiographical, literary, academic, and biblically sound institutions). To run logic or boolean operators upon parsed data, whether tagged or not, yields a canvas of weighted results that help save time, minimize cost, and filter what’s most meaningful or relevant. It also becomes more readily possible to retire what becomes outdated. With subscriptions and outright digitized copies of scanned texts, it is better to gather, collate, and index for speedy retrieval everything written as scanned into the record (such as popular patristics, puritans, theologians, and philosophers down through the centuries). It is too inefficient to return to the days of exclusively working through hardcopy texts to complete a research project or even a robust intertextual bible study on a given point of interest. ProQuest is an institutional-only access database for theses and dissertations, so it will not be possible or of interest to begin seeking its value for research ahead. PQDT is now ProQuest and no longer an open-source application for use. Access to theses and dissertations is an exclusive service to academics or anyone with a library that hosts ProQuest.

The authors of this book take a well-spent time to cover the basics of reading. And how to take notes on that reading. There are helpful tips about what applications to use for various circumstances and purposes, whether notes are taken manually or via computer. For example, a “Word Processor,” “Database,” and “Spreadsheet” are the types of applications that the authors identify as helpful and common among researchers. This review is written with a Word Processor. The subject matter covered here is really very basic. Further discussion is offered about life balance around studying and reading, such as rest and physical exercise.

While the book covers specific details about how to format bibliographical data and citation references in Turabian or other styles, not all academic institutions accept the book’s guidance in each area of character, terminology, or registration. The book provides general guidelines for using Turabian, but individual mileage may vary from institution to institution that requires Turabian.

The book extends further into the composition of the research paper. It covers familiar ground as graduate students have already learned how to form sentences with independent and dependent clauses, appropriate grammar, and punctuation to communicate meaning within the structure of a paragraph. Transitional terms, phrases, and sentences within paragraphs, or as ideas and subject matter, that flow from one paragraph to another, readers can track through in a coherent way to arrive at an understanding the writer wants. The book’s authors make a compelling case for the need to research English and learn from examples that help both experienced and novice writers. When the writing process of a research paper begins, the applied craft of composition takes shape. From the author’s experience, there are numerous valuable points to consider during the editing and revision process of the paper. The caliber of their guidance makes clear that the writer of a research project should have mastery of the written English language to set it apart from other literary genres. That is to say, according to the authors, it is not enough to be well-developed in terms of research, analysis, investigation, reconstruction, and the derivation of biblical, historical, and philosophical truth, but the capability and fluency of writing at the same caliber is expected. Time and energy spent on biblical and theological research should be matched by how that research is written.            

As this text serves as a reference handbook, it is a go-to resource for handling the parts of a research paper when laying it out in an organized manner. The various elements expected in the research paper are covered to show effective placement and orientation for readability and interpretation. To Turabian style, proportionality, and other parts of the paper, the initial pages, introduction, main body, summary, conclusions, appendixes, and bibliography are covered to reinforce further adherence to the document standard for uniformity of research papers developed and formatted to convention for the benefit of readers and institutions.

Chapters 18, 19, 21, and 22 of Quality Research Papers: For Students of Religion and Theology, Fourth Edition together amount to 53 pages of reading that this short paper summarizes. The sections concerning these chapters are about the structure and substance of a research paper. More specifically, the range of topics covered includes the necessary elements of a research paper. Namely, this concerns the paper’s documentation, statistics, tables, graphs, footnotes, bibliography, the Turabian standard of citations, and styling of various literary and media materials. The subject matter ranges in substance to aid the research writer in preparing and presenting the material. The book largely serves as a narrative guide with explanatory value and a handbook for continued reference.

As the author prepares the subject matter for the layout and construction of the research paper, it is organized by relevant sections of interest around types and categories. All four areas of the paper’s development touch on common points of reference to guide a reader through the text of the paper. Including annotations, visual aids, quantitative illustrations, and sources accompanying the researcher’s text body, each area addresses a paper’s segments or components to conventional standards for conformity to the expected readership style.

Various examples are presented about referencing notes and formatting them throughout a paper for retrieval, source verification, and further research. Beginning with supporting documentation declared within the research paper. As notes are produced within a paper from authors of primary, secondary, or tertiary sources, those sources to substantiate those notes are cited or quoted by necessity. The way to do that is given with the rationale concerning the use of source materials, along with examples to format them properly. Footnotes, or endnotes, that specify cited source references follow conventional standards (Turabian) requirements for consistent readability. With each source reference cited alongside the various others within a paper, they together form a coherent means of support of what the research author conveys among various points made.

