# What would I be classified as?



## charliejunfan

Hello,

I am wondering if you all can help me figure out what I am apologetically(forgive me if this belongs in philosophy), I have a tendency to read things and think I comprehend them correctly when really I am not, so I have been under the impression that I am presuppositional in the line of Van Till but I could be wrong so, here is my view....

I believe that one should be a total skeptic(ultimately) unless it comes to having faith that what the Bible says is absolutely true.

I was discussing my philosophy and apologetic with my friend, Quaid(he is on the PB occasionally), he asked me if the lamp in his room was blue(it is as far as I can know and he agrees) and I said, I think so.

Between me, Quaid, and the rest of most of the world(except the colorblind or blind) it can be said to be blue, but ultimately in the mind of God it could be different than blue. 

I believe that evidences are appropriate for apologetic but only as the evidences come from scripture ALONE. If you asked me if my grandma was a robot I would tell you that I THINK she is not, but I am not absolutely sure because I do not have authority to know absolutely, but I can have faith that she is not. If, however, you asked me if Christ's ascension was true I would tell you that it absolutely is true and that I can know that because scripture revealed it to me in that way.

Here is an example of how I reason, lets imagine that I am going to sit on a chair, I do not know the chair will hold me up, I have faith that the chair will hold me, and in this sense I KNOW that the chair will hold me up, but by FAITH only.

It is the same with Jesus, I do not know Jesus but by FAITH alone, I am resting His promises to me through scripture ALONE so therefore I know they are true, but only by FAITH.

I DO believe that in context of two HUMANS exchanging information of experience that we can absolutely KNOW the same things, but ultimately humans may be wrong in their interpretation of the facts.

Am I,

A. A LUNATIC?

B. A Van Tillian Presuppositionalist?

C. A Reformed Epystemologist?

D. A Postmodern Weirdo?

E. Made up my own philosophy/apologetic method that might work?


----------



## Skyler

A lunatic, definitely. 

But don't worry; most of us are. So that's not a big problem. 

Anyway, I'd have to ask if you place more faith in your senses or your exegesis? And why?


----------



## charliejunfan

exegesis, because it is taken from revelation(I believe this by faith) which is revealed by someone who is revealed to know ALL things as deep as they go.


----------



## Just1covenanter

I would vote C. Although I'm not quite as skeptical as you, your thinking falls into line with that of Reformed philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and Esther Meek.

The difference in this kind of skepticism and an Enlightenment rationalism is that this kind of knowing involves risk. And this, in my mind, is why we are confessional. If God is a self-evident, rational phenomenon, and we are equally rational, why would we need reminding, every Sunday, that He is real and sovereign, that we are sinful and broken, and that Jesus is the only way?

We place, I think, far too much stock in our rationality. Are we rational? Sure, because God is rational. Are we irrational? Absolutely, because sin is irrational.


----------



## Skyler

charliejunfan said:


> exegesis, because it is taken from revelation(I believe this by faith) which is revealed by someone who is revealed to know ALL things as deep as they go.



The Bible is revealed and infallible, but is your exegesis of the Bible? That's what I'm getting at here. Can you trust your reason above your senses? Or can that be deceived as well?


----------



## charliejunfan

My reason can be just as decieved as my senses, but i hold scripture true irrespective of my wrong or right interpretation of it.


----------



## Philip

You, my friend, are a Clarkian fideist.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

charliejunfan said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am wondering if you all can help me figure out what I am apologetically(forgive me if this belongs in philosophy), I have a tendency to read things and think I comprehend them correctly when really I am not, so I have been under the impression that I am presuppositional in the line of Van Till but I could be wrong so, here is my view....
> 
> I believe that one should be a total skeptic(ultimately) unless it comes to having faith that what the Bible says is absolutely true.
> 
> I was discussing my philosophy and apologetic with my friend, Quaid(he is on the PB occasionally), he asked me if the lamp in his room was blue(it is as far as I can know and he agrees) and I said, I think so.
> 
> Between me, Quaid, and the rest of most of the world(except the colorblind or blind) it can be said to be blue, but ultimately in the mind of God it could be different than blue.
> 
> I believe that evidences are appropriate for apologetic but only as the evidences come from scripture ALONE. If you asked me if my grandma was a robot I would tell you that I THINK she is not, but I am not absolutely sure because I do not have authority to know absolutely, but I can have faith that she is not. If, however, you asked me if Christ's ascension was true I would tell you that it absolutely is true and that I can know that because scripture revealed it to me in that way.
> 
> Here is an example of how I reason, lets imagine that I am going to sit on a chair, I do not know the chair will hold me up, I have faith that the chair will hold me, and in this sense I KNOW that the chair will hold me up, but by FAITH only.
> 
> It is the same with Jesus, I do not know Jesus but by FAITH alone, I am resting His promises to me through scripture ALONE so therefore I know they are true, but only by FAITH.
> 
> I DO believe that in context of two HUMANS exchanging information of experience that we can absolutely KNOW the same things, but ultimately humans may be wrong in their interpretation of the facts.
> 
> Am I,
> 
> A. A LUNATIC?
> 
> B. A Van Tillian Presuppositionalist?
> 
> C. A Reformed Epystemologist?
> 
> D. A Postmodern Weirdo?
> 
> E. Made up my own philosophy/apologetic method that might work?



If you think there is a possiblity your grandmother might be a robot..Yes, a lunatic indeed.


----------



## discipulo

charliejunfan said:


> My reason can be just as decieved as my senses, but i hold scripture true irrespective of my wrong or right interpretation of it.



Amen!

Let God be true, and every man a liar. Romans 3:4

And that is what we truly need, men who tremble at God's Word.

All Blessings Brother


----------



## Confessor

P. F. Pugh said:


> You, my friend, are a Clarkian fideist.





Might I add that by allowing the fallibility of your senses to prevent you from true sensory knowledge ("that one should be a total skeptic" with regards to anything non-Biblical), you are creating an insuperable barrier that would allow you to know nothing about the Bible.


----------



## Christusregnat

Confessor said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, my friend, are a Clarkian fideist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might I add that by allowing the fallibility of your senses to prevent you from true sensory knowledge ("that one should be a total skeptic" with regards to anything non-Biblical), you are creating an insuperable barrier that would allow you to know nothing about the Bible.
Click to expand...


Oops; I meant to quote, but hit "Thanks". So, no thanks Ben 

Do the eyes see? Does the ear hear? If so, do beings without bodies see and hear?

Cheers,


----------



## Confessor

Christusregnat said:


> Do the eyes see? Does the ear hear? If so, do beings without bodies see and hear?



We definitely have material sensory organs, if that's what you're asking.

In a disembodied state, though, I'm sure God would accommodate us with some other means of sensation, were He to decide to give us sensation.


----------



## charliejunfan

Clarkian Fideist?
As in G.Clark as opposed to Van Til?

Or is Clarkian refering to some heretic?


----------



## Christusregnat

Confessor said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do the eyes see? Does the ear hear? If so, do beings without bodies see and hear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We definitely have material sensory organs, if that's what you're asking.
> 
> In a disembodied state, though, I'm sure God would accommodate us with some other means of sensation, were He to decide to give us sensation.
Click to expand...


I think you're missing the point; learning is not communicated via media of sensation. This is an assumption you're importing into the discussion. The spirit hears, sees and learns. This is pretty basic biblical thought. For example, having "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" can be in a man who's sensory faculties are disabled. It refers to spiritual perception, or understanding within the spiritual man. 

Angels, who do not have corporeal existence, hear and obey. They learn, see, hear, etc. and have no corporeal existence. Likewise the disembodies saints in glory.

Therefore, to make learning the truths of Scripture dependent on sensory perception is incorrect.

Cheers,

-----Added 9/22/2009 at 06:21:10 EST-----



charliejunfan said:


> Clarkian Fideist?
> As in G.Clark as opposed to Van Til?
> 
> Or is Clarkian refering to some heretic?



Mr. Pugh has an unfortunate distaste for Gordon Clark.

Clark and van Til are not necessarily incompatible on all points; that's just how it worked out historically.

Cheers,


----------



## Confessor

Christusregnat said:


> I think you're missing the point; learning is not communicated via media of sensation. This is an assumption you're importing into the discussion. The spirit hears, sees and learns. This is pretty basic biblical thought. For example, having "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" can be in a man who's sensory faculties are disabled. It refers to spiritual perception, or understanding within the spiritual man.
> 
> Angels, who do not have corporeal existence, hear and obey. They learn, see, hear, etc. and have no corporeal existence. Likewise the disembodies saints in glory.
> 
> Therefore, to make learning the truths of Scripture dependent on sensory perception is incorrect.



Please note first that I am not attempting to make some absolute statement that any knowledge of God's special revelation must necessarily be obtained through material sensory organs. I am rather saying that we, as humans on this earth, utilize material sensory organs in much of our knowledge, including our reading of the Bible. That is how God designed us specifically. The fact that material sensory organs are not _absolutely necessary_ (as proven by the examples of angels and disembodied saints) unto knowledge does not imply that God has not made us thus.

Second, you seem to be assuming that I am arguing that material sensory organs are a _sufficient_ cause unto knowledge. (E.g. you are stating the Bible's teaching that the spirit is the one who learns, and taking this to mean that sensory media have no role at all.) I am rather asserting that material sensory organs, according to God's design of humanity on this earth, are necessary unto some knowledge. For instance, your mind (an immaterial component of you) is perceiving certain letters on your computer screen, and in doing so, an immaterial idea is being communicated from me to you, through material vehicles. Much of our knowledge absolutely _is_ communicated via media of sensation, as you are demonstrating right now. (You don't have immediate access into my mind!)

Third, "eyes to see" and "ears to hear," often used to describe a spiritual understanding (cf. 1 Cor. 2) or faithful acceptance of the Gospel, is metaphorical language.


----------



## Philip

charliejunfan said:


> Clarkian Fideist?
> As in G.Clark as opposed to Van Til?
> 
> Or is Clarkian refering to some heretic?



G. Clark, yes. Your view of the senses as not being a source for "knowledge" as well as your defense of scripture as axiomatic (ie: the first principle) line up nearly exactly with Clark's view.

I don't have a distaste for Clark so much as an amusement with him. I honestly think that his conclusions are absurd. He was brilliant and yet, unlike most brilliant minds, he actually took his ideas to their logical conclusion.


----------



## Sven

charliejunfan said:


> Am I,
> 
> A. A LUNATIC?
> 
> B. A Van Tillian Presuppositionalist?
> 
> C. A Reformed Epystemologist?
> 
> D. A Postmodern Weirdo?
> 
> E. Made up my own philosophy/apologetic method that might work?



I believe the proper question should be was Christ a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord? 

This question is the ultimate question in apologetics and blows all other belief systems out of the water. 

Ask an unbeliever or infidel this question and you can hear their mouth go dry.

(Hint: there may be some tongue in cheek here. Question A of your post prompted me.  )


----------



## Confessor

Sven said:


> I believe the proper question should be was Christ a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord?
> 
> This question is the ultimate question in apologetics and blows all other belief systems out of the water.
> 
> Ask an unbeliever or infidel this question and you can hear their mouth go dry.



Precisely because of the magnitude of this trilemma, unbelievers will go at great lengths to construct a fourth option, Legend. They will insist on the unreliability of the Gospels, some going so far as to deny Jesus' existence. If Jesus never made such large claims, then the trilemma falls apart.


----------



## charliejunfan

I believe that God caused me to have faith in him and also in his word. I also believe that I can know what God says I can know, just not to the degree that God knows. Therefore I know people exist etc... I don't know if that changes my position or not...

ALSO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Considering the information I have given here and the assumption that some of you are right about me falling in the line of Gordon Clark rather than Van Till, what would I have said differently in order for me to be considered a Van Tillian? Your answers will help greatly.

Also feel free to try and persuade me of your philosophical/apologetical views


----------



## VictorBravo

charliejunfan said:


> I believe that God caused me to have faith in him and also in his word. I also believe that I can know what God says I can know, just not to the degree that God knows. Therefore I know people exist etc... I don't know if that changes my position or not...
> 
> ALSO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Considering the information I have given here and the assumption that some of you are right about me falling in the line of Gordon Clark rather than Van Till, what would I have said differently in order for me to be considered a Van Tillian? Your answers will help greatly.
> 
> Also feel free to try and persuade me of your philosophical/apologetical views




Perhaps I can offer a homely summary of the dilemma and why it requires a work of God (and why apologetics does not convert, but only defends).

Assume: 

There is a Sacred Text that says that you were created to look at the created world to learn.

You are unaware of the text, yet you go about looking at the world to learn.

During your investigation of the world, you come across the Sacred Text and read with your own eyes: "You were created with a desire to learn, and the physical equipment to sense the world, and to read this Sacred Text."

Do you believe what the Sacred Text says or not?

Your experience might support the belief--that is, it is obvious that you've been going around learning things using your senses--so it seems to be stating a truth.

But if your experience has led you to distrust your experience, to conclude that empirical observations are never absolute, then you are in a bind because you have told yourself that you cannot trust what you sense, or for that matter, what you read. 

So, it seems that belief in what the Sacred Text says requires something more than perception and experience--it has to come from outside and placed within--ie., our minds have to be set in such a way (independent of our experience) to give authority to the Sacred Text.


----------



## charliejunfan

AAAA!!! Arminian's have it so easy!!!


----------



## Philip

charliejunfan said:


> I believe that God caused me to have faith in him and also in his word. I also believe that I can know what God says I can know, just not to the degree that God knows. Therefore I know people exist etc...I don't know if that changes my position or not...



I think here, Plantinga would ask what epistemological warrant you have for this belief. If you base your knowledge off of belief, then the next question is one of why you believe that the Bible is the word of God and not, say, the Koran.


----------



## charliejunfan

The epistemological warrant I have is that....Jesus is cooler, the Puritans were cooler, John Calvin is cooler, Christian history is cooler, therefore, I put my faith in the Bible alone as the text from out of which comes Christianity Christianity *could* be wrong but I accept it by faith.

I think that might be my honest answer but I'm not sure...


----------



## Prufrock

P. F. Pugh said:


> charliejunfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that God caused me to have faith in him and also in his word. I also believe that I can know what God says I can know, just not to the degree that God knows. Therefore I know people exist etc...I don't know if that changes my position or not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think here, Plantinga would ask what epistemological warrant you have for this belief. If you base your knowledge off of belief, then the next question is one of why you believe that the Bible is the word of God and not, say, the Koran.
Click to expand...


I have never read Plantinga, but if the above is truly what he says, then I am greatly concerned about his influence in our Reformed churches. WCF I.4,5 clearly give our answer to this: our full persuasion whereupon alone our faith may rest that the scriptures are the word of God comes from the testimony of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Philip

Hmm . . . does coolness count as a rational warrant for believing that the Bible is true?

If I were judging a debate round and the affirmative team got up and said, "Now judge, you should vote for our team because we're so much cooler than our opponents," I would probably give them an automatic loss and recommend in my notes that they go back and study debate theory.

In short, I hope that's not your honest answer

-----Added 9/23/2009 at 02:48:15 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think here, Plantinga would ask what epistemological warrant you have for this belief. If you base your knowledge off of belief, then the next question is one of why you believe that the Bible is the word of God and not, say, the Koran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never read Plantinga, but if the above is truly what he says, then I am greatly concerned about his influence in our Reformed churches. WCF I.4,5 clearly give our answer to this: our full persuasion whereupon alone our faith may rest that the scriptures are the word of God comes from the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...


The question is not from whence the Bible derives its authority, but what basis we have for believing that it does, in fact, derive authority from God. What warrant do we have for believing that the Bible is God's word as opposed to other "Holy books" that claim similar things?


----------



## Prufrock

As above, our _persuasion_ of its divine origin and authority comes from the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Owen, in the second volume of his treatise on the Holy Spirit, _The Reason of Faith_, provides a most excellent summation of the Reformed understanding of the matter.


----------



## charliejunfan

Ok, here is my honest answer(I pretty sure..), I have faith that the Holy Spirit causes me to believe that the Bible is the word of God opposed to the Koran, and he does this by causing me to agree with scripture over other texts, I can't KNOW that they are the TRUTH over other texts out there but I have FAITH that the BIBLE is the TRUTH

Am I missing a step here?


----------



## VictorBravo

charliejunfan said:


> Ok, here is my honest answer(I pretty sure..), I have faith that the Holy Spirit causes me to believe that the Bible is the word of God opposed to the Koran, and he does this by causing me to agree with scripture over other texts, I can't KNOW that they are the TRUTH over other texts out there but I have FAITH that the BIBLE is the TRUTH
> 
> Am I missing a step here?



I don't like the skepticism. The Holy Spirit-generated faith causes you to know that the Bible is true. 

It's not the same thing as saying you have faith that a chair will support you. That is based upon experience. If the Holy Spirit has regenerated your mind to see Scripture as truth, that is a far surer thing, because such faith is a gift from God.

Even so, in our weak and infirm condition, we have our doubts. But that doesn't mean that we don't know the Scripture is true, it just means that we have forgotten what we know.


----------



## Prufrock

Vic,

Colloquially speaking, I agree of course. Just to help explain something, Charlie, in case confusion arises if you're reading older books and see the terms used differently, I am going to quickly _sound_ like I'm disagreeing with VictorBravo's post. Traditionally, _knowledge_ referred to that which is help based upon demonstration; whereas _faith_ was that which was held based upon authority. Thus, if the authority of one were sufficient (say, infinite), faith certainly provides more assurance than knowledge (properly so-called), due to our faulty use of reason. That being said, if we use the word in its more common usage, you can certainly _know_ that the Bible is the word of God, as Vic has observed. You have it on the highest authority -- God himself telling you so.


----------



## VictorBravo

Thanks, Paul. I'm nothing if not colloquial. Your clarification was needed.


----------



## charliejunfan

So then faith really is as far back as your reason can go biblically speaking. Even my ability to refer back to the Bible is caused by the Holy Spirit. That is what I would tell people anyways, because that is what I believe.

I do not have faith based on the Koran because I have faith based on the Bible.

I don't have to go further back do I? I thought faith that the Holy Spirit granted me faith was the end...


----------



## Prufrock

Just be sure not to confuse this with the notion of a blind leap of faith. Such is not faith it all; it is folly. When we hear God's voice commanding us, it is never a blind leap to follow. You don't believe the Koran because it is contrary to what God has said.

This being said, the Christian faith is most reasonable; and now that you are possessed with reason rectified by the true knowledge of God, you can demonstrate the reasonableness of your faith. You can show how fitting it is that God should speak, and demonstrate that the scriptures are of divine origin by evidences.


----------



## charliejunfan

Prufrock said:


> Just be sure not to confuse this with the notion of a blind leap of faith. Such is not faith it all; it is folly. When we hear God's voice commanding us, it is never a blind leap to follow. You don't believe the Koran because it is contrary to what God has said.
> 
> This being said, the Christian faith is most reasonable; and now that you are possessed with reason rectified by the true knowledge of God, you can demonstrate the reasonableness of your faith. You can show how fitting it is that God should speak, and demonstrate that the scriptures are of divine origin by evidences.



So if these evidences were proven false somehow then we would no longer believe?

Is this typically what both presuppositionalists and evidentialists believe?

I definitely need to read more on each of the apologetic methods and general philosophy...


----------



## Prufrock

charliejunfan said:


> So if these evidences were proven false somehow then we would no longer believe?



By no means! Your faith rests upon God's authority, not evidence; and because of the true light shed upon you by this faith, you are then able to demonstrate the reasonableness thereof to confirm and strengthen you. Faith produces evidence; it does not rest upon it.



charliejunfan said:


> Is this typically what both presuppositionalists and evidentialists believe?


Regretfully, I am too unfamiliar with modern schools of apologetics to provide any useful answer to this question. I think modern "presuppositionalists" often display way too strong a tendency to jump on anyone who brings forth evidences or rational argumentation for God's existence, not considering the purpose for which one is making use thereof; and it seems that many modern "evidentialists" attempt to use evidences for _way_ more than they can be used for (e.g., as a foundation for our faith).


----------



## charliejunfan

Prufrock said:


> charliejunfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if these evidences were proven false somehow then we would no longer believe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By no means! Your faith rests upon God's authority, not evidence; and because of the true light shed upon you by this faith, you are then able to demonstrate the reasonableness thereof to confirm and strengthen you. Faith produces evidence; it does not rest upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> charliejunfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this typically what both presuppositionalists and evidentialists believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regretfully, I am too unfamiliar with modern schools of apologetics to provide any useful answer to this question. I think modern "presuppositionalists" often display way too strong a tendency to jump on anyone who brings forth evidences or rational argumentation for God's existence, not considering the purpose for which one is making use thereof; and it seems that many modern "evidentialists" attempt to use evidences for _way_ more than they can be used for (e.g., as a foundation for our faith).
Click to expand...


I see, I really appreciate how you said, "Faith produces evidence; it does not rest upon it." That is what I thought, only I was afraid I was out of line with everyone else who studies these things, and that might be scary


----------



## Philip

As stated before: fideism. That is, that we have knowledge based on faith alone. Presuppositionalism and Neo-Orthodoxy are both fideistic in that they deny any rational basis for faith (though Van Til tried desperately to say otherwise).

The way I see it, faith consists in knowledge, assent, and trust. I look at the chair and I say, "That is a chair that looks tolerably good for holding me up." Next, I conclude that, since my perceptions in this area are usually correct, that the chair is a good basis. Finally, I actually sit down, demonstrating the faith that I now have in that chair.

Warrant for faith may consist in actual encounters, the influence of those around, or even argument--who knows what the Holy Spirit will use?--but that's no reason to say that our faith has no reasonable basis. You can't believe the Bible, though, unless you already know that it is God's word.


----------



## Prufrock

The content of our gospel faith, indeed, involves all those things (knowledge, assent and trust): see any treatment by a Reformed theologian; and the content of that knowledge is found in scripture. Faith cannot rest upon mere human deduction, but requires divine authority.

You said, "that's no reason to say that our faith has no reasonable basis." Faith _by definition_ does not have a basis of reason: it has a basis of _authority_. I don't understand what is so abhorrent to you about the Reformed understanding: divine faith can have its basis in nothing but the firm and sure word of God. The content of our faith is, of course, most reasonable, though much of it is above the reach of reason. We do not start with reason, however; we start with "Thus saith the LORD."

I am curious: would you explain to me how you know the scriptures are the word of God? If possible, I would like a very clear answer to this question, along with (since this _is_ a Reformed board, after all) a description of how you will avoid espousing the rationalism that our forefathers fought so hard against.

*Edit*
In another thread a few weeks ago (to which I very rudely have not responded, and I apologize), you asked me:


> 2) Maybe I should ask you this question: why do you believe that the 66 books of the Bible are the inerrant and inspired word of the living God? What warrant do you have for believing that? Unwarranted belief is blind faith. What reason do you have for the hope that is within you?
> 
> I believe the Bible because it matches up with who God is. I have faith because I know that God is there. If I'm wrong, I lose nothing. If I'm right, then I gain God Himself. I don't, though, have a faith that is ungrounded--such would be the wishy-washy "faith in faith" that is the postmodern fruit of existential thought.



I have now several times provided an answer to the question why do I believe those 66 books are the inspired word of God: the internal witness of the Spirit. This is not blind faith, but faith resting on the most sure and firm foundation. The reason I have for the hope that is within me is the content of the gospel: that Christ Jesus came to world to save sinners, and that having satisfied God's justice he rose from the dead, in which resurrection I, too, will share.

I would further ask you, whence cometh this knowledge you have of "who God is," upon which you base your conclusion that scripture is in keeping with this knowledge? I don't see how you are not caving in to a full-blown rationalism here, though I would like to believe you're not.


----------



## Philip

My reasons are twofold:

One reason is, well, reason. Where you start with "thus saith the LORD", I start with "God is the greatest possible being" (greatness here means worship-worthiness in the Anselmian sense). This entails trinity, omnipotence, justice, holiness, goodness, wisdom, and truth. Then, I compare the various "holy books" and find that all points to the Christian Scriptures. Here I also find that all along it wasn't me, but God guiding me and leading me to Himself.

The second reason is that of the heart. I have sought God and found Him in the Scriptures, His special revelation. I have sought the LORD and He answered me in His word.



Prufrock said:


> You said, "that's no reason to say that our faith has no reasonable basis." Faith by definition does not have a basis of reason: it has a basis of authority.



First, I would ask where you are getting this definition.

Second, as I have stated before, one has to know God and know that He is in order to trust Him and His authority. Why did I trust my parents as a child? Because they provided for me and helped me to know. I knew that they were there when I needed them. Unless I know that God is there, I have no reason to believe in Him.

But again, I can know that God is there.



> I have now several times provided an answer to the question why do I believe those 66 books are the inspired word of God: the internal witness of the Spirit. This is not blind faith, but faith resting on the most sure and firm foundation. The reason I have for the hope that is within me is the content of the gospel: that Christ Jesus came to world to save sinners, and that having satisfied God's justice he rose from the dead, in which resurrection I, too, will share.



I am not going to succumb to Van Tillian circular reasoning because it is fallacious--and faith cannot be based in a fallacy or else we are fideists. A circular reason is no reason at all. My purpose is that we avoid irrationalism, as exemplified by Barth and (ultimately--though he would not admit it and desperately tried to avoid it) Van Til.


----------



## steven-nemes

charliejunfan said:


> I believe that one should be a total skeptic(ultimately) unless it comes to having faith that what the Bible says is absolutely true.



I am doubtful that this is true. I don't think we ought to be skeptical of everything unless we have faith that the Bible is true. Why be skeptical of everything _except_ the Bible? Why not be skeptical of the Bible too?



> I was discussing my philosophy and apologetic with my friend, Quaid(he is on the PB occasionally), he asked me if the lamp in his room was blue(it is as far as I can know and he agrees) and I said, I think so.
> 
> Between me, Quaid, and the rest of most of the world(except the colorblind or blind) it can be said to be blue, but ultimately in the mind of God it could be different than blue.



I am doubtful that this is the case too. If it is the case God sees things differently (and significantly differently) than we do, then God is playing some kind of big joke on us. He made us such that we all have radically false beliefs (and we can't _help_ but have them)! I am doubtful that God is such a deceiver. 



> I believe that evidences are appropriate for apologetic but only as the evidences come from scripture ALONE. If you asked me if my grandma was a robot I would tell you that I THINK she is not, but I am not absolutely sure because I do not have authority to know absolutely, but I can have faith that she is not. If, however, you asked me if Christ's ascension was true I would tell you that it absolutely is true and that I can know that because scripture revealed it to me in that way.



This epistemology is sketchy, for the reason that this proposition (p): _All knowledge must be such that you are not possibly wrong about your beliefs_ and this one (q): _The only source of knowledge is scripture and all other sources are unreliable and ought not be considered valid._--both of those propositions are dubious at best. In the case of both of them, there are issues of self-referential incoherency. 

As far as _p_ is concerned, are you possibly _wrong_ about _p_? Yes, you are; so then you can't say to _know p_ and therefore you can't dismiss knowledge from the senses (since it is possibly wrong) as uncertain or invalid.

As far as _q_ is concerned, scripture doesn't teach that, so it is wrong on its own principles.



> Here is an example of how I reason, lets imagine that I am going to sit on a chair, I do not know the chair will hold me up, I have faith that the chair will hold me, and in this sense I KNOW that the chair will hold me up, but by FAITH only.



Maybe its important to define "know".


----------



## Prufrock

I'll have to respond to the rest later, but for now it should be noted that _even_ Anselm's "proof" was not a proof at all, but a praise to the God he already knew. His faith sought understanding; his philosophy was within the context of a faith he already had.

Also, as a quick note, this has nothing to do with Cornelius van Til, by the way. It is the entire Reformed tradition that you're throwing under the bus. You keep coming back to stating that we're using circular reasoning. In a sense that is true, but not in the manner in which you're indicating. If we truly believe and confess that we're made in the image of God and possess by nature an inherent knowledge of him (though shattered by the fall), we are most capable of knowing his voice when he renews us by his Spirit. At the judgment day, will unbelievers be confused as to who the being is sitting on the throne? They won't first need to ask who he is and whether they should believe he exists. It will be most evident when they hear his voice thundering judgment; and it is much more evident and recognizable to his children when they hear him gently whispering the promise of the gospel to their hearts.


----------



## Philip

I wouldn't say here that I'm throwing the whole reformed tradition under the bus. Calvin pointed out (_Institutes_ I) that it would be equally proper to begin with knowledge of God or knowledge of self. The reason he starts with the one is because he is writing theology rather than philosophy or apologetics. He had no need for the others because of epistemological common ground with his audience. Had he been writing to an atheist audience, he probably would not have started with knowledge of God.

The trouble here is that, in a culture which presupposed the truth of the Scriptures, one could argue that they were self-evident--that is, until the "enlightenment" threw all that into confusion. Once the dust had cleared, one could no longer presuppose the scriptures, but instead needed an argument for them. That is the situation today: we cannot presuppose the scriptures for apologetic purposes because our audience does not presuppose them.

Now, when I speak of reasons for faith, I will include reasons that may be somewhat subjective (ie: not constituting objective proof). For example, the work of the Spirit in my life bears witness to God's existence and the truth of His word. This kind of a reason has little apologetic value, but is nonetheless a valid warrant for faith.


----------



## Prufrock

Phillip, I apologize that I will not have time to continue to interact on this issue for a while. But for now, I think it can most fairly be said that you're misunderstanding Calvin's intentions there. It's quite ironic, since most people attempt to use Calvin to pit him _against_ natural theology trends in later Reformed teaching and claim that he no room for a _positive_ use of proofs of God's existence. They wrongly pit the early and late traditions against each other, in my opinion, but it is still ironic to me to see someone attempting here to argue the exact opposite.

The autopistic nature of scripture does not depend upon the philosophical milieu of the day: it depends on the Spirit's witness, whether society in general is willing to accept it or not.

I urge to consider deeply the consequences of making faith to rest upon reasonable demonstration of God's existence. But again, for the time being, I must bow out of this conversation.


----------



## Philip

I don't think I'm using Calvin to necessarily support natural theology, merely pointing out that he wasn't necessarily against it. He didn't really try to address the question because he was doing theology rather than apologetics or philosophy.

I'll probably start a new thread on faith in a bit in any case as we seem to have gotten off-topic.


----------



## Brian Withnell

charliejunfan said:


> My reason can be just as decieved as my senses, but i hold scripture true irrespective of my wrong or right interpretation of it.



Then I would state that you cannot know anything absolutely, as your interpretation of what you think scripture says absolutely can be wrong, so you should not ever be able to make an affirmative statement that you hold to be absolutely true.

I agree the scripture is absolutely true, but our fallibility in interpretation means that anything we state, other than the very words of scripture, are fallible and subject to error.

So for me to state "God exists in trinity" I hold to be true, and I would argue the point relentlessly, but it is of less certainty than "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϚ και ο λογοϚ ην προϚ τον θεον και θεοϚ ην ο λογοϚ" (John 1.1) which is absolutely true regardless of what I might think it means.

-----Added 9/23/2009 at 09:55:49 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> ... you can certainly _know_ that the Bible is the word of God, as Vic has observed. You have it on the highest authority -- God himself telling you so.



This is probably the most useful statement I have seen on the subject (I've seen it elsewhere as well) but we cannot hear the right answer too many times (as I tell my students).

Our system of reason has a starting point (axiom) which is "God has said." And that he has said in a way that, while not clear in all places equally, is sufficiently clear in one place or another that we can know with certainty the gospel.


----------



## Christusregnat

Confessor said:


> Third, "eyes to see" and "ears to hear," often used to describe a spiritual understanding (cf. 1 Cor. 2) or faithful acceptance of the Gospel, is metaphorical language.



Exactly so. However, this simply serves to prove the point that it is not the eyes that see, nor the ears that hear, nor the heart that understands.

Cheers,


----------



## charliejunfan

Brian Withnell said:


> charliejunfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reason can be just as decieved as my senses, but i hold scripture true irrespective of my wrong or right interpretation of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I would state that you cannot know anything absolutely, as your interpretation of what you think scripture says absolutely can be wrong, so you should not ever be able to make an affirmative statement that you hold to be absolutely true.
> 
> I agree the scripture is absolutely true, but our fallibility in interpretation means that anything we state, other than the very words of scripture, are fallible and subject to error.
> 
> So for me to state "God exists in trinity" I hold to be true, and I would argue the point relentlessly, but it is of less certainty than "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϚ και ο λογοϚ ην προϚ τον θεον και θεοϚ ην ο λογοϚ" (John 1.1) which is absolutely true regardless of what I might think it means.
> 
> -----Added 9/23/2009 at 09:55:49 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... you can certainly _know_ that the Bible is the word of God, as Vic has observed. You have it on the highest authority -- God himself telling you so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is probably the most useful statement I have seen on the subject (I've seen it elsewhere as well) but we cannot hear the right answer too many times (as I tell my students).
> 
> Our system of reason has a starting point (axiom) which is "God has said." And that he has said in a way that, while not clear in all places equally, is sufficiently clear in one place or another that we can know with certainty the gospel.
Click to expand...


I can know fully what God causes me to know, do I KNOW that God created in 6 literal days or 6 thousand years represented by days? No, I do not know absolutely(and I would argue that to know is to know absolutely) but I accept by faith that it is 6 LITERAL days and also I have faith that the Holy Spirit is causing me to pray for wisdom and understanding when reading.


----------

