# Clarkians: what is this?



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2007)

My intent here is to understand how a Clarkian answers this question.

What is this:

A

Do you *know* what it is you're telling me it is or is it an opinion?


----------



## Civbert (Apr 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> My intent here is to understand how a Clarkian answers this question.
> 
> What is this:
> 
> ...



Depends on the context. Are you asking what is the letter A? Are you asking if the symbol A has meaning unto itself? 

One thing I can say for certain:

A is not not-A​


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2007)

You just used it 13 times (if I don't count your Signature).

How did you know where to place it? Words you formed with it had a meaning that was communicated to me that I understood.

Did you know how to use it or do you have an opinion on its use?


----------



## Civbert (Apr 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> You just used it 13 times (if I don't count your Signature).
> 
> How did you know where to place it? Words you formed with it had a meaning that was communicated to me that I understood.
> 
> Did you know how to use it or do you have an opinion on its use?



Are you asking for a grammar lesson, or a spelling lesson? My grammar is poor and my speling is worse still. Rules of grammar are a matter of convention. Spelling too for that matter. 

But you do understand what I am writing, yes? I find that amazing in itself (not that you understand, but that language works). God started creation by speaking. And we he created Adam, he gave Adam language and spoke to him. I think that in itself boggles the mind.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Are you asking for a grammar lesson, or a spelling lesson? My grammar is poor and my speling is worse still. Rules of grammar are a matter of convention. Spelling too for that matter.
> 
> But you do understand what I am writing, yes? I find that amazing in itself (not that you understand, but that language works). God started creation by speaking. And we he created Adam, he gave Adam language and spoke to him. I think that in itself boggles the mind.



Well in grammar and spelling mistakes we're alike.

Nevertheless, words have been formed using the letter A. Whether you accidentally use it in a word or not and whether the word or punctuation combinations are perfectly used, do the words and the grammar convey knowldedge? If they do then how do you know how to use the letter A in some words that convey knowledge? Do you know how to use it or is it convention and, therefore, opinion?

Have to head to work now. My silence for a few hours will be due to exercise and other affairs.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Well in grammar and spelling mistakes we're alike.
> 
> Nevertheless, words have been formed using the letter A. Whether you accidentally use it in a word or not and whether the word or punctuation combinations are perfectly used, do the words and the grammar convey knowledge? If they do then how do you know how to use the letter A in some words that convey knowledge? Do you know how to use it or is it convention and, therefore, opinion?



Well the knowledge is not specifically with the words themselves - the knowledge lies with the meaning that underlies the words. This is how we can speak in different languages and still convey the same meaning. This is why we can translate the Bible into different languages and know that the gospel messages is the same in French or Cantonese. 

The symbols themselves, when and how they are used, is a matter of convention, and yes, even opinion. The meaning of statements may or may not be opinion. I don't believe there is a epistemic justification for grammar rules and spelling. God never gave the command, thou shall not split your infinitives. We simply need to define these rules and try to follow them. And that is what we do. (Sort of the way Adam named the animals.)


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 16, 2007)

2. Timothy 2:23


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Well the knowledge is not specifically with the words themselves - the knowledge lies with the meaning that underlies the words.



Do the letters themselves play any role in conveying the meaning that underlies the words?


----------



## Magma2 (Apr 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> My intent here is to understand how a Clarkian answers this question.
> 
> What is this:
> 
> ...



It's the letter A. It's an opinion of course. Since you're stationed in Okinawa, Japan, perhaps you can find someone who has never had any contact with the Western alphabet and ask them. Maybe they'll have a different opinion.  

Since I humored you, perhaps you can tell me what this is below since I have no opinion whatsoever. For what it's worth I call this epistemic state ignorance.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Do the letters themselves play any role in conveying the meaning that underlies the words?



I don't think so. Letter's in themselves have no meaning. Meaning is found in the relationships between the terms. 

I was thinking about the original question and I think maybe it's easier to understand if you consider that a symbol by itself is just ink on paper. Symbols only find meaning through how they are defined. That's part of the reason saying knowledge is propositional - it also applies to opinions.

"A" itself means nothing.

"A" _is_ the first letter in the alphabet means something.

"A" _is_ blood type means something.

"A" _is_:


> the indefinite article, used before a singular countable noun to refer to one person or thing not previously known or specified, in contrast with “the,” referring to somebody or something known to the listener
> Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.



I don't think I've said anything original or unique to Scripturalism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2007)

Civbert said:


> I don't think so. Letter's in themselves have no meaning. Meaning is found in the relationships between the terms.
> 
> I was thinking about the original question and I think maybe it's easier to understand if you consider that a symbol by itself is just ink on paper. Symbols only find meaning through how they are defined. That's part of the reason saying knowledge is propositional - it also applies to opinions.
> 
> ...



I think we're missing each other.

Does a verse in Scripture convey knowledge (justified true belief according to you)?

If so, how is this knowledge conveyed?

Regardless of the symbology used, there is some sort of medium conveying the knowledge.

Since we're dealing with English here, do the English words, grammar, and syntax convey knowledge or not?


----------



## Magma2 (Apr 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Since we're dealing with English here, do the English words, grammar, and syntax convey knowledge or not?



Only propositions are either true or false. Propositions are the meanings of declarative SENTENCES. 

Maybe this will help. This is from J. P. Moreland who is not a "Clarkian" by any stretch:



> What is a proposition? Minimally, it is the content of declarative sentences/statements and thoughts/beliefs that is true or false. Beyond that philosophers are in disagreement, but most would agree that a proposition 1) is not located in space or time; 2) is not identical to the linguistic entities that may be used to express it; 3) is not sense perceptible; 4) is such that the same proposition may be in more then one mind at once; 5) need not be grasped by any (at least finite) person to exist and be what it is; 6) may itself be an object of thought when, for example, one is thinking about the content of one's own thought processes; 7) is in no sense a physical entity.
> 
> By contrast, a sentence is a linguistic type or token consisting in a sense perceptible string of markings formed according to a culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules. A statement is a sequence of sounds or body movements employed by a speaker to assert a sentence on a specific occasion. So understood, neither sentences nor statements are good candidates for the basic truth bearer.
> 
> ...



While hopefully that helps you sort things out, I think the only thing that might eradicate your hostility toward against Scripturalism is to just spend a little time actually interacting with Clark. If nothing else he was a brilliant philosopher and an excellent teacher. I would suggest starting with his "Intro to Christian Philosophy" since most of your objections are examined and, I would think, overcome in that book. It would at least put your mind at ease that what Clark taught wasn't some heretical or gnostic attack on the Christian faith and a departure from the Reformed faith as Rev. Winzer wrongly asserts. Look, you're going to find a lot of hostility toward Clark out there, so you don't have to go very far for conformation of your own biases and prejudices. However, I am confident you will see most objections, including your own, have to do with ignorance rather than substance.


----------



## MW (Apr 16, 2007)

> Second, it’s not sufficient. If erosion carved an author less linguistic scribble in a hillside, for example, "I’m eroding", then strictly speaking it would have no meaning or content, though it would be empirically equivalent to another token of this type that would express a proposition were it the result of authorial intent.



God is the author of all things which exist. All existence is the result of authorial intent. Ps. 107:43, "Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the lovingkindness of the LORD."


----------



## MW (Apr 16, 2007)

Calvin comments:



> Whosoever is wise, so as to observe these things. We are now informed
> that men begin to be wise when they turn their whole attention to the
> contemplation of the works of God, and that all others besides are fools.
> For however much they may pique themselves upon their superior
> ...


----------



## Civbert (Apr 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I think we're missing each other.
> 
> Does a verse in Scripture convey knowledge (justified true belief according to you)?


 Yes. I should add that Scripture understood and believed _is_ knowlege - not that it simply _coveys_ knowledge.




SemperFideles said:


> If so, how is this knowledge conveyed?


 There are different views on this by different Scripturalists. (Just as different empiricists and rationalist have different theories on how knowledge is conveyed.) But ultimately, it is God who coveys knowledge, through the Spirit. This seems the most consistent with Scripture in how God speaks to us.



SemperFideles said:


> Since we're dealing with English here, do the English words, grammar, and syntax convey knowledge or not?


 Are you asking if words play a part - I think so. But then I am getting further from what is clear in Scripture. 

Taken by themselves they covey nothing. Taken together, they play a role. But taken together but apart from the Spirit, I don't think they can covey knowledge.

And as J. P. Moreland shows, one needs to differentiate between the propositional knowledge and the words and terms that represent or covey them. Knowledge exits apart from words and terms.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> Only propositions are either true or false. Propositions are the meanings of declarative SENTENCES.
> 
> Maybe this will help. This is from J. P. Moreland who is not a "Clarkian" by any stretch:


My wife actually had him for a few classes.



> While hopefully that helps you sort things out, I think the only thing that might eradicate your hostility toward against Scripturalism is to just spend a little time actually interacting with Clark. If nothing else he was a brilliant philosopher and an excellent teacher. I would suggest starting with his "Intro to Christian Philosophy" since most of your objections are examined and, I would think, overcome in that book. It would at least put your mind at ease that what Clark taught wasn't some heretical or gnostic attack on the Christian faith and a departure from the Reformed faith as Rev. Winzer wrongly asserts. Look, you're going to find a lot of hostility toward Clark out there, so you don't have to go very far for conformation of your own biases and prejudices. However, I am confident you will see most objections, including your own, have to do with ignorance rather than substance.



My question is not intended to express hostility toward Scripturalism. I'm trying to interact with a very basic question.

Something Moreland says is fascinating. Would you agree with all of this:


> It is pretty easy to show that having or using a sentence (or any other piece of language) is neither necessary nor sufficient for thinking or having propositional content. First it’s not necessary. Children think prior to their acquisition of language how else could they thoughtfully learn language and, indeed, we all think without language regularly. Moreover, the same propositional content may be expressed by a potentially infinite number of pieces of language and, thus, that content is not identical to any linguistic entity. This alone does not show that language is not necessary for having propositional content.



Here is where I'm trying to figure out how you reconcile these things:

1. I agree that children think before they have a capacity to express things in words and sentences and then use symbolic language.

2. At some point, however, they _learn_ language and then symbolic language, which they can utilize to convey meaning to one another as you and I are doing right now using the English language.

3. It seems to me that a person cannot know the propositions of Scripture unless they are communicated to them in a language they know. They must hear the words and be able to understand their meaning in their own language. Alternatively, they must read the propositions and understand them based on the grammatical rules, spelling, and syntax. For instance:

Sean Gerety is a man.
Sean Gerety is a man?

Communicate two different thoughts. Different languages convey the same idea using different symbology. Japanese, for instance, uses a word that conveys that it is a question. English uses punctuation. You and I both know the difference above because we have been trained in the English language.


Break.

What I'm trying to understand is how you view the formation of knowledge. One cannot communicate a proposition from one person to another without the medium of some language. God can do so immediately to individuals I suppose but that's not what I hear you arguing for.

The basic question: What is *A* was meant to ask how you learned about A. Did it's use in English words, grammar, and syntax come to you immediately or by some other means. When you use it to form words and sentences to communicate propositions that convey real knowledge is its use and the use of the words and syntax are you doing so based on knowledge or not? If not on knowledge then how are propositions that communicate knowledge communicated by a medium that you have no epistemic justification for?


----------



## Civbert (Apr 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Something Moreland says is fascinating. Would you agree with all of this:
> 
> 
> > It is pretty easy to show that having or using a sentence (or any other piece of language) is neither necessary nor sufficient for thinking or having propositional content. First it’s not necessary. Children think prior to their acquisition of language how else could they thoughtfully learn language and, indeed, we all think without language regularly. Moreover, the same propositional content may be expressed by a potentially infinite number of pieces of language and, thus, that content is not identical to any linguistic entity. This alone does not show that language is not necessary for having propositional content.


 Yes, I agree with this completely. I also think it is also key. Propositional is the form of knowledge. A proposition is not a statement- it is the _meaning _of a statement (aka declaratory sentence).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Yes, I agree with this completely. I also think it is also key. Propositional is the form of knowledge. A proposition is not a statement- it is the _meaning _of a statement (aka declaratory sentence).



OK, well you're welcome to interact with the rest of my above.


----------



## Magma2 (Apr 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Something Moreland says is fascinating. Would you agree with all of this:
> 
> Quote:
> It is pretty easy to show that having or using a sentence (or any other piece of language) is neither necessary nor sufficient for thinking or having propositional content. First it’s not necessary. Children think prior to their acquisition of language how else could they thoughtfully learn language and, indeed, we all think without language regularly. Moreover, the same propositional content may be expressed by a potentially infinite number of pieces of language and, thus, that content is not identical to any linguistic entity. This alone does not show that language is not necessary for having propositional content.



While I can't commend the whole address from which that quote was lifted, I agree with him here. 



> The basic question: What is *A* was meant to ask how you learned about A. Did it's use in English words, grammar, and syntax come to you immediately or by some other means. When you use it to form words and sentences to communicate propositions that convey real knowledge is its use and the use of the words and syntax are you doing so based on knowledge or not? If not on knowledge then how are propositions that communicate knowledge communicated by a medium that you have no epistemic justification for?



I snipped some of the preceding. I think Moreland draws out the distinctions between words, letters, syntax, etc. and propositions, which, by definition are spiritual. He said: 

"By contrast, a sentence is a linguistic type or token consisting in a sense perceptible string of markings formed according to a culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules."

I think you would agree that regardless of what meanings these types or tokens may convey, "a set of culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules," much less "a sense perceptible string of markings" can hardly, in and of themselves, be truths. They are arbitrary and change from culture to culture or even within a culture. Truth is neither arbitrary nor does it change, much less from culture to culture. However, both true and false propositions can be expressed in any language because man is created in God's image whose mind is logic. The proposition "a man is justified by faith alone apart from works of the law" can be expressed in accordance with any linguistic token "formed according to a culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules." That is, after all, what folks at Wycliffe are all about. Believing it to be true is another thing entirely. But even simply believing something to be true doesn't constitute knowledge either. 

I quoted John Robbins on another thread saying:



> Knowledge is not simply possessing thoughts or ideas, as some think. Knowledge is possessing true ideas and knowing them to be true. Knowledge is, by definition, knowledge of the truth . . . Opinions can be true or false; we just don’t know which. History, except for revealed history, is opinion. Science is opinion. Archaeology is opinion. John Calvin said, “I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets.” Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth.



Now, aside from believing the proposition "a man is justified by faith alone apart from works of the law" how do I account for its truth? According to Scripture of course. The truth of Scripture is the unprovable axiom, or starting point, or presupposition of the Christian system. How can I account for other things which are neither contained within the axiom of Christianity or deduced from it? I can't. Empiricism ends in skepticism, not knowledge. Rationalism is no help either. Logical positivism is both self-refuting and suffers from the same fate as other forms of empiricism. Science, which also suffers from the same difficulties due to its empiricism, even at its most rigorous, consists of a tissue of logical fallacies that can never account for the truth of its own conclusions . . . much less its premises. We can discuss archaeology, history (apart from divinely revealed history of course), tradition and anything else you want, but I can't see how any of these things will improve this dire situation. Besides, Peter said that the Scriptures are a light shining in a dark place. We live in a dark place as any serious study of the history of philosophy will demonstrate. The only escape is to accept a word from God.

So the critic will say something like "don't you know your wife." If I say "no" he will thump his chest, wipe his hands, make a derisive wise crack or two, and walk away. Yet, on what basis can the critic account for his own wife? I saw a movie this weekend called "The Prestige." Not to give away the plot, doubles were used not only fool the audience, but even the main character's wife. Admittedly it's not likely that someone is switching my wife from the time I wake up and when I get home from work, but as long as the possibility exists how do I know she doesn't have an equally beautiful and pleasant twin?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2007)

I'll digest your post later Sean. Sorry, I _had_ to edit out the spoiler. It's a great movie and giving that part away would ruin it. Don't have time to follow up with something I want to ask but I'll get to it soon.


----------



## Magma2 (Apr 16, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> What I'm trying to understand is how you view the formation of knowledge. One cannot communicate a proposition from one person to another without the medium of some language. God can do so immediately to individuals I suppose but that's not what I hear you arguing for.



I don't know why you don't hear us arguing this since I think I've gone to great lengths to make this very point. I even quoted Edwards per my exchange with Rev. Winzer in that previous thread you closed in an attempt to hammer this point home. I even quoted the Ghost of Van Til from Manata's blog (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/paradox-in-christian-theology.html):



> A genuine Christian epistemolgy requires the premise that God takes the initiative in our knowing as he does in our salvation (that is why salvation is called "coming to the knowledge of the truth"). People know only because God causes them to know, not because they have attained knowledge on their own.



I've said things like God is truth and order for us to know something truthfully we must know something God knows. We can read the culturally arbitrary marks in our bibles until we're blue in the face, we may even be able to express some of the ideas contained within the Scriptures accurately, yet, in spite of all this, we will never come to know the truth unless God takes the initiative and causes us to believe. Truth is what God thinks and for no other reasons than he thinks it. OK, that last sentence is new, but I still think I've stressed this point in other threads.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> I don't know why you don't hear us arguing this since I think I've gone to great lengths to make this very point. I even quoted Edwards per my exchange with Rev. Winzer in that previous thread you closed in an attempt to hammer this point home. I even quoted the Ghost of Van Til from Manata's blog (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/paradox-in-christian-theology.html):
> 
> I've said things like God is truth and order for us to know something truthfully we must know something God knows. We can read the culturally arbitrary marks in our bibles until we're blue in the face, we may even be able to express some of the ideas contained within the Scriptures accurately, yet, in spite of all this, we will never come to know the truth unless God takes the initiative and causes us to believe. Truth is what God thinks and for no other reasons than he thinks it. OK, that last sentence is new, but I still think I've stressed this point in other threads.



I meant by the term _immediately_ that he doesn't communicate the knowledge into our minds without a medium (i.e. the Word of God). It is the Spirit, through the Word, that God communicates Truth to us.

I've never heard a Clarkian argue that we normally learn truth apart from the means of God's Word (a Scripturalist version of Let Go and Let God). What I'm confused about is how you see a "...culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules..." have ability to communicate a justified true belief.

Consider this proposition: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

I assume you'll agree with me that the proposition is true but it is conveyed by arbitratry syntactical rules that are based on mere opinion.

That is to say, I learn my A,B,C's and language from teachers. I learn where to place punctuation, etc. I grow in this knowledge from use and exposure to it. It's my increased vocabulary and ability to discern tenses and tones and a host of other information that allows extremely sophisticated propositions to be conveyed to me. Honestly, a number of years ago, everything you wrote above would have gone right over my head. My education in philosophical and theological categories and exposure to the vocabulary exposes me to more concepts that I'm able to understand what you're telling me.

Thus, my experience with and exposure to "arbitrary syntactical rules" allows me to read theological and philosophical books with profit that I could not understand.

Now, again, I want to assume you're not saying that Clarkians "know" that knowledge is "justified true belief" because God has beamed that understanding in your head apart from comprehending it in a book written by Gordon Clark. Maybe that's what you're saying. I'm trying to connect the particulars that are mere opinions and conventions (letters and words) that you can "know" nothing from to the propositions that you know and have justified true belief of. I thought I read Anthony in another thread insist that all knowledge can be communicated propositionally. How with arbitrary syntactical rules that are mere opinion?

Finally I would ask you about this:


> Look, you're going to find a lot of hostility toward Clark out there, so you don't have to go very far for conformation of your own biases and prejudices. However, I am confident you will see most objections, including your own, have to do with ignorance rather than substance.


By reading Clark, are you saying that I would learn more and would thus have fewer biases and prejudices? Will I learn something by experiencing Clark's work for myself that will benefit my propositional understanding?


----------



## Magma2 (Apr 17, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I meant by the term _immediately_ that he doesn't communicate the knowledge into our minds without a medium (i.e. the Word of God). It is the Spirit, through the Word, that God communicates Truth to us.



If you followed Moreland's explanation and definition of what a proposition consists of, you'd understand that the Word is not ink markings on a page. The Word of God consists of eternal truths, i.e., divine thoughts and not sensual objects. Hence, knowledge of the truth is not mediated through the senses. These arbitrary linguistic tokens maybe an occasion by which God may impress His truth on the mind of one of His children, but God alone is our teacher. The Scriptures tell us the natural mind is "enmity" toward God and "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." Notice, not empirically or sensually appraised. 

I had sent that Moreland quote to Dr. Robbins and he replied: "Too bad he does not see the implications for empiricism, such as propositions cannot be logically derived from anything non-propositional." That _is_ a problem for Moreland, but not for Clark.



> My education in philosophical and theological categories and exposure to the vocabulary exposes me to more concepts that I'm able to understand what you're telling me.
> 
> Thus, my experience with and exposure to "arbitrary syntactical rules" allows me to read theological and philosophical books with profit that I could not understand.
> 
> Now, again, I want to assume you're not saying that Clarkians "know" that knowledge is "justified true belief" because God has beamed that understanding in your head apart from comprehending it in a book written by Gordon Clark.



The word "to know" is used in the sense of JTB in Scripture when, for example, Jesus said; "If you abide in My word, then you . . . shall know the truth . . . ." Peter also commands us to provide an account for the things we as Christian claim to know ("always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence). OK, I have problems with the gentleness and reverence thing, but I'm a work in progress.  




> I'm trying to connect the particulars that are mere opinions and conventions (letters and words) that you can "know" nothing from to the propositions that you know and have justified true belief of. I thought I read Anthony in another thread insist that all knowledge can be communicated propositionally. How with arbitrary syntactical rules that are mere opinion?



Only propositions are either true or false. Again, I would refer you back again to that quote from Moreland. I think he answers your question and objection and if you read his collection of culturally chosen linguistic tokens, you may even be disabused of your underlying empirical assumptions as Moreland should have been (but evidently was not). 



> By reading Clark, are you saying that I would learn more and would thus have fewer biases and prejudices? Will I learn something by experiencing Clark's work for myself that will benefit my propositional understanding?



Who knows? That certainly is my hope. If nothing else Clark's critique of empiricism is devastating. His _Intro to Christian Phil_ was first given as a lecture series at Wheaton. Needless to say those lectures, and his thorough going Calvinism, pretty much ended his career there. That books is also available in the volume Christian Philosophy. Of course it's always possible that you'll acquire more biases and prejudices. In either case you'll certainly understand more even if you don't believe it. While he certainly draws heavily on others and is basically a very consistent Augustinian, he was an incredibly original thinker and his genius is that he makes very difficult ideas plain -- which I gather is the old Puritan ideal (hard to believe when I first read Owen). 

For what it's worth, the first book I ever read by Clark was _Thales to Dewey_ which I purchased as an alternative selection when I was a member of the "Conservative Book Club" years ago. It is arguably the best single volume history of philosophy. A few years later when I first heard a bunch of obnoxious Calvinists berate a Baptist friend of mine on the question of free will, I remembered the bibliography of Clark books listed in the back of Thales. I figured if this guy could write such an excellent history of philosophy, perhaps his book on predestination might be worth a peek. Well, that book kept me up at night for weeks searching the Scriptures to see if what this guy was saying was true. Needless to say, even if I never read another book by Clark, his book _Predestination_ changed my life, so I do have a rather personal affinity and appreciation for his work. 

Look at it this way, if you read Clark you won't have to read Robbins or anyone else in order to try and figure out what he meant (unlike some other Dutch theologian who will remain unmentioned).


----------



## Civbert (Apr 17, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I...
> I've never heard a Clarkian argue that we normally learn truth apart from the means of God's Word (a Scripturalist version of Let Go and Let God). What I'm confused about is how you see a "...culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules..." have ability to communicate a justified true belief.



Ah-ha! Maybe we can I can help clear something up. I think I understand why we are talking past each other.

1) Scripturalism is not about how we _learn _truth. It is how we determine belief from knowledge - how we can account for truth. Given _P_, if _P _is Scripture or deducible from Scripture, then _P _is knowledge. That is the role of Scripture in Scripturalism , as the epistemic axiom.

2) How we _learn __P _is a different issue. Most Scripturalist agree we learn _P _through the working of the Spirit immediately in our minds to both believe and understand. So by "learn" then I mean - come to understand and believe _P_. 

3) How we become _aware_ of _P _is a different issue from how we can account for _P_ or how we learn _P_. One _might _become aware of _P _from reading a book, or hear a lecture, or just thinking about things. But none of this is relevant to determining if _P _is a justified true belief or the process of actually understanding and believing. 

Scripturalism says _P _is a justified true belief if it is Scripture or deducible therefrom.

I hope that helps.


----------



## Magma2 (Apr 17, 2007)




----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 17, 2007)

Rich, I take your question to refer to knowing language – how to speak – before we know Biblical truth, and apart from Biblical truth. According to Sean’s definition (or Clark’s?) it is not knowing: only what is revealed in Scripture pertains to true knowing.

In the poll Sean started, “How Do We Know?” [I took that as the real question, and not his later more convoluted, “Which of the following provides man with justified true belief (knowledge)”], I chose “The Bible - God's revelation to man”.

I know my world accurately and truly because He has illumined it by His Word. I know why I am able to think: because He has created a rational mind in me, and illumined both my inner being and the various realms of existence by His Word.

Before I was regenerated by his Spirit I knew the world and myself but I did not know them truly, nor accurately. I knew language, but in the realm of the dead, and it was the knowledge of death, devoid of life and truth. The knowledge of those in Hell is not _Knowing_ rightly understood, but sophisticated ignorance.

Where I have tangled with Sean before (in the Cannabis / Genesis 1:29 thread) is in what we can genuinely know. *Without wishing to revisit that discussion here*, I asserted that when God prohibits a certain activity He gives us the necessary understanding so as to obey Him, even though the Scripture may not have a detailed treatise on the sins involved. For it gives us _sufficient_ knowledge of what constitutes sin that we might not do it.

Thus, I take the view that we may have knowledge of things in the world, and their properties, sufficient to keep His commandments. In Genesis 1:28 it is written, 

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.​
And what is this “subduing” but bringing it under our benign control, a control which involves gaining a knowledge of it so as to manipulate its various elements and their properties for God’s glory and our good?

Is there not a subsidiary knowing, beneath revealed truth of Scripture, yet in accord with it and subject to it, achieving its purposes?

Let me give an example from Gordon Clark. In his little book, _Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism_, Clark uses the non-Scriptural disciplines of both church and textual history to prove a point regarding a texttype he considers more worthy than another, as well as an English translation of that texttype.

Thus he is asserting, on authorities other than Scripture itself, a truth regarding that Scripture. (I realize that the position he took can be supported from Scripture itself, but he did not take that approach in his book.)

(Not wishing to open this can of worms here, I must nonetheless aver that in Van Til’s “controversy” with Clark over what is widely known as “the well-meant offer” of the Gospel, I think Clark was in the right over against the OPC’s view, so the little I know of Clark is favorable.) 

Anyway, I posit that there is, as I stated above, a subsidiary knowing that, while valid, is not on a par with revealed and eternal truth. This does not quite line up, Sean, with what I have seen you say about knowing. And I wonder if you are faithfully rendering Clark’s thought to us who know very little of it? I’m not saying you’re not, I’m just wondering.

Steve


----------



## Magma2 (Apr 17, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Without wishing to revisit that discussion here, I asserted that when God prohibits a certain activity He gives us the necessary understanding so as to obey Him, even though the Scripture may not have a detailed treatise on the sins involved.



Then it is unwise to invent new sins apart from Scripture as you attempted to do per the thread you don't want to revisit here.  



> Sean, with what I have seen you say about knowing. And I wonder if you are faithfully rendering Clark’s thought to us who know very little of it? I’m not saying you’re not, I’m just wondering.



Click on the link I provided above for Rich, buy the book, and find out for yourself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Ah-ha! Maybe we can I can help clear something up. I think I understand why we are talking past each other.
> 
> 1) Scripturalism is not about how we _learn _truth. It is how we determine belief from knowledge - how we can account for truth. Given _P_, if _P _is Scripture or deducible from Scripture, then _P _is knowledge. That is the role of Scripture in Scripturalism , as the epistemic axiom.
> 
> ...



Can you learn P before you are aware of it?

Clarification here also please:


> ...we might become aware of _P _from reading a book, or hear a lecture, or just thinking about things



Those are all mediums yes?

I'm not trying to dispute the necessity of the illumination of the Holy Spirit but you seem to separate the necessity of the Word from the working of the Spirit. The Word is always spoken of as something mediately delivered and not merely an abstraction.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Can you learn P before you are aware of it?


 I think so, but that's not the normal order. And it's not something dictated by Scripturalism.

I think the normal order is awareness of P, understanding and believing P. The understanding and believing P and occur with justifying P, or the justifying P can come after. 



SemperFideles said:


> Clarification here also please:
> 
> 
> > ...we might become aware of P from reading a book, or hear a lecture, or just thinking about things
> ...


 For conveying awareness of P, not knowing or understanding or believing P.



SemperFideles said:


> I'm not trying to dispute the necessity of the illumination of the Holy Spirit but you seem to separate the necessity of the Word from the working of the Spirit. The Word is always spoken of as something mediately delivered and not merely an abstraction.


I'm not sure what your saying. The Word is the revelation of God as presented in Scripture. What we "learn" from Scripture become knowledge when we believe it and can account for it. I don't think the Word and the Holy Spirit are identical. Christ and the Word on the other hand are often used interchangeably. John tells us the Jesus is the Word of God. So the truths of God's revelation and Jesus Christ are inextricable tied. But the Spirit has a different function (I think economy is the term often used). The Spirit is a separate person from the Son. Both have a necessary but separate role in knowledge.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 18, 2007)

Your explanation of how you divide awareness from learning was helpful in explaining yourself. Your further elaboration re-introduces what my main question is. I think what you might call "learn", I might call "illuminate".


Civbert said:


> > Originally Posted by SemperFideles
> > Can you learn P before you are aware of it?
> 
> 
> ...



Thus, it appears that we're still back to how one gains awareness of P. We're still back to language and words and other things that convey the meaning. What I've been driving at is that our awareness is not immediate (to use your terms). You acknowledge we must read or hear such things. My problem is the way in which your system seems to denigrate the mechanism of conveyance. 

Eyeballs moving across the text of Scripture would seem to be classified as something gained via sense perception and unreliable according to you. Maybe you're saying that it doesn't matter whether or not the things I'm aware of are reliable or not since the Holy Spirit would confirm that knowledge to me. If that's the case, however, then it wouldn't seem to matter what book I'm reading or even if I'm reading a book but just staring at the stars contemplating the heavens and become aware of God's creation. The Holy Spirit would then come along, regardless of the reliability of the medium, and I would learn the same thing.

Thus, I'm trying to reconcile how you move from awareness - based on physical media you read or hear along with your capacity to grasp the language which you learn by experience - to learning (or illumination. It seems you would have to state that your awareness of a thing you read is always unreliable but maybe I'm still missing something.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Your explanation of how you divide awareness from learning was helpful in explaining yourself. Your further elaboration re-introduces what my main question is. I think what you might call "learn", I might call "illuminate".
> 
> 
> Thus, it appears that we're still back to how one gains awareness of P. We're still back to language and words and other things that convey the meaning. What I've been driving at is that our awareness is not immediate (to use your terms). You acknowledge we must read or hear such things. My problem is the way in which your system seems to denigrate the mechanism of conveyance.
> ...



Scripturalism doesn't directly answer some of these issues. It doesn't necessary explain how we become aware, or if awareness is necessary for knowledge. It simply says that in order to justify the truth P, we need to be able to deduce it from Scripture. 

Personally, I don't how that one needs to be "aware" of the justification (that is personally deduce P from scripture) in order to have knowledge - however, one can't know they know without doing so. That's confusing I know (or opine if you want). But I want to be clear that at some point I'm going from Scripturalism into speculation. I have certain opinions, but they are not necessitated by Scripture or Scripturalism (same difference). 

Personally, my opinion is that one doesn't have to deduce everything from Scripture in order to have knowledge. I believe infants and the mentally handicap can have saving knowledge without personally "reading" or "hearing" the Word. I think Clark agrees with this because he said infants can be saved - and he also said that faith is believing the required propositions of the Gospel. The answer to what one must believe in order to be saved is available to infants and the brain damaged. 

I also believe that reading and hearing has a role in the normal process of becoming aware of P. But as I said, being aware of P is different from coming to know P.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 18, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Scripturalism doesn't directly answer some of these issues. It doesn't necessary explain how we become aware, or if awareness is necessary for knowledge. It simply says that in order to justify the truth P, we need to be able to deduce it from Scripture.



I thought the Clarkian view on faith was that it requires notitia and assensus. It doesn't answer how one gets the notitia?



> Personally, I don't how that one needs to be "aware" of the justification (that is personally deduce P from scripture) in order to have knowledge - however, one can't know they know without doing so. That's confusing I know (or opine if you want). But I want to be clear that at some point I'm going from Scripturalism into speculation. I have certain opinions, but they are not necessitated by Scripture or Scripturalism (same difference).


Doesn't that seem strange to you though? This is the reason I'll never be terribly attracted to Philosophy. I just don't have to wonder if, when I'm reading the Word of God, that I'm really reading it or whether it's true. It seems that the very command to teach the things of the Scripture to your children and place them on your doorposts conveys the obvious idea that education, memorization, reading, and the like all have value in how we and our children gain knowledge. That you have to second guess and call the process speculation is very strange to me.

I just don't see a warrant for doubting whether or not I'm becoming aware of or learning from the Word of God as I'm reading it. I have already granted that the Word of God is only understandable to those whose eyes have been opened by the Spirit of God but that is different than calling it speculation that reading the Gospels on paper does not put me in contact with God's Word in a way the Koran does not.

It's just very odd to me that you would talk like this about knowing God's Word when the Word itself teaches that it is able to make men wise unto salvation.



> I also believe that reading and hearing has a role in the normal process of becoming aware of P. But as I said, being aware of P is different from coming to know P.


Although I cannot completely fault this statement because I know that some can read the Word of God with blind eyes, I hope you can understand my larger problem with it. I don't know, I guess I can glorify God and say: "God, thank you for the letter A! Thank you for letters and words and paper and the abundance of paper because there was a time when most men couldn't read and paper was scarce and the Word of God was forgotten."

I think you're glad you can read the Bible too but I just sense a disconnect and a questioning of whether or not when you're reading a word that you're actually getting something from it because it is tainted by being a mediated form of expression that you gained from a skill that you learned by experience.

It's just very odd to me. I don't know if I'd ever be able to think like that even if I can completely understand where you're coming from.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I thought the Clarkian view on faith was that it requires notitia and assensus. It doesn't answer how one gets the notitia.


 They both come from God via the Holy Spirit. This is Clark's definition of faith. It's not his epistemology. Correct understanding (notitia) requires the Holy Spirit just as accent to the truth of what is understood (assensus) requires the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Doesn't that seem strange to you though? This is the reason I'll never be terribly attracted to Philosophy. I just don't have to wonder if, when I'm reading the Word of God, that I'm really reading it or whether it's true.


 I don't either. When I read the Bible, I'm committed to it's truth, and I'm trusting that the Holy Spirit will protect me from errors in my understanding and reason. I meditate on the Word and try to understand it as fully as I can - understanding that where the Scriptures are _not_ clear that I am not to say otherwise, and where the Scriptures _are _clear then I can say "this I know" for God has spoken to me through his living Word - for we have the mind of Christ.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 18, 2007)

You quoted where I said:


> Personally, I don't how that one needs to be "aware" of the justification (that is personally deduce P from scripture) in order to have knowledge - however, one can't know they know without doing so. That's confusing I know (or opine if you want). But I want to be clear that at some point I'm going from Scripturalism into speculation. I have certain opinions, but they are not necessitated by Scripture or Scripturalism (same difference).



I think I wasn't clear. When I say that I'm going from Scripturalism to speculation, it was not a statement of epistemology (knowledge vs opinion) but a limit to the answers to philosophical questions that Scripturalism implies. For instance, Vincent Chueng's occasionalism is not necessarily implied by Scripturalism. And while I think it works, I don't think it is the only valid view a Scripturalist can take on how we learn or acquire knowledge. So this is where I'm giving my opinion and not what is necessary for Scripturalism.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I think you're glad you can read the Bible too but I just sense a disconnect and a questioning of whether or not when you're reading a word that you're actually getting something from it because it is tainted by being a mediated form of expression that you gained from a skill that you learned by experience.


This is why we are so dependent on God for everything. Every point of our life depends on God's grace and mercy. But certain abilities we are born with because we are created in God's image. 

God created Adam with the ability to speak. God spoke the world into existence. God spoke to Adam and Adam understood what God said. We are created with the ability for abstract reasoning so we can understand concepts like grace and mercy. We were not born with empty minds (tabula rasa), but with certain innate abilities and even knowledge. Infants do not learn to think, they learn how to put thoughts into language. They may not say more than I'm sleepy or feed me, but as soon as they have muscle control they are capable of communication with sign language. All we need to do is teach them the symbols and sign to express the thoughts they already have. We don't start at zero when it comes to the ability to reason and communicate.


----------