Of considerable clarity, beyond citing sources using reference notes in a consistent format, is the proper way of producing second and later references. The correct way of using abbreviations that are succeeding citations involving the Ibid term is especially helpful. Moreover, Bible versions and the use of translations with changes as exceptions are understood by the research student to follow for continuity and thorough use consistent within a paper. Furthermore, content notes that consist of explanatory messages are of significant utility. The proper method and format of those notes given by examples enable the writer to augment the paper without disrupting the research flow and narrative.

As the book’s author turns attention to statistics, tables, and graphs, there are various topics centered on quantitative reasoning in which calculations make a point in support of the research project. The range of coverage on the topic is wide enough for what a research paper would convey for purposes of analytical comprehension. Numerical and visual representation of calculated probabilities, standard deviation, averages, median values, frequency, weight, and distribution further reinforces an understanding of claims or assertions about a matter of interest. For example, demographics, population samples, tendencies, and correlation are focal areas of conclusive interest from data collected and presented compellingly through statistics.

While the focal area of reading does not include chapter twenty, there are various additional aids given about how to format the pages of a paper’s text body. Further guidance about page numbering, titles, headings, and preliminary pages is also covered in useful detail. The basics about proper spelling, punctuation, and grammatical concerns are discussed as expected, but with respect to a research paper unique to various different forms of writing. Additional details about footnotes and quotations aside from the previously presented details and examples are relative to their placement, when to use them, their methodology of inclusion, and their considerations.

As researchers encounter various source materials, the authors of this book present an exhaustive range of examples, both Footnote and Bibliography style and Author-Date style. Writers of their papers use these as examples from either parent category of citations. As such, this section serves as a handbook for placing citations according to source type. Rather than prepare rationale or guidelines for producing cited references according to source author, periodicals, monographs, commentaries, general books, specialized books, or unpublished materials, meticulous detail is given as examples. Numerous explanatory notes accompany those examples, but they have less instructional value as a comparison. Among the many examples interspersed throughout source categories, alternate formats are also given.

Among both examples by group, the examples mechanistically indicate where source names, titles, dates, locations, page numbers, and more are placed on a research paper with consistency. Writers must use one type or another depending on the institution, convention, journal, or agency requirements. Accordingly, citation designations have general rules and guidelines with numerous exceptions fluent with an editor very adept and all the particular source reference entries. The format and elements within a citation vary widely by source type (whether published or unpublished materials), whether as a note, second note, or bibliography entry.

Overall, across four major book sections, the authors took meticulous care to walk readers through what research is and what it involves. With copious details about biblical and theological research, there are many clarifying details about what the practice of research is with appropriate definitions. How readers or students conduct research is not just about methods of analysis and conclusions drawn internally by the researcher. The analysis, writing, formation, and presentation of discoveries, propositions, claims, arguments, and warrants constitute the integral nature of a research project. More meaningfully, research completed around biblical and theological interests leads readers and researchers together toward application-oriented learning and pastoral theology that informs individuals in ministry who love and serve people. Any effort to conduct research for the sole purpose of learning itself is an empty endeavor. Research should be for the edification of the church or individual or to challenge, educate, and inform people to love and do good works (Hebrews 10:24).

The further historical and literary value of analysis in support of research (as guided by this book) is constructed and presented so that the subject matter doesn’t just serve the academy or institution but people overall from the researcher’s contribution. So this book is a standing reference for what, how, and why research is done to write about biblical, theological, historiographical, or literary subjects with the necessary convention and format elements necessary to reach people with credible and lasting interest. As topics selected and researched carry practical value, it is also a fruit of labor that supports personal growth, the growth, knowledge, and development of others, and a form of worship that glorifies God. Research inclusive of written materials has lasting meaning, purpose, and value for faith and practice. It contributes to a larger ongoing conversation about what it means to love God and others well.


The Stain of Human Reason

To begin the book, there are preliminary thoughts about becoming a researcher as a prologue to forthcoming topics that elaborate upon what it is to develop research as a craft. As the authors set about laying the groundwork for the practice of research, they draw our attention to research itself and its researchers through interaction among readers who are engaged with the subject matter.

Immediately before consideration of the roles between researchers and readers, the authors first define what research is and how to understand it as a discipline. As it is formed and delivered by means of a formal paper, the written work of the researcher isn’t only for the readers but for the researcher himself. The work of research includes written expressions of thought, understanding, rationale, and remembrance to convey ideas, discoveries, and conversations worth exploring. To ask questions and answer them or to encounter problems and seek resolution can involve the formation of projects where a pertinent subject matter of interest is developed as a topic of concern.

The work and product of research together form the body of research projects that have a bearing on readers’ views about topics as either questions or problems that further an overall community conversation about a subject. While the research material itself is central to the work of research and the written labors of researchers, a larger conversation is likely occurring about the topic at hand. The inputs to research, in the form of source materials, experiments, and data analysis, correspond to outputs researchers produce as they together become processed in a coherent fashion. The process by which research inputs are transformed into outputs in the form of answered questions, problems solved, recommendations, or advancements in the total conversation, bears out a range of methods to arrive at practical, abstract, or theoretical solutions. This book guides the student through what it looks like to ask questions, state problems, understand topics, and develop an interest in a research subject among readers.

An essential method of turning a question into a problem involves three steps (pg 49).

  1. Topic: I am studying __________
  2. Question: because I want to find out what / why / how __________,
  3. Significance: in order to help my reader understand __________.

Whether the topic of study is a research problem or a conceptual problem, the distinctions between them should be clearly understood to solve what is relevant about a specific matter of interest. So as researchers work with problems, questions are formed either of practical concern or as a prospective and conceptual interest in an effort to arrive at solutions. Questions that researchers transform into problems to solve must be those problems readers think are worth solving. Meaning, there must be significance or merit to questions answered and problems solved in order to understand the research work undertaken.

The book points out that research supports answering questions and solving problems to satisfy the community. That is the end object to the practice of research according to the authors rather than for personal understanding, worship, or God’s glory for the work performed while seeking truth according to general or special revelation through Scripture. In this regard, the practice of research as a discipline doesn’t belong to the community or society, as the authors insist. In fact, it is subordinate to the purpose and practice of research that individual researchers bear fruit by what questions are answered and problems are solved. Individual exceptionalism for its own end, with or without benefit to society, is of far greater concern. As many individuals, in their pursuit of research excellence, produce work that bears upon society as a by-product, the community stands to gain from that. Otherwise, societies, communities, the State, etc., might not be valuable enough for research endeavors of more meaningful value (whether purely theoretical or applied). Researchers must love objective truth directed to something of much greater weight or more lasting significance over themselves or the spectacle of corrupt societies and communities for research work and its outcomes. This book places too much emphasis on the supremacy of society and the researcher’s role within it as a fulfillment of some “social contract.” As if the researcher’s first and overriding obligation to anyone and anything is to that of society.

While the book offers meaningful rationale about how to structure problems and frame questions around matters of interest, the authors set up statements and examples of very basic conditions and responses that guide students through the work of understanding a problem. Questions formed and reshaped to problems that set up a “so what?” form of inquiry. To derive problems from questions to answer where research opportunities arise of interest to readers. The effort is not to purely find new problems to solve but to derive them and set them up as valid with defensible premises and data to support their investigation. Coherence to truth and resolution for a specific purpose doesn’t necessarily correspond to what’s of value to answer a “so what?” question. The book begins with these chapters to set the means by which research techniques come together for students to understand questions and problems, form them, and derive answers for research. As a sort of call-and-response approach to research, the authors write of linear thinking to deductively adduce factors that have explanatory power as evidence to form conclusions or pursue research to answer “so what?” questions.            

The various examples and conditions authors set up help students work with problems they can find and solve. There doesn’t seem to be support for canvasing a subject matter of interest to traverse at some level topically. To find answers to good research problems, authors begin with the notion that researchers must answer questions toward practical applications with a level of high granularity to benefit readers. There is a top-down approach to practical applications (“so that” or “so what”) from the course of research at a narrowing perspective to arrive at conclusions stemming from a chosen topic and its significance. This is an A + B + C must equal D framework of reason that begins with the end in mind. An overarching upper-level topic is selected with conceptual questions and significance to follow in support of questions to answer and problems to solve. Where the effort is not purely for purposes of defensible rationale but a justification for conclusions formed. Rather than follow where research leads, the authors advocate the derivation of questions transformed into problems that appeal to readers by answering “so what?” questions in their interest or that of society.

