# Refuting Open Theism



## heartoflesh

A while back I posted about a book study at my church, going through Richard Foster's _Celebration of Discipline_. Different guys are taking turns leading the chapter discussions and this week it's my turn with the chapter on prayer. In reading this chapter last night I discovered that Foster endorses Open Theism. Not only that, but a few pages later he berates those who feel they must pray "if it be Thy will". 

Anyway, it's been my experience at church whenever I have brought up Open Theism to see eyeballs roll. Either that or they have no idea what I'm talking about. What are some primary Biblical texts I can use in refuting this nonsense? Some I found last night that are applicable are:

Romans 8:28
Isaiah 46:9-10
Hebrews 6:17
Ephesians 1:11


----------



## heartoflesh

Awesome! Thanks, Joshua


----------



## heartoflesh

If you could only quote a couple of texts on the subject, which would you choose? I think that Isaiah 46 passage speaks the loudest in my opinion.


----------



## Casey

Here is an additional resource that might be helpful:

http://www.carm.org/open.htm


----------



## srhoades

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Man, the whole book of Isaiah screams God's sovereignty.



Agreed.

"This is the plan devised against the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out against all the nations. "For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?" (Isaiah 14:26-27).

Read the Soverignty of God by A.W. Pink. Talk about slam dunk.


----------



## RamistThomist

God as Creator by definition is not contingent. To be so would cease to be God and would then become creature. Open Theism precludes the possibility of a creator God. 

Ephesians 1:11 has God working *all things* after the counsel of his will. This includes the future and the free actions of human beings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I highly recommend _The Doctrine of God_ by John Frame. It's a thick book but his arguments against Open Theism is devastating. Even if you don't have the time to read the entire book right away it is a great resource.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

I heard that the book by Frame mentioned above is good. I have yet to actually read anything on the subject (I'm getting there). Has anybody read God's Lesser Glory by Bruce Ware?


----------



## kevin.carroll

The entire book of Daniel is about the sovereignty of God as well. I feel at liberty to say what the ETS didn't have the cahoonas to say: open theists are heretics plain and simple. They rob God of his attributes of sovereignty and omniscience and deny altogether the teaching of salvation by grace. I got so angry reading Pinnock's Most Moved Mover, I nearly blew a blood vessel in my forehead.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> Has anybody read God's Lesser Glory by Bruce Ware?




Yes. I wholeheartedly recommend it. Ware's volume was the first book-length response to Open Theism. It is much more accessible than Frame's book. It is a great book: in addition to providing counter-prooftexts, Ware actually examines the prooftexts offered by proponents of Open Theism... the result is a great refutation of their system using their own favorite passages.


----------



## Don

Actually, Frame's book 'No Other God' specifically addresses open theism moreso than The Doctrine of God. He examines their views of libertarian freedom, timelessness, etc and discusses Scripture references.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

W. Gary Crampton makes use of Frame's work on the subject in his "An Analysis of Open Theism," in the current issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal. http://www.cpjournal.com

No Other Gods


> _Originally posted by Don_
> Actually, Frame's book 'No Other God' specifically addresses open theism moreso than The Doctrine of God. He examines their views of libertarian freedom, timelessness, etc and discusses Scripture references.


----------



## beej6

There is a decent summary/refutation of open theism in Jay Adams' _Journal of Modern Ministry_, Spring 2005 issue. www.jofmm.com


----------



## Don Kistler

The best book I've found refuting open theism is Jonathan Edwards' "Freedom of the Will." Amazing how the heresies just keep getting recycled.

Don Kistler


----------



## jaybird0827

Also, consider God's sovereignty in light of the book of Job.

_Jay_


----------



## JM

Open Theism is everywhere! It's driving me crazy.


----------



## Ravens

I've had a fair bit of experience with open theists on a layman's level. I attended a Nazarene school (didn't turn to the Dark Side until I was in there a couple of years), and four of the eight or so faculty in the religion department adhered to open theism. So I had to hear it for two years, both from them and from some fellow students.

Obviously the Scriptures are the primary "weapon of assault", regardless of how the Spirit chooses to use them (i.e., either leaving the open theist in error, or changing his mind). But I usually take a different approach from the outset, just to kind of jar the head a little. Mostly because whichever classical text you utilize to prove the eternality, omniscience, or immutability of God is, for the most part, going to fall on deaf ears. The open theist isn't unfamiliar with the texts, as pretty much every book by Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, Rice, et al. deals with them.

So they're already going to have a grid to fit that Scripture into, based on the hermeneutic they've accepted from their teachers.

I usually try to key in on the artificial distinction made by the open theists between anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms. Open theists attack classical theism for not taking the Bible literally and at "face value" when anthropopathisms are used (passions in God, God's repenting, learning, questioning, changing, etc.). So they adopt a univocal lens with the anthropopathisms and take them hyper-literally, but still use an analogical filter with the anthropomorphisms.

So when God is spoke of as repenting, questioning, learning, changing, etc., this is all to be taken at face value, 100%, and to suggest otherwise is to manifest a Greek, Hellenistic mindset, as opposed to a Scriptural one.

Yet when God is spoken of as having hands, a mouth, a heart, wings, and as travelling from place to place, these are to be taken figuratively, metaphorically, and analogically.

And absolutely no work that I've read by Pinnock or Boyd has ever given a "rationale" for taking one set hyper-literally, and the other metaphorically. Open theists accuse classical theism of glossing over and ignorning the import of the anthropopathisms, yet they do the same thing with the anthropomorphisms.

I usually start out by pointing out that their hermeneutic, even if left unchallenged, even hypothetically granting the distinction they make between mind-statements and body-statements relative to God, still leads to absolute absurdity. Here's a page or two from a paper I wrote in college regarding the above:

"Pinnock enjoys citing Jeremiah to illustrate divine 'openness.' In Jeremiah 32:35 Yahweh states, 'They built their high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to molech, though I did not command them, **nor did it enter into my mind**, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.' Why take this passage just literal enough to allow an 'open' view of the future, but not literal enough to say that not only is the future unsettled, but certain things have not even *occurred* to God? Is this feasible? Child sacrifice had already occurred among the covenant people at this point in history. It was nothing new. Did God *really* mean that the possibility of renewed child sacrifice had never crossed his mind as a remote *possibility*? Unless one is operating out of a dignum Deo filter, then of course one will affirm that Yahweh did indeed mean precisely just that.
I speak as a fool (perhaps the reader will find me to be operating in my natural environment). All of these examples are absurd. Everyone *knows* that these things are not true of God. However, endless articles have stirred up a tumultuous sound and fury over the repentance passages in Scripture. Yet a principled argument that sets aside one class of statements as anthropomorphic or anthropopathic, and another as 'literal' cannot be made. Serious intellectuals in this country are using the 'repentance' passages, one metaphor among a myriad of metaphors which, when taken literally, tend to make chaos out of the doctrine of God, to deny that God knows the future.
Can it be more obvious that the only metaphors in Scripture which are taken literally are precisely those metaphors which uphold the open theists' agenda of discrediting the notion of exhaustive foreknowledge? This is not mean to be perjorative. Based on the Scriptures (the statement to Adam, the tower of Babel, Sodom, Yahweh's test of Abraham, etc.) as interpreted by open theisms' hermeneutic, why should God's exhaustive knowledge of the *present* continue to be accepted by Biblical Christians? Yet no open theist has challenged God's exhaustive knowledge of the present? Why? Because it does not threaten the shibboleth of libertarian free-will, which, in their opinion, exhaustive foreknowledge destroys."

As an aside, Clark Pinnock started to take the plunge into absurdity in his book "Most Moved Mover". On page 138 of that book he tentatively puts forward that God indeed *IS* embodied.

You can point out their hermeneutical flaws.

Also, regardless of the "proof texts" for omniscience and eternality in and of themselves, you can easily prove that election and predestination a: refers to individuals, b: is from eternity, and c: is soteriological... and when those three are established, I think the logical implications thereof more than prove exhaustive foreknowledge.

And lastly, you can point out the Rabbinical views on foreknowledge, the views of the Essenes on foreknowledge, and the common consensus of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant theologians on this doctrine.

That should be enough to convince anyone of the absurdity of open theism, but apart from God's breath on their hearts, they'll still be hardened as a mule.

P.S., I probably should have changed "metahpor" to "analogy" and "metaphorical" to "analogical", but that was a couple of years ago, so... whatever.

:bigsmile:


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Rich,

Be a little careful about this volume. 

I know the reviews have been glowing and there are virtues. Those have been noted so I won't dwell on them but I acknowledge that there are virtues. His work on open theism (in the DoG and in the separate critique) was useful and helpful. 

There are two significant problems, however:

His views on the Trinity are quite hard to reconcile with the catholic creeds and his claim that we can know God "in himself" (in se) is to be rejected as incompatible with Scripture (Deut 29:29) and Reformed theology. 

We don't know God in himself. We cannot. The finite is not capable of the infinite. 

God cannot be said to be "one person." He isn't one person, hasn't ever been one person and will never be one person. 

We don't confess a monopersonal God. We confess one God who is three persons. Full stop. That's it. We're not allowed to say anything else. It's CATHOLIC dogma. It's not some narrow dogma that I or any theologian developed. The dogma of the Trinity is no one's playground.

John's approach to theology (i.e., tri-perspectivalism) is idiosyncratic at least and quite hard to reconcile with historic Reformed theology.

So John's vol on the DoG should be treated as experimental and experiments are and must be subject to criticism.

rsc



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I highly recommend _The Doctrine of God_ by John Frame. It's a thick book but his arguments against Open Theism is devastating. Even if you don't have the time to read the entire book right away it is a great resource.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Dear Paul,

Students are frequently confused! That's why few of them get A's. You can continue to quote students to me or you can trust that I'm reporting my own views accurately. It's up to you.

Sure, all uninspired books should be read with that understanding, but books that make such serious errors should be read with special caution. If you can show me where I've made such serious errors in print, unlike John, I'm quite willing to correct them. Not having the second blessing of tri-perspectivalism I can still correct my views.

Yes, John uses orthodox language and then uses unorthodox language. This is one of the problems with his theology. What he gives with one hand he takes away with the other. He has defended his use of the view that we can know God "in se." He thinks that it's not a big thing. Well, I agree with Kalistos Ware, who is Greek Orthodox, who says that it's impossible to know God "in se" and anyone who says that we can know God thus has committed us to knowing him as he knows himself. At this point Kalistos is more Reformed than John.

Yes, the fact that God IS in se (or that he has a knowledge of himself and things that we do not and cannot have) is revealed but nothing of God in se is revealed to us. To say that we can know God in himself concedes the whole argument to the Clarkians. 

It was to deny that we can know God in se that the Reformed distinguished between archetypal (God in se) and ectypal (God as he reveals himself) theology. It's the Creator/creature distinction.

Yes, CVT said it "one person." He's just as wrong as Frame. He didn't, as I recall, defend it as John has. Let's just use catholic language.

No, I'm not equivocating on person, at least not intentionally. I claim that those who advocate monopersonalism are doing that by equating personal with monopersonal. I argue that personal always and only means tripersonal. God is three persons. He isn't one person or monopersonal. The monopersonalists conflate person with essence. I'm trying to distinguish the two categories.

Ultimately they are predicating "one person" of "God." 

Tripersonality is not impersonality. We don't have to make the choice you pose. Read the Athanasian Creed. 



> And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords.



Why can't we just admit that CVT erred on this point?

There's nothing wrong with looking at three perspectives. There is something wrong with saying that they are equally ultimate -- something John has been saying for years now. There's something wrong with defining theology as application, even for God. See the van Asselt essay in the WTJ from a few years ago (references on my site) for a brief account of traditional/historic Reformed theological method. To paraphrase a line from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre that was never actually used, "Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein, we don't need no stinking Wittgenstein."

Philosophical theologians are the only ones who should teach the D of G? I'll phone Polanus and tell him immediately. I thought the great virtue of John's theology is that it's more biblical than others. This was his claim contra Well and Muller. 

rsc

[Edited on 9-7-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## tewilder

As I have been able to recover the argument, through reading what Frame says about Van Til, it goes like this:

It seeks to show that there is a problem with the formula that God is three persons of one substance, and establish the alternative that God is three persons in one person.

1) Van Til had a metaphysical intuition that a brute fact is impossible. (Frame thinks that by "brute fact" Van Til meant "uninterpreted being", but we can't be sure.)

2) Therefore a brute fact is impossible.

3) Impersonal being would be a brute fact.

4) Being must be either personal or impersonal.

5) By 1-3 all being is personal. But this would be a proof of idealism, so here we point out that either the Vantillians should accept idealism or introduce an analysis of created vs. uncreated being and go on to show why steps 1-3 apply to the one and not the other. We don't have this discussion, so we note that the demonstration is incomplete at this point. 

Instead we make the stipulation that we assume that we could get the result that all uncreated being is personal.

6) If being is personal then it is a person.

7) Therefore the substance that is the union of the three persons is also a person.

So far the argument.

Now it seems to me that (6) is a howler of the most blatent sort. That, at least, is my personal opinion. But I said "personal opinion". If the opinion is personal, it must be a person! All my opinions are personal opinions, and thus are persons! 

You see, given the myriad ways that an adjective can modify a noun, we cannot reason from adjective to noun as step (6) does without a complete analysis of what it is for something to be "personal" and how the usage is consistent all through the argument. The Vantillians have never attempted this.

A definition of "person" is difficult to attempt, and an analysis of "personal" is far worse. We are nowhere near to having an valid argument here. 

Another possibility is to attempt a counter argument. That is, to make an anaylsis of "personal" to show that in the sense in which "personal" is used it does not follow that the personal is a person. This is something I have not tried, because I don't know how to do it without venturing into unsupportable speculations about the being of God.

But I also have an objection to saying that God is three persons in a tripersonal substance. This, it seem to me (in my personal opinion), reduces the Trinitarian formula to God is three persons existing as three persons. It simply gives up the attempt to state the unity of God, which is the point of the <i>three</i> persons in <i>one</i> substance formula.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I've learned to be very careful you philosophical types.

Did the divines mean to say that God is "one person?" I don't think so.

If you'll read a mere theologian such as Warfield or Hodge you'll see that when they discuss the "personality" of God, they do not "abstract" it, but neither do the redefine it as "monopersonal." They argue that the divine personality is gradually revealed. God is first revealed as personal, then multi-personal and then tri-personal. 

Progressive revelation is revelation of the truth. The truth is that God is one in three persons. God is tripersonal. The God who revealed himself in Gen 1 was/is/shall be tri-personal. He left traces of that tri-personality in the creation account and in many other places. In my doctrine of God course (which they continue to allow me to teach despite the fact that I'm a mere theologian!) we trace that revelation with some care.

In catholic/creedal (and Reformed theology) When we distinguish "person" from "substance" or "essence" we are distinguishing categories or ways of speaking about God.

To make that distinction is not to commit one's self to an "impersonal" notion of substance. It's a way of affirming the teaching of both Deut 6:4 AND Matt 28:18-20. God IS one and he IS three persons. The divine essence does not exist distinctly from the three persons, but I cannot grant the premise, however, that "person" and "substance" are the same thing.

Why is it that we have not, before 1961 or so, ever said in Reformed (or medieval -- with a couple of exceptions who were made to recant and recite the Athanasian Creed) used the formula "one person."

It matters not to me that one says "three persons" then says "one person." 

Mere historian (which was I really am) and barely a theologian, I know that it's contrary to Scripture and the Reformed confession and the catholic faith to say predicate unipersonality of God. 

God is one, but he IS so in three persons.

I concede that CVT and JMF both use orthodox language, but my point is that they both use unorthodox language too. That's the rub. "One person" as predicated of God is unorthodox as judged by the creeds. To argue that the creeds do not speak against the view is inadequate and doesn't reckon with the Spirit of the Athanasian. Can anyone imagine the Athanasian adding the phrase, however intended, "one person"? No! 

Can you show me one patristic, medieval, or Reformed theologian prior to CVT who had the nerve to say "one person" of God who was not denounced as a heretic? I think you'll be a while looking up that fellow!



> Well, (1) you have yet to show the "serious errors." Also, (2) are you saying that John Frame is _aware_ of these "errors" and yet _unwilling_ to correct them!?



I take it that the form "one person" is a serious error prima facie. Yes, I've tried to point out difficulties in John's theology as have others, but to no avail. 

Re: John's motives or my attitude toward John, you're putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my attitude. That's not nice in either philosophy or theology.



> It's only unorthodox if he's referring to the same thing as the orthodox language is referring to. But, I've already shown that Frame is using "person" in a different sense than the creeds are using person.



How is "one person" ever true of God? In any way? How can one use the term "person" in reference to the Trinity and say, "but I don't mean what we've always meant by it"? Who gave anyone such license? How is it possible to speak about the Trinity in any other way than the way the creeds speak of it? The Trinity is not a plaything. It doesn't "belong" to me or you or any creative theologian. Anyone who proposes to work on it or revise it has to account for the creedal language. One is not entitled to posit a new definition of person and then say "but I affirm the creedal notion of person too." They incompatible. The creeds do not equate person with substance. One cannot equate them as one pleases and distinguish them as one pleases.



> Frame also agrees that we can only "know God as he is in himself insofar as he has revealed that in Scripture" (DG, 204).



There you go. You've done my work for me. What's orthodox about this sentence? It's flatly false and contrary to Scripture and Reformed theology. 

We know THAT God exists in se but we don't _know_ God in se. There's a huge difference. If we can know God in se, in Scripture, why did we have the Clark/Van Til controversy?

Can you appreciate this distinction?

There is a difference between speaking _about_ God's essence and claiming to know what it is or to know God as he is in himself. I don't have to know God "as he is in himself" to be able to say that God has an essence or that his essence is utterly transcendent. Calvin is pretty thorough here in Book 1 as are all our theologians on this topic.



> But we saw that Frame denies that we can know God _in se_. God has told us that He is Who He is, do you know that? if so, that's _some_ knowledge of God's essence.



I'm not a philosopher, but how is this not a non sequitur? He denies it on the one hand and affirms it on the other. He says, "know God as he is in himself insofar as he has revealed that in Scripture." John believes that God has revealed himself as he is, in Scripture. This is a category mistake.

We know _that_ God is who/what he is/will be, but we don't know God _AS_ he is. 

This is a fundamental Biblical and Protestant distinction. Scripture is accommodated. All of it. We never have contact with God as he is in himself. God, in se, is wholly other. John doesn't distinguish between Luther's theologia gloriae and Barth's doctrine of transcendence. Maybe if he was a better historian....? 

Paul, please read van Asselt. See also my essay in the Strimple Festschrift. See also Muller Post-Ref Ref'd Dogmatics. 

John's idea that we can know God "in se" in Scripture (but apparently only occasionally) is what, I believe, fuels John's incorrigibility in theology. I have ONLY ectypal theology derived from biblical exegesis as informed by the confessions and the tradition. I think Paul Helm also holds this view. We discussed it in Colo Springs in the late 90's. See Horton, Covenant and Eschatology for a more traditionally Reformed view.



> can't really interact with you here. At best it seems that you're not understanding what is meant. I also don't have a problem with "theology as application" _based on what Frame means by that._



I took my MDiv with John 1984-7 and was his colleague for a number of years and have read his work extensively and intensively. I heard him give what became DKG before it existed in printed form. 

Further, I agreed with him for years until I began to read 16th and 17th century Reformed theology in the sources. Then I found out that much of what I was taught by John isn't really Reformed. I wasn't always a critic. I've become a critic by virtue of my historical work. 

I've got to stop here. I must get back to the work I've agreed to do. 

best,

rsc


----------



## Magma2

> Yes, the fact that God IS in se (or that he has a knowledge of himself and things that we do not and cannot have) is revealed but nothing of God in se is revealed to us. To say that we can know God in himself concedes the whole argument to the Clarkians.



And, further down:



> Frame also agrees that we can only "know God as he is in himself insofar as he has revealed that in Scripture" (DG, 204).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go. You've done my work for me. What's orthodox about this sentence? It's flatly false and contrary to Scripture and Reformed theology.
> 
> We know THAT God exists in se but we don't know God in se. There's a huge difference. If we can know God in se, in Scripture, why did we have the Clark/Van Til controversy?
> 
> Can you appreciate this distinction?
> 
> There is a difference between speaking about God's essence and claiming to know what it is or to know God as he is in himself. I don't have to know God "as he is in himself" to be able to say that God has an essence or that his essence is utterly transcendent.
Click to expand...


While I enjoy watching Van Tilianism (or would that be Van Til-lichism) self destruct whether it's over Van Til´s heterodox doctrine of the Trinity (which, given his equal ultimacy can be construed as monopersonal or multipersonal consisting of three, four or any number of persons since if the three persons make one person then wouldn't God be a Quadanity, and, if so, does the First and the Second make another person, and the Second and the Third another still, and on and on) or his destitute and self-refuting epistemology, if the Frame quote above is heterodox, then what do you make of 1 Cor 2:16b; "œBut we have the mind of Christ." Or, John 8:32; "œand you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." One would think in order to know any truth we must know some things God knows for God is Truth. 

Remember the controversy between Clark and VT had to do with not exhausting God, but rather the question of whether or not there is a univocal point of contact between God's thought and man's thoughts. VT and his followers deny to this day say no, but it seems Paul is making some steps in the right direction in spite of his Van Til-lichism. 

For my own , I think the problem you two are having "“ at least on this point -- hinges more on how you define essence, that is, if you define it at all. But, don´t mind me, please continue to de-construct as your Van Tilianism self-destructs. 

Give your exchange so far, in my opinion you're both heading in the right direction.


[Edited on 9-8-2006 by Magma2]

[Edited on 9-8-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## BobVigneault

I just had to jump in here for a moment. You guys are way over my head but this titanic clash is reminding me of something you, Paul, said over on our sister board... well it's not really our sister board is it? More of a red-headed stepchild board. Anyway, you said -

"I don't have the time to, well, preface all my posts by blowing sunshine up someone's skirt (if I can use that example!)."

Love the rich imagery Paul, you've certainly taught me to wear pants at all times. Love ya!


----------



## Magma2

> Anyway, let's all remember that even *if* Van Tillianism is self-destructing. Gordon Clark has already evaporated into nothing.



Wishful thinking. Actually, its boarding on delusional. I can only think given the wildness of your reply, you´ve already downed a few waiting for Dr. Clark to arrive at your pre-arranged watering hole for that drink  

Also, you´ll notice I was kind enough to snip you´re opening onslaught of the ususal abusive ad hominem attacks and general seething vitriol. For what it's worth, it´s about what I expected. Cursing the iceberg for failing to get out of the way of the ship. 



> [i. Sean, how do you KNOW any of what you just wrote up there? Write the deductive syllogism made up of scriptural (or those inferred by scripture) propositions.



What a sad and tired argument Paul. I thought you, being such a "œphilosophical type," might be able to muster up something better? Since when did putting Roman Numerals in front of a question make it either relevant or pointed?

But if you´d like to play this game, at least to distract you from the pain of witnessing the collapse of Van Til´s anti-system, define how you are using the word to know above so we can proceed? 

 

<snip more abusive ad hominem in the guise of more sophomoric attempts at humor>



> You'll soon find out that 99% of what Clarkians believe is just their own *opinion* on the matter.



Scripturalists at least have the epistemological sophistication to tell the difference between knowledge and opinion and, unlike you, are familiar with the fallacy of begging the question and try to avoid making it.


----------



## caddy

^^ 

My head's hurting again

and strangely enough...I'm laughing


----------



## caddy

As does Jobs' !



> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Man, the whole book of Isaiah screams God's sovereignty.


----------



## Civbert

For the edification (and education) of many who object to Scripturalism, let me direct you to a fine post by Zac Hensley on his blog Desideratum.

Scripturalism for Dummies - Part 1

I hope Paul and a few others will give it some careful consideration. Be sure to read part two also. I think you will see that the knowledge vs. opinion question is pointless unless those who object to Scripturalism can give a viable alternative. The issue is the criterion of knowledge - not the semantics of knowledge vs opinion. If one does not apply the same epistemological criteria, then comparing opinion and knowledge is futile. One philosophy's knowledge is another's opinion - but the practical effect of the proposition in question is the same. The advantage of Scripturalism for the Christian is it's separation of Scriptural knowledge from empirical or rational - God's revelation trumps human experience. 

Back to the subject (or at least closer to it):
Dr. Clark. Would you explain what is meant by to "know God in himself"? Can we know anything in itself? I'm not sure what the phrase means.

BTW: I agree with the formulation that God is three persons (full stop). I think when Christian philosophers start pondering on the "unity" and "oneness" of God and then start trying to defend saying things like "God is both one person and three persons" - they are inevitable forced to either equivocation or contradiction. But I wonder what good there is in using terms if we don't clearly define them or use them univocally. Is a human person the same "person" as Christ the person or the person of the Father?


----------



## Magma2

> Sean, how do you KNOW that you know the difference between knowledge and opinion? If you do, then write the deductive syllogism made up of premises taken directly, or inferred, from Scripture. If not, then I guess it's another one of your *opinions* that Scripturalists can tell the difference between knowledge and opinion.



Look, if you´d rather just thump your chest and grandstand like a big buffoon to the accolades of sycophants who seem to just eat up this kind of thing, knock yourself out. However, if you´d like to demonstrate that you even understand the first principles entailed in any theory of knowledge, start with a defining the word knowledge. Van Til defined knowledge as did Bahnsen. For what it's worth I agree and accept their definition, to bad their theory is at odds with their definition.



> Me again: But Sean, I would but how would you KNOW that I gave you the defintion for knowledge and not the recipe for moonshine? Your rebuttal of my argument would be, again, just your opinion.



I don´t see how that matters? This all could be a dream and you´re just an ill tempered bald hob gobblin, but at least Clark provided a criterion and a theory by which knowledge, rightly defined, might be obtained. You, OTOH, are like so many Charismatics where any barking coming from their lips is to be received as God´s infallible word. 

So let me ask you, is the Bible alone the Word of God? And, if not (since no good VT believes it is), how else might His word be known? Philosophy? Science? VT and Bahnsen seem to think so, at least they routinely asserted as much.


----------



## Magma2

John Frame writes:



> 4. As for triperspectivalism: Scott fails to make an elementary distinction. The Normative Perspective is not the Bible, and the Bible is not the Normative Perspective. The Normative Perspective includes everything, for everything is somehow revelatory of God (general revelation, special revelation, man in God´s image). The Bible is part of the normative perspective, and the decisive part (here plug in Kline on the covenant document, infallibility, inerrancy, etc.) The Bible is also part, the decisive part, of the situational and existential perspectives. So: when I say that the normative perspective is correlative to the others, you may not infer that for me the Bible is correlative to anything. It is not. It is the inspired, infallible Word of God, which must govern all human thinking. And nobody can claim that I have ever said anything contrary to this.
> 
> One of Scott´s problems, I think, is that he is unwilling to see any ambiguity in language, particularly language hallowed by historical theological usage. In all five of the points above, Scott simply appeals to some historical precedent and demands that we use the language as the historical creeds/confessions/theologians did, and he insists that no other language will suffice, even though it is equivalent to the historical language.



I guess we can all thank the Lord that John Frame isn´t in the business of interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Of course, he is in the business of interpreting the bible, or at least purports to be, and in recent years has been offering his interpretations of FV. You tell me, what´s worse?

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Three things:

1. this thread has degenerated into the Clark/Van Til fight. I helped derail the thread by my post warning about my concerns over JMF's doctrine of God.

2. Ironic and confusing as it may be, since I am a "Clark," I don't have any sympathy for the (Gordon) "Clarkian" position in the Clark-Van Til debate. I don't want my criticisms of JMF to leave that impression.

3. As to John's dyspeptic response to my criticisms, though he _appears _ to invite serious dialogue he's made it plain that he considers me too incompetent (his word; remember that he said in the preface to a FV book, _ Backbone..._ that those who criticize Norman Shepherd's doctrine of justification as "another gospel" are "stupid" - yes he apologized for it but that's beside the point since he's said it again in a circulated email discussion) and bound by tradition (and confession?) to interact meaningfully with him. 

I have no problem with Paul's posting of John's response (of which he sent me a copy) since I criticized his theology here, but readers should know that Paul did not post the letter in its entirety. 

As it appears here, it seems that John is inviting a serious discussion. At the end of the letter, however, in the portion omitted, John makes a series of remarkably nasty, personal, and unsubstantiated comments that, if true, should be grounds for ecclesiastical and professional discipline at least and perhaps my deposition from the ministry and and termination from my employment. Of course, they are not true and it would be unedifying to post them.

In view of John's giving with the one hand and taking away with the other I have no interest in attempting to conduct a discussion with him. In this I take perverse pleasure in joining the ranks of those wonderfully disreputable fellows Muller, Horton, and Wells!

Ever one of Machen's Warrior Children,

rsc

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

As I said, it's not edifying. If I thought it should be posted, I would have done it. 

rsc



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Dr. Clark,
> 
> I can post his letter in its entirety, I thought that it was not relevant to the issues discussed here. Everything I posted from him is something we talked about.
> 
> My only point was to post what related to what we were talking about.
> 
> I had both of your feelings and reps in mind when I omitted that portion.


----------



## Magma2

> I don't think Bahnsen or Van Til spent any serious time defining knowledge. Bahnsen defines knowledge as true belief, with evidence, in toher instances he says it's JTB.



Actually, Bahnsen spends a considerable amount of time (is a chapter serious?) arriving at a definition of knowledge in VT´s Apologetic. After a very lengthy discussion of what is entailed by the word to know, he says:



> Beliefs that are arbitrarily adopted or based upon faulty grounds, even when they turn out to be true, do not qualify as instance of "œknowledge." . . . Knowledge is true belief held on adequate grounds, rather than held fallaciously or haphazardly. To put it traditionally, knowledge is justified, true belief.



Of course, this doesn´t stop him from asserting his own beliefs in science, for example, as rising to the level of knowledge which are held fallaciously if not necessarily haphazardly. He should have spent more time studying Clark.  

Now if this is how you intended to use the word, then we could have spent some time exposing your so-called "refutation" of Clark as nothing more than just more hot air.




> 3. I don't need to define anything since I'm offering a reductio and using *your* premises.



For your reductio to have any force at all would require you to define your terms. How do I know how you are using a particular word, a word which your entire argument hinges, if you won´t tell me? Basically, your so-called "œreductio" is nothing more than another example of fallacious reasoning and grandstanding. You refuse to define key terms because your only hope in "refuting" Scripturalism is through the smoke and mirrors of equivocation. in my opinion your so-called "œreductio" is nothing more than your usual attempt to play to your little peanut gallery here by telling them you´ve made a serious blow while just swatting at air. Some of us aren't so easily fooled and I can see that bugs you. :bigsmile:



> 4. I understand why you don't like my method, because it makes Clarkinas look like sophomoric philosphers.



I don´t like your method because you really don´t have one. And, what little method there seems to be is disingenuous and dishonest. You have no desire to really engage Clark's thought on any level, for to do so would expose the Van Tilianism you're wed to as nothing more than a pious sounding fiction. Also, I don´t think you have the slightest clue what the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark is all about. The point of Clark´s method, covering all his works and not just his works dealing with philosophy, and is the entire reason Trinity Foundation exists, is not to make little philosophers, but rather Christian men who would not be fooled or impress by irrational nonsense parading as Christianity, like the New Age perspectivalist drivel you´ve provided by John Frame above. Here´s how Clark put it and it´s a quote that you can find in the back pages of every Trinity Foundation publication: 



> There have been times in the history of God's people, for example, in the days of Jeremiah, when refreshing grace and widespread revival were not to be expected: The time was one of chastisement. If this twentieth century is of a similar nature, individual Christians here and there can find comfort and strength in a study of God's Word. But if God has decreed happier days for us and if we may expect a world-shaking and genuine spiritual awakening, then it is the author's belief that a zeal for souls, however necessary, is not the sufficient condition. Have there not been devout saints in every age, numerous enough to carry on a revival? Twelve such persons are plenty. What distinguishes the arid ages from the period of the Reformation, when nations were moved as they had not been since Paul preached in Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome, is the latter's fullness of knowledge of God's Word. To echo an early Reformation thought, when the plough man and the garage attendant know the Bible as well as the theologian does, and know it better than some contemporary theologians, then the desired awakening shall have already occurred.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Sean, just to let you know what most people think when you say what you say about Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Bavinck, et al. read this by Marc Carpenter:
> 
> "The view of John Robbins (which came from the view of Gordon Clark) is damnable. It destroys the certainty of the Word of God, the certainty of gospel doctrine, the certainty of judgment, the certainty of assurance, and the certainty of preaching. It hacks down the very foundations of Christianity. God gave us senses as a means through which to obtain truth. And true Christians are CERTAIN that what we are reading is the Word of God, are CERTAIN of essential gospel doctrine, are CERTAIN when we judge those who confess a false gospel to be lost, are CERTAIN that we are saved, and are CERTAIN that preaching is a means of conveying the truth."
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl61.htm
> 
> Now, imagine what you feel like when you read that from Carpenter and then multiply it by 100. Then you'll have a *glimps* of what toher's think of your "drivel."



Now you're quoting Marc Carpenter!    

I see you're in good company. This made my day. Like you, Carpenter is very certain about a great many things, very little of it is true or remotely biblical. Maybe you should spend more time with him since you both have a great deal in common. Just don't drink the Kool-Aid. But I will say I get a real kick out of you quoting Marc in support of your rambling empty diatribe.


----------



## Magma2

> Did you get the point of why I quoted Marc?



Like spirits attract?



> I quoted Marc because that's how people see YOU, Sean.



Oh, my. I had no idea. 



> Now, remember I said for you to multiply that by 100 and you'd know how people felt about your and Robbins' attacks.



Are your "feelings" your criterion for knowledge? How about right and worng? Regardless, it explains why you linked that women's prayer group you attend. As for the 100 x, ever hear of ad populum?



> By the way, I hat to do it to you, but how do you KNOW I quoted Marc?



I don´t. Knowledge, as Greg Bahnsen rightly noted, is justified true belief, or, to put it another way; a belief that rises to the level of knowledge is one in which its truthfulness can be accounted for. But you claim to KNOW, which explains the all caps. Hence, you should be able to provide an account. So tell me, how do you KNOW you quoted Marc Carpenter? How do you know there even is a Marc Carpenter? Maybe it's really Andrew Bain? Let's see your argument. Now, remember begging the question is a fallacy.  



> I loved your response. All the LOL's.



It´s the first time I´ve laughed out loud on these boards in some time.



> Can you deduce that from the Bible Sean?



Obviously not.



> Or, is it your unjustified opinion?



No, it´s not an _unjustified_ opinion. I´d rather call it a justified opinion which may or may not be true. I´ve already admitted that you might be an ill tempered bald hobgoblin. I think I have some justification to hold to at least part of that opinion, although I´m not too sure if you´re really bald. 



> Btw, I saw that you chose the  refutation rather than the logical one.



I admit you calling up Marc Carpenter for support for your silliness was funny.

As for a logical refutation I would think that would require an honest and logical opponent with whom I might debate? Not just someone trying to score easy points with his fan club.

As I´ve said, you´re tired objection and so-called "œreductio" has been answered by Clark dozens of times in various forms. I suggest you read his refutation of Mavrodes at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=1 . 

Anyway, I understand why you´re so mad and continue to attack me with such wild abandon. It´s hard to keep up the pretense that your ship is making headway when it´s scattered in pieces along the ocean floor. 

Van Tilianism is warmed over neo-orthodoxy in Reformed garb. His doctrine of the Trinity is heretical, his epistemology ends in abject scepticism, his doctrine of Scripture is contrary to the Confession and Scripture, and the heresies of the Federal Vision can be traced right back to Van Til and men like Frame who is arguably VT´s top student and promulgator. For what it's worth I don´t think it would be hard to imagine which side Bahnsen would be on in the Shepherd controversy or the current debate over justification if the Lord in His mercy didn´t take him. I don´t think we really need to look any further than Andy Sandlin and Gary North for an answer. 

But, don´t mind me. Happy sailing. :bigsmile:


----------



## Magma2

> I know I quoted Marc because Marc told me he wrote that.



Let´s see, your account is that the proposition "œMarc Carpenter said so and so" is because he said so? Does whatever anyone tell you rises to the level of knowledge because they say so? Or, is truth just measured by what Marc Carpenter says, or, rather, what he says he says? Or would that be anyone saying they´re Marc Carpenter? Or, is everything accounted as true because someone says it?.

If that´s your account, no wonder Van Tilianism is completely bankrupt. I guess we all come to know the truth by reading Outside the Camp´s Heterodox Hall of Shame. Can I have grape Kool Aid with my pizza. 



> (a) How do you know I just said what you think I said?



I never said I do and it seems to me an irrelevant question. If knowledge is true opinion or belief with an account of its truth, there are any number of things I believe which may be true but which may turn out not to be true at all. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

I can't speak for you, but I´ve believed many propsitions in the past which have turned out to be false. However, since I accept revelation of Scripture as true axiomatically then I agree with Calvin who 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." 



> (b) How do you know that what you think I said is a faulty was of obtaining knowledge?



You have yet to provide any account, at least you provided nothing more substantial than your say so. So far it seems like you´re just as mired in opinion as I am and since you say they´re useless, I don´t know why you keep writing. I´m open to argument, but that would presume you can provide something more.



> If your answers to (a) and (b) are not valid deductions from Scripture then don't bother responding.



Oops. Too late.



> Oh and btw, I love how you called them your *justified* opinions. Tell me, Sean, if you can:
> 
> (a) what is it for something to be "justified"
> 
> and
> 
> (b) how do you know that was your justified opinion?



I believe I´m justified holding the opinion that you´re an ill tempered bald hobgoblin because I´ve seen a picture that is purported to be you and have interacted with some of your posts which you claim to have written. I´m more than willing to admit that I may be wrong. You may actually have hair. 



> Please show all ansewrs in the form of a deductive argument, with premises made up of propositions inferred from Scripture, or Scripture itself.



I can´t, that´s why I wouldn´t call my opinions, no matter how justified I think they are knowledge. Knowledge is true belief with an account of its truth.



> I think the mosty ironic thing is that you said Van Tillianism lands one in skepticism whil you've just showed that you don;t know anything you said in this entire thread.



Van Tilianism is skepticism and his analogous theory of truth ensures that no knowledge of anything is possible for the simple reason that an analogy of the truth is not the truth. 



> You don't know you're not reading the Qu'ran when you think you're reading the Biblke, you don't know you exist, you don't know that everyone else you see are not robots, etc.



Like I said, your objections are as tired as they are weak. Your argument is the form of the ususal objection; "œhow do you know you have a bible in your hands." Implied is the notion that unless knowledge from empirical means is at least assumed then no knowledge is possible. This, of course, is false. No knowledge is possible by empirical means. Clark responded to Mavrodes' criticism concerning the question, "don't we have to read our bibles" as follows: 

"The substantial question is how do we know the contents of the Bible. If Louis XIV or my wife could be replaced with an imposter twin, then maybe the Bible in my hands is a cunningly devised substitute.... In fact, until these [skeptical] arguments are successfully circumvented, no one has a firm basis on which to object to my general position. If anyone tries to avoid this material and relying on common opinion, charges me with paradoxes, he has failed to grasp even the first point." (For the complete discussion, and to find out if you being a "œphilosophy type" can even grasp Clark´s first point, see http://trinityfoundation.org/ammo/clark_refutes.asp )

Similarly, in his Language and Theology Clark quotes Abraham Kuyper approvingly:

"That which we call Holy Scripture is not paper with black impressions. Those letters are but tokens of recognition; those words are only clicks of the telegraph key signaling thoughts to our spirits along the lines of our visual and auditory nerves. And the thoughts so signaled are not isolated and incoherent, but parts of a complete system that is directly antagonistic to man's thought, yet enters there sphere." [The Work of the Holy Spirit]

Clark did add one caveat; Kuyper's analogy was too behavioristic yet he said "the main thought was sound." Since a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence, no man can come to knowledge of any proposition of Scripture by looking at ink marks on a page. Clark again:

"œPhilosophers who insist on giving a role to sensation in the acquisition of knowledge should first define sensation, then show how sensation can become perception, and presumably how memory images can produce universal concepts by abstraction. If this is not their scheme, and it might not be, then they should describe in detail what their scheme is. It is not enough to speak vaguely about some role or other [Language and Theology; p.144]." 

Of course, Scripture isn´t a black book made up of arbitrary ink scratches. Scripture consists of the eternal, immutable and infallible thoughts of God. Thoughts cannot be seen with they eyes in your head. 1 Cor 2:14; "œBut a natural man 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."

You need to try harder Paul.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ....
> So, everyone knows that if I do not respond it's because I don't feel like hearing Sean Grrretey's mere opinion. Opinions are like armpits, and they all stink.



You seem to have a low opinion of opinion! Ironic that.

If your will look back, you might notice that you do not seem adverse to giving your opinions - nor am I. So I don't know why you'd claim that all opinions stink. 

There is knowledge and opinion in philosophy, and there is knowledge and opinion in everyday usage. Many times when we use the term 'know' it is not in an epistemic or philosophic sense. And often when I state something I believe is true - it is simply my opinion. You may ask "how do I know this?", and I'd have to ask if you mean philosophically or do you mean why do I believe what I've said is true? If you mean philosophically, then I'd say that this is my opinion based on x, y, z... If you mean why do I believe it is true, then the reason would be the same. 

We can discuss issues of epistemology and consider empiricism, rationalism, Scripturalism, etc. In that case, the question is a generic "how do you know" is appropriate and relevant. We can also discuss my statements in terms of the reason used to support them - and I could use the term answer 'how do I know' in a more general manner. As a Scripturalist, I am not compelled to deduce every statement I believe from Scripture. This does not indicate anything regarding the usefulness or truthfulness of the statements in question. The differentiation between knowledge and opinion is one of criteria. 

All that said, it's all rather off-topic. It should be in a different thread. And I don't mind discussing Scripturalism - but let's try to be philosophical when discussing philosophical issues.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Doesn't matter, Sean refuted himself for us (see post above).
> 
> You're trying to shore up Sean's errors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a Scripturalist, I am not compelled to deduce every statement I believe from Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are compelled to deduce what you *know* (philosophically) from Scripture. Anmd it is at this point that you can't *know* any of your critiques against me, Van Til, Frame, name it.
> 
> So, when you critique me you're just giving your *unjustified* opinion.
Click to expand...


My opinion is as justified as yours. My critiques against Van Til or Frame are my opinion just as yours are against Clark. There is no weight to saying you know more than me based on your epistemology if your epistemic criteria are much weaker than mine. 

You have to apply the same criteria to all statements regardless of an individuals personal epistemology. Joe thinks he is justified in saying he knows anything he feels is true, Jane thinks she is justified saying she knows only things she can support with science, and Bill justifies all things he knows from the Quran. So is statement x knowledge or opinion? We still can't answer the question. What is knowledge? What justifies knowledge? Is knowledge JTB? Is knowledge warranted belief? What is justified? What is warranted? Is one persons knowledge another persons opinion? Are inductive conclusions justified true? Are deductive conclusions only conditionally true? Is knowledge certainty? Is knowledge certain? 

You need to argue that a scripturalist's criteria is wrong. It matters nothing that I consider some statement an opinion and you consider it knowledge if we apply different criteria. You think you know "Bill Clinton was president", I think that it is an opinion. That is not a value judgment on the truth of "Bill Clinton was President" because we can use the exact same evidence to reach that conclusion. If you were a rationalist, you might consider it opinion. 

Interestingly enough, if you were to apply your apparent criteria for knowledge to my statements, you'd have to say you were justified in knowing my statements are true.


----------



## Civbert

P.S. Using the JTB definition of knowledge - one does not have *unjustified* opinions. Opinions are nothing more or less than beliefs. So one concludes a statement is either *knowledge* or *opinion* depending on if one can give an account of the truth of the statement based on some criteria.


----------



## Magma2

> So, we note that Sean Grrrety has said:
> 
> 1. One can be justified in his belief, in some instances, because they have the testimony of another



You really can´t seem to follow the ball can you Paul? No wonder you can´t seem to grasp what Clark has argued for and what a sound and biblical epistemology might entail. in my opinion you´re a lot more comfortable with the nonsense you posted from John Frame above and his perspectivalistic babel. Maybe you and he can sit and OM together as you receive knoweldge from the universe like a couple of shortwave antennas. 

I also said that even though I think I´m justified in my beliefs, including those concerning you, I may be wrong. The reason? I cannot provide an account. I know of no way to account for these beliefs of mine from experience or sensation or pure logic or via the fallacies entailed in science or even via history or archaeology. None of these means provide a method by which truth might be known. I cannot provide an account from the Axiom of the Christian faith either, which does provide a means and a method for arriving at truth. Hence my opinions, even if I think they might be justified, are just that, opinions. 

Now, let's talk about your lack of hair. It's my opinion that you're a bald man. Nothing wrong with that and I'm well on my way to joining your club. I think myself justified in this opinion because I believe I've seen your picture on your avatar. Now, that might not be you at all, but rather a young relative of G. Gordon Liddy and you are actually a long haired Dead Head California surfer type. You then show me a picture of you and your shoulder length locks and I consider myself no longer justified in my opinion that you're bald. Now it's my opinion that you look like a hippy. But it's still my opinion. Get it? 

Or take science. Popper said that all science consists of conjectures and their refutations. Science never arrives at truth, at least truth in the traditional sense, for the conclusions of science are always tentative. The scientist is one who is always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Now, if that's true for science, due to the logical fallacies entailed in the methods employed by the scientists, then how can I hope to do any better concerning my conjectures of you?

Finally, why is that Anthony got what I was saying but you're just playing ball with yourself out in left field? Everyone thinks themselves justified in their beliefs and opinions, but without some sort of logical and sound account how can they say they "know" the things they opine and believe? 




> 2. Knowledge is "justified, true belief.



Yes, it is, that´s why I´m not as foolish as you seem to be and claim my opinions constitute "œknowledge" so defined. Ignorance, opinion and knowledge are different noetic states and I gather from your desperate response that you can´t tell the one from the other. Too bad, I thought there might be a slim chance that you might make progress yet.



> This brings us to
> 
> 3. If I have a justified belief, and it turns out to be true, you could say I knew it. And this is according to Sean!



More evidence that you simply cannot follow the ball Paul. Recall Bahnsen above; "œBeliefs that are arbitrarily adopted or based upon faulty grounds, even when they turn out to be true, do not qualify as instance of "œknowledge." Amen. Why can´t you remember that? Bahnsen then added; "œKnowledge is true belief held on adequate grounds, rather than held fallaciously or haphazardly." I don´t consider you´re buddy Marc Carpenter´s say so on nothing more than your say so adequate grounds. I'm very sorry that you do. 



> 4. Despite the fact that Sean seems completely ignorant of how testimony grants knowledge (above implying an inferential view, which I don't hold to), he has just hung himself.



Yes, I am ignorant of how testimony, in this case the testimony by your friend Marc Carpenter telling you he said something, constitutes knowledge and evidently so are you for you haven´t provided any argument in support of your claim. You haven´t provided any account for your claim in the least. You have merely asserted it and called it knowledge. 

When you're ready to take on the issue of epistemology seriously, let me know. 



> 5. For you see, according to Sean I can justifiedly believe that Marc Carpenter wrote that piece, and, if true, I, according to Sean (again), KNEW it.



You really need to stop writing your posts from that watering hole you mentioned above. I don´t think Dr. Scott Clark is coming. ;-) 



> Thanks Sean, you did all my work for me.



Well, given you haven´t worked at all yet, I´m happy to do the work for you. That´s what brothers are for after all. 



[Edited on 9-11-2006 by Magma2]

[Edited on 9-11-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> P.S. Using the JTB definition of knowledge - one does not have *unjustified* opinions. Opinions are nothing more or less than beliefs. So one concludes a statement is either *knowledge* or *opinion* depending on if one can give an account of the truth of the statement based on some criteria.



If JTB is the best definition of knowledge is a matter of opinion. No one can say it is the *true* definition since definitions are tautological. You can define terms anyway you want - but some definitions are better than others and it's more important that you make your definitions clear and do not equivocate. 

I think knowledge is JTB is in agreement with NT usage in many cases. But not always OT usage as "to know" seems to imply sexual relations in some cases. "Know" and "knowledge" are excellent word-study topics.

[Edited on 9-11-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Anthony's (Civbert's) Clarkian blogger friend has another Scriptualist friend linked to on his blog. This guy derived the truth of Scripturalism from
> 
> 2 Peter 1:19a reads "œAnd we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place. . ."
> 
> 
> And takes that to mean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My reply: no. Peter seems to be using his experiences in an ad hominem fashion because he then moves on to say that the Scriptures are a "œmore sure" witness. (This, of course, has more force when viewed along with the other arguments found in Scripture for the Scripturalist position, but this post is not meant to be comprehensive.) ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a link to a followup post to the post the was posted :
> http://reformedphilosophy.org/hudgins/archives/105
> 
> I figure that Tim Hudgin's response is sufficient. It seems that good logic is common with Scripturalists.
> 
> And for reference - the post I made was a link to Zac Hensley's posts on Scripturalism here:
> http://www.zachensley.com/?p=43
> http://www.zachensley.com/?p=44
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 9-11-2006 by Civbert]
Click to expand...


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...
> 
> . Sean refuted himself and is now in damage control mode. Either that, or he doesn't even get this basic argument, built from HIS OWN statements in this thread.
> ...



He would be except you have misunderstood. When he said his opinion was justified, or that he was justified in believing a particular opinion is true, that is not the same as a "justified true belief" (the definition of knowledge). Sean could have said something other than "justified", like "good reasons", but he has clearly distinguished his "justified opinions" from his "justified true beliefs". You seem intent on winning the debate over understanding your opponent.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Sean, you can't even follow you're own argument. How sad.



Like your entire so-called "refutation" of Scripturalism, you're entire argument here rests on an equivocation of my use of the word justified as it relates to opinion. As I said, you're desperate.

I explained how I was using the word and any competent opponent, not to mention charitable reading of what I wrote, would have seen that. 

Pathetic.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...
> 
> . Sean refuted himself and is now in damage control mode. Either that, or he doesn't even get this basic argument, built from HIS OWN statements in this thread.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would be except you have misunderstood. When he said his opinion was justified, or that he was justified in believing a particular opinion is true, that is not the same as a "justified true belief" (the definition of knowledge). Sean could have said something other than "justified", like "good reasons", but he has clearly distinguished his "justified opinions" from his "justified true beliefs". You seem intent on winning the debate over understanding your opponent.
Click to expand...


 That is exactly right. Thank you Anthony.


----------



## MW

Sean, perhaps you could explain your view with reference to the Lord's healing of the man born blind, John 9. He did not yet know if his Healer was a sinner or not, but he knew that whereas he was blind, now he saw.

It seems to me that your view of knowledge would require a reformulation of the historic doctrine concerning Christ's miracles as evidence. There are clearly two kinds of knowledge which are associated with the miracles. One is based on what is perceived in the natural action, and the other is based on who Christ is. Yet the Scriptures equally refer to both as "knowledge."

I would also be interested to learn how "deception" functions within your schema.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Why can't we just admit that CVT erred on this point?



I think it is impossible to admit that CVT erred on this point without also admitting that he errred in his views on theological construction as a whole. His Trinitarian formulation was perfectly consistent with his theological method. It is used as an example of why thinking analogically requires thinking paradoxically. Because he would not allow a deductive category to solve tensions in the human system of theology, he repeatedly spoke of things being and not being at the same time, and insisted that the resolution of the tension could only be found in the exhaustive knowledge of God.

In relation to the subject of this thread, Van Til's full bucket problem means that Van Tillianism cannot offer a full refutation of open theism. God is said to be all sufficient in Himself, and yet He created for the purpose of gaining glory to Himself. Van Til does not use the traditional categories of essential and manifestative glory to show the difference. He says that the solution rests in God's knowledge. By leaving this unexplained, Van Tillianism can offer no categorical explanation to open theism's concrete and changing, being and becoming dualism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Indeed, Van Til could simply point out that the open theists are leaving out biblical data, and, hence, are unbiblical.
> 
> VT was a staunch defender of reformed theology and I think if he were around today he'd have something to say about open theism.



I don't doubt it, Paul. The point I made concerned his theological method, and the refusal to allow for deductive categories in order to solve *apparent* contradictions. The open theist claims to allow for all the biblical data, as when God is said to repent and not repent. Van Til would need to betray his own system in order to introduce classical categories here if he wanted to refute the open theist. He would have to solve the paradox as to how God is sufficient in Himself, and yet enters into reciprocal and meaningful relationships with His creatures.


----------



## Magma2

Further proof of Van Tilianisms bankruptcy and Manata´s desperation and ineptitude, he not only runs to Marc Carpenter for aid, but now he runs to Michael Sudduth:



> If Sean thinks that we can have justified extra-Biblical beliefs and he thinks that knowledge is justified true belief, then he must believe either that there is extra-biblical knowledge *or* there are no extra-biblical truths that anyone can believe. In other words, he must believe (to be consistent) that there is extra-biblical knowledge or all justified extra-biblical beliefs are false. The latter claim is demonstrably false as I proved (even to the satisfaction of John Robbins) years ago in my paper on alethic scripturalism. Moreover, Sean himself has at various times denied alethic scripturalism. This would seem to commit him, given his other assumptions, to a denial of epistemic scripturalism.



Again, you, and now Michael by your side, continue to try score points by equivocating on the word "œjustