14 June 2024
I've been asked to explain once again why I disagree with Dr. Michael Heiser on some issues.
I've read most of his books all the way through, along with the ancillary study materials. I've watched many hours of his videos and paid close attention to what he said and how he said it.
One of the things he said often enough was that no one should feel compelled to agree with him on everything. But then, the one thing he stuck with was that he wanted to hear an academic reason for disagreeing with him. So far as I know, not once did he defer to convictions.
He had his calling and mission; I have mine. His obsession with academic reasoning represents a fundamental difference between us. He remained essentially a western man. Though he desperately tried to get people to understand the Hebrew epistemology, he himself did not really embrace the assumptions by which the Hebrew culture approached life. He said this flatly several times.
For me, the Hebrew intellectual traditions demand a certain set of assumptions about who God is and what He demands of us. Quite often Heiser's academic choices departed from the very Hebrew outlook he sought to declare. It was the Hebrew Scripture that consistently said your convictions trump your intellectual knowledge. He always clung to the academic answer when faith might demand something else. He insisted that faith and reason be treated as equals. That is a uniquely western approach, and most certainly not what the Bible encourages.
Thus, for me he takes his place among the large collection of Ancient Near Eastern experts who know all the ins and outs of the biblical outlook, but remain devoted fundamentally to western values. They certainly know the difference between the two, but they eschew the moral obligations that arise from a genuine Hebrew view of reality.
It's not a question of who is wrong or right, but whether I am responsive to my convictions, which are the voice of God for me.
Comments
Hoyos
You know it took me a longer time than perhaps it should have to get a handle on Proverbs 3:4-5 or why Aquinas allied the virtue of knowledge to the virtue of faith as opposed to prudence.
Thing is, only God can see all the pertinent information. That's when I think I "got it". That's why you don't rely on your own understanding. Also it becomes clear that God at times will withdraw reason from men. That's why faith and knowledge are connected.
Some will see it as against "reason", but reason here is in quotes because if you make the assumption that you know all the pertinent facts there's a good chance you're wrong. Any good con game has perfect reasoning, it's the inevitable assumptions (since logic itself relies on first principles that logic cannot prove), that pick your pocket.
This document is public domain; spread the message.