As the reading and review of these chapters cover the subject matter of interest, it must be said that much of the material is very basic, with principles and facts grounded by common sense. The range of content extends from basic ideas about what research is, why it’s important to write about it, and the roles of both you as a writer and your readers. Understanding research and how to produce it as written material is about developing organized thinking for the clarity of meaning about the subject matter of interest. The authors of this text make a clear connection between research as a practice and discipline to the total effort of conversing with readers.

The book further considers the topic of sources, which involves a bibliography with annotations that pertain to the research material. An argument constructed from reading during research takes shape to form a thesis or a statement in the form of a problem or proposition. Arguments developed from claims become supported by source materials of differing levels of credibility in proximity to the subject of interest. A body of rationale about the subject matter constitutes the research carried out to develop an understanding of statements or propositions that support a research project to draw conclusions and arrive at an understanding of facts or assertions related to material of interest.

 As research development progresses and the material is committed to writing, claims are made from developed reasoning and evidence constructed through sources. Claims and arguments are supported by sources and external facts or assertions from cited references, or they’re directly refuted or indifferent to those claims. The book makes a clear link between the researcher’s work and his claims to sources that support those claims. As questions are asked with answers sought during the course of the research, they are concentrated on the problems and propositions made evident to readers, where logic and rationale are made to withstand counter-claims or counter-productive assertions that contradict the research.

Further research effort is placed around the assembly of reason and evidence in support of a research project. The organization and planning around reason and evidence involve order, structure, layout, and evaluation as research is performed to identify and build it for proper consideration. Arguments supported by sources and evidence are then reinforced by arguments using acknowledgment, observation, reason, and logic to settle understanding. It is one thing to acknowledge and understand claims and arguments supported by evidence and sources, but another to accept them or internalize understanding by comprehension and a new awareness concerning the research subject matter.

Before planning a paper and drafting it, a final subject of warrants bears attention. As it is necessary to connect reasons to claims, readers might not understand arguments, or readers may challenge reasoning that supports claims made, so warrants are developed and explicitly stated to trace a line of argument. As a cause-and-effect line of reasoning forms as circumstances give rise to consequences, connections are made between reasoning and claims. Implications and inferences are developed between general and specific circumstances to general and specific consequences that support acceptance of claims made from arguments that stem from logic and reason. To further examine the merits of warrants as they are applied to reasoning and claims, they are tested to assess their validity or how well they apply to arguments as they become challenged. There are several criteria for acceptance of a warrant that researchers investigate in the form of questions. The book offers these questions in the following outline (pg 160), with further explanation to follow.

  1. Is the warranty reasonable?
  2. Is it sufficiently limited?
  3. Is it superior to any competing warrants?
  4. Is it appropriate to this field?
  5. Is it able to cover the reason and claim?

When asking if the warrant is reasonable, the researcher inquires about the acceptability of its consequence from its circumstance. If readers cannot accept a consequence, warrants then must become claims as having their own arguments while supported by reasons and evidence.

It follows that a warrant is reasonable if it is limited. The book specifies “most warrants” as the scope or limits to assertions, but exceptions cannot then exclude reasons and claims. Sufficiently limited warrants with equivocations and qualifications have to consider exceptions where they cannot exclude reasons for claims made.

A warrant can be contradicted even if it is limited and reasonable. A contested warrant that requires one to prevail over another implies the necessity of further argument in support of the one offered superior to another. The book further explains that contested warrants can be reconciled by limiting them. Again, according to the book, without further strength of argument having reason and evidence, a warrant is reconciled by placing a limit on one or the other. There is no discussion about disproving the claims or evidence of a competing warrant, nor is there consideration given to the comparative weight of probability of one warrant over another.

As the strength of a warrant is put forward as reasonable, sufficiently limited, and superior to others, it must be narrowed to the particular area of research to which it pertains. If it does not pertain to the field of research of interest, it can be rejected on the grounds of inappropriate consideration.

The researcher must understand a warrant’s general circumstances and consequences is subordinate to or within the reason and claim asserted in support of an argument or proposition. The logic of arguments claimed and supported by reason and evidence with warrant may not be acceptable to a reader if it doesn’t cover what concerns the contested claim or warrant. Strict or pure logic is a relative proposition that pertains to the general circumstances and consequences to the reader who may accept or reject a warrant offered by a researcher. The topic of warrants is further developed in the book to explain when it is suitable for use and why it can test arguments made. Warrants can also be stood up to challenge others’ warrants against propositions or arguments made within a research project. Reasoning from arguments and propositions made is not always clear or obvious to readers, so warrants must be stated under the following occasions outlined in the book.

  1. Readers are outside the researcher’s field
  2. A new or controversial principle of reasoning is used in an argument or proposition
  3. If a reason or claim for an argument is rejected because readers don’t want it to be true, it becomes necessary to state warrants as further evidence and reason.

The researcher relies upon the reader’s rationality to accept arguments and claims based on logic to advance an understanding of a matter, even if the claims of an argument are unwanted, disbelieved, or confrontational.

Going further to understand the value of warrants, they can also be used to test arguments. As all arguments have implicit or explicit warrants, they are instruments by which a researcher can check the validity of an argument. Specific circumstances that do not fit a warrant’s general circumstances can invalidate an argument. Imagining the circumstances in which a warrant is applied can render further clarity about the viability of an argument to determine its acceptability and alignment with claims and whether or not they’re true. Justified claims made in support of an argument must accompany valid warrants. Instances of warrants that do not fit as evidentially valid of a warrant’s general circumstance can dismiss arguments.

Challenges to arguments can appear to claim endlessly, what about this? Or what about that? Under such circumstances, readers object to a researcher’s reasons that are not based on sound evidence. Or reasons that are not relevant to a claim should themselves be tested. Anecdotal evidence, dismissals, or counter-claims in support of the whataboutisms of readers who do not want to accept testable and sound evidence in support of arguments or propositions must bear the burden of rationale and evidence on the merits and truth of contested assertions. The book offers the notion that the researcher bears the burden of finding better evidence or providing a warrant that makes reasoning and rationale relevant to the reader. I reject this perspective from the book’s authors on the ground that reason with evidence and objective truth with valid warrants are sufficient for acceptance regardless of a reader’s interests. The book assumes readers are always purely objective and without bias or predisposition against the researcher’s material, worldview, or the researcher himself for personal reasons.            

What a research community accepts is not the criteria by which arguments or propositions from reason and claims are understood as true with valid warrants. An entire research community or a subgroup of it can be incorrect about a matter concerning the research. The authors give further attention to challenges by categorizing them as types or as having conditions. Researchers who persuade and influence readers through arguments with associated claims and supporting evidence have clear methods of delivering facts and warrants. Still, some challenges come from beliefs or concerns outside of the various forms of reason and logic.

According to the book, warrants are challenged by:

  • Experience

This attempt to challenge a warrant rests upon the reliability of the experience. If a reader can challenge the reliability of the experience stated within the research with valid evidence to its contrary, the warrant is dismissed or weakened. Conversely, special case counter-examples can have a detrimental effect on warrants.

  • Authority

A source of a challenge based on the charisma, position, status, or expertise of a person or group is the easiest and doesn’t necessarily have all the evidence to support warrants. Even if all the evidence was in the possession of figures in positions of authority, that authority alone is not sufficient to challenge the warrants of a researcher. People in positions of authority who borrow on that authority and challenge warrants by consequence damage counterarguments, dismissals, or assertions to the contrary have less to contribute to the overall conversation concerning the research in question.

  • Systems of Knowledge

Irrelevant facts that come into question when warrants are challenged have no bearing on the systems of knowledge to the contrary. According to this book’s authors, warrants backed by systems definitions, principles, or theories often withstand challenges. Facts under these circumstances are irrelevant.

  • Cultural Warrants

Social pressures, cultural traditions, and heritage can challenge warrants, but these challenges carry less weight or have a reduced strength of argument because “common sense” is rooted in social sensibilities. Readers who resist warrants from a position of beliefs stemming from cultural inclinations have very little bearing on the merits of well-crafted research and its results.

  • Methodological Warrants

The means by which a researcher can arrive at warrants comes into question and could get challenged if argumentation is not supported by the practical implementation of generally accepted patterns of thought. Principles in support of a methodological warrant can fall apart when they are applied to specific cases.

  • Articles of Faith

The authors of this book don’t allow for evidence that arises from faith (Hebrews 11:1). Meaning proofs are given in support of assured things through propositions or arguments from research unseen yet with facts and revelation attested through the testimony of witnesses and other forms of evidence. Warrants of belief that challenge warrants of research do not always come contrary to evidence as the authors of this book wrote. While that can be true in a general sense, it’s not true from correct biblical understanding about reasonable faith and associated merits of belief contrary to warrants from research contrary to faith claims upon evidence in numerous forms.

As compared to prior chapters of the reading of this book, the next two chapters concern the practical assembly of a research paper. More specifically, the paper is planned and drafted in an organized and coherent way suitable to the interest of readers. With attention to detail concerning the arguments made within the paper, the plan of a research document follows a thoughtful path that corresponds to the following draft. The plan in which a paper comes together corresponds to meaning that comports with the delivery of arguments, propositions, rationale, claims, reason, and warrants that offer compelling interest to the reader.

The book further delves into the introduction and body of the research paper to include storyboard sketches of what the subject matter concerns for each given paragraph that conveys a central idea. The introduction parses the sections of the paper where the reader is given a set of expectations about the subject matter ahead. As the paper groups together the major sections of the material, the researcher identifies key concepts early in the paper to run a thread of interest for the reader’s benefit. Once the introduction section is drafted with the sections and top-level ideas presented, the researcher turns his attention to the body of the paper itself.

The book continues to guide the researcher through suggestions concerning the body of the paper as it is structured to guide the reader. Rather than begin writing outright without a plan to construct a coherent series of part-by-part ideas or a cause-and-effect sequence of pointed interests, there is an order assembled by the researcher in which meaning is stitched together to support and develop an understanding of the arguments or propositions claimed. The order and complexity to which the body of the document is assembled depend largely upon the subject matter of the research and the intended reader. As the planning in this way is iterative to develop a draft, edits and refinement of the paper further support clear and coherent points partitioned by sections and subsections to guide the reader. Sections are organized in such a way as to present evidence for arguments and warrants for claims made. In anticipation of what readers might think about the subject matter, the researcher acknowledges them and responds accordingly.

 Before the arguments are organized, further discussion is offered about how to avoid the development of flawed plans. As a researcher turns an organized plan into a draft document, sufficient support is needed concerning the substance of the document while supported by the format and layout for readability. The structured organization for the paper to include headers, spacing, positioning of argumentation, placement of claims, and reasons must flow for readability to the reader’s liking. Where the readability and organization don’t get in the way of the subject matter presented.            

While the drafting and editing of the document consist of proper paragraph structure, dependent and independent clauses for sentence formation, correct punctuation, and so forth are the mechanics that are in service of the messages formed along the body of the paper. While there are numerous pitfalls in how a paper is written to convey its ideas, arguments, and propositions, the book offers guidance about how it is revised to improve organization and readability. Arguments strengthened in revisions of the paper from research has a significant bearing on both readability and the reader’s views about the researcher’s quality of research and how it is presented.


A Defense of Objective Truth

Truth is subjective to many people and relative to Christians and atheists alike. Subjectivism, as such, is the rejection of objective truth for a wide array of reasons. Atheists and anti-theists generally share a secular creed tacit in nature to declare there is no God. There is no objective truth. There is no ground for Reason. There are no absolute Morals. There is no ultimate Value. There is no ultimate Meaning. There is no eternal hope.1 In the mind of those who hold a worldview of subjectivism, everything is permitted without social constraints—notably, including people who attend and lead churches who do not accept the authority and truth of Scripture as God’s word. To “believers” or “Christians” who live as there is only limited objective truth, do so from a position of upholding the mantra of diversity, equity, and inclusion as a necessary and overriding social doctrine to shape false faith and errant practices.

Anti-theists or atheists outright opposed or indifferent to the existence of God make it clear and consistent that Christians who believe in God are deluded, misguided, or just people who never really grew up. Christians, across the board among every denomination or tradition without exception, hold varying degrees of acceptance concerning the objective truth of the gospel and Scripture. Consequently, most congregations are egalitarian. Very many favor same-sex marriage, tolerate promiscuous lifestyles, advocate homosexuality, ordain female pastors, adopt critical theory, accede to social justice violence, liberation theology, feminism, and numerous other conditions of social decay within the church. In contradiction to Jesus, our Messiah, and Apostles James, John, Peter, Paul, and others were crystal clear about objective truth concerning the gospel, repentance, sin, and Godly living. A survey of social media interaction among too many clergies and laity across a wide swath of denominations, from conservative to liberal ideologies, informs the culture of social positions opposed to objective truth as made clear through the authority of God’s word as His voice of instruction, redemption, and warning to humanity. The poison of subjectivism is thoroughly ingrained within the culture and the church. Where C.S. Lewis informs his readers that beliefs about moral judgments which are exclusively subjective to the individual or community are the poison of subjectivism that eventually leads to the destruction of society, beginning with traditional Christian morality.2

This post offers a defense of objective truth as made clear through the intent and meaning of canonical Holy Scripture as transmitted from ancient manuscripts. Conversely, when Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, “what is truth,” he spoke from a position of cynically subjective understanding to show itself as spiritually vacant from Christ and His word as Truth. To define truth is itself an objectivist position. An alternative or relative definition of truth per se to the subjectivist is unwanted or strained at best. According to Aristotle, truth is defined in terms of ordinary people in a pragmatic sense, “To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.” 3

Jesus defined Himself as the embodiment of Truth (Jn 1:14, 17, 14:6, 1 Jn 5:20). As transliterated from Greek as alētheia, He spoke of Himself in conformance to reality. His being as the embodiment of truth concerns Himself as Messiah and all He claimed, especially about a person’s access to eternal life and God the Father. True God revealed in Christ Jesus was and is made objectively evident “as what is is, and what is not is not, is true,” as Aristotle has put it. Not from subjective rationale stemming from alternate theories of truth to escape revelatory details of actual reality with corresponding metaphysical and philosophical support. “Telling it like it is” corresponds to facts about a matter objectively ascertained independently of a knower and his consciousness. Truth, in general, presupposes commonsense notions of reality, and if anything does not conform to reality, as a practical matter, theory or otherwise, that is by definition false.4 Therefore, a person can consequently frame observation of reality and its corresponding truth in terms of denial or acceptance.

Alternative theories of truth to counter subjectivistic thought, or subjective truth, can offer some perspective as conversations involving disbelief among atheists or unbiblical and sinful behaviors from Christians become evident or come up in conversations. The “what is true for me is not necessarily true for you” holds no credibility in opposition to objective truth. Four theories are generally understood to render universal and religious subjectivism meaningless.

First, a pragmatic theory of truth is Truth that works relatively. It’s a relativistic form of thought that ultimately becomes impractical because it devolves into an unending pursuit of pragmatic or destructive outcomes as an ongoing means to an end until circularity or exhaustion is reached. Second, the empiricist’s theory of truth is what someone would view truth as a function of sensory perception. Without empirical evidence to support rationalistic assertions concerning God and spiritual or supernatural objects of faith, false conclusions are made a priori that such terms and meaning are incomprehensible. Third, rationalists’ view of truth concerns human reason as the judge of reality and must distinctly be understood within cognitive reasoning alone. It is the denial that many truths cannot be proved, such as the law of noncontradiction. Finally, the coherence theory of truth that considers various sets of ideas can yield contradictory conclusions that are actually incoherent. Facts the way they really are can correspond to coherence theory, while a situation evident from another perspective can demonstrate otherwise to produce another contradiction. Coherence theory generally relies upon presuppositions of truth without objective and comprehensive facts as evidentially valid.

Individual abandonment of objective truth would cause a further precipitous decay within society and civilization in general. Atheist and Christian denials of truth as revealed through Creation and God’s word for purposes of convenience, preferences, or social utility erode an ability to comprehend revelation by grace either way. People are not created as necessary beings, but contingent beings grounded by actual alētheic existence with objective truth as a divinely instituted construct and requirement. Without being in fellowship with God, who expects acceptance and adherence to objective truth, both atheists and professing Christians naturally arrive at a place of confusion and misery, often eternally. The objective truth of the gospel and Scripture points to Jesus, who wants people to accept objective truth and come into fellowship with Him and the Father for salvific purposes. People who deny objective truth, or passively dismiss it, have no room for repentance and recognition of sin as made explicit by the authority of Scripture.5 To deny objective truth is what Apostle Paul warns about as a matter of principle with eternally damning consequences (Rom 1:18-32).

Paradoxical truth does not contradict objective truth as revealed and made evident in a natural sense throughout creation. Collisions in faith and reason do not somehow run up against the consistency of logic, but merely point to an inability to process observations and arrive at coherent conclusions due to the limitations of human cognition. While Richard Niebuhr’s (1894-1962) theological work attempted to shape knowledge of objective truth within a relativistic framework, he reasoned that universal truth could be obtained through historical traditions and relativism. Partially to explain the Western drive of denominationalism, he took a specific long-term interest between unity and diversity within the church. It was splintering at a growing rate in the 1950s, and he sought to bring the church into wider cultural acceptance within secular society to suit modern life. 6 The proliferation of church denominations is in the thousands. The largest convention in the U.S. (Southern Baptist Convention) is in a crisis of unity due to its partial acceptance of objective truth. For the same reason, Episcopalian and Lutheran churches have lost hundreds of thousands of members over the course of recent years. Other denominations have become more fragmented.

By further comparison, John Stott (1921-2011), an Anglican priest of evangelical tradition, wrote, “In our post-modern era, the self-confidence of the Enlightenment has gone, the very concept of objective ‘truth’ is rejected, and all that remains are purely personal and subjective opinions.” He wrote this perspective in 2001 to indicate the trajectory of social culture downstream from the church. Consequently, the state of civilization is in upheaval with violence, gender dysphoria, political unrest, political corruption, wars, and corporate greed, unlike any time before in history. Every bit of which serves as evidence of a departure from objective truth as the grounding of faith and morality in obedience to God’s prescriptive order. Consider entertainment and the state of academic institutions. Consider the widespread and deep infestation of subjectivism within local churches at the hands of leaders who believe what God has revealed in His Word but have not surrendered to objective truth to the growing demise of society at large.

Citations

________________
1 Gary DeMar, ed., Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 67.
2 Dr. Alan K. Snyder, “Lewis’s “Poison of Subjectivism” in Our Day” Southeastern University, Lakeland Florida, Accessed 11 April. 2022. https://ponderingprinciples.com/2017/12/16/lewiss-poison-of-subjectivism-in-our-day/
3 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Books I–XIV; Oeconomica; Magna Moralia, ed. Jeffrey Henderson, trans. Hugh Tredennick and G. Cyril Armstrong, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1933–1935), 201.
4 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 135.
5 John R. Franke, “Recasting Inerrancy: The Bible as Witness to Missional Plurality,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, and Stanley N. Gundry, Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 288.
6 Daniel G. Reid et al., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
7 John Stott, The Incomparable Christ (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001), 66.


Trace of a Saint

Higher Calling

Set apart and called for a purpose isolated, narrow, and exceedingly difficult to live. To press and to strive, to be willing to go and do. To produce and make certain the miracle of obedience born within.

Having just finished a slow-walk study of Acts where the ancient manuscript ends with the Apostle Paul in Rome, I have again undertaken a careful effort to go through the book of Romans. To retrace steps earlier taken. On the hope that the words will bring life and they are life and echo well beyond where we are.

I am newly awakened that the next 16 chapters are loaded with deep meaning from the Eternal and Most High. Far beyond my ability to absorb too much at once, I find myself going in reverse quite a bit. A rewind and retake of sorts to ponder, “Father what did you just say?” or “what was that again?” Numerous times anew to push me back in my seat and just mumble ‘wow’. Revealed are the words falling afresh. To newly accept what is accomplished as reality from a perspective that is not my own.

Out of my isolation, I am made aware and informed. Of a truth that I have seen before but have not recognized.

These are the words:

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

For some reason, especially certain and assured that these words will have the greatest bearing in the afterlife.


Abiding Truth

Continuing along in my reading of John Piper’s book, “What Jesus Demands from the World”, I just finished the section entitled “Abide in Me.” Numbered as demand #7 with references Jn 15:4, Jn 15:9, and Jn 8:31-32.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” -Jn 8:31-32

That dwelling, continuing, and remaining with Jesus comes from believing in him and his love daily. By being in daily prayer and abiding in His word, He will produce fruit within us and from us. And I would also add that worship is a crucial practice to glorify God in us in order that we are most satisfied in Him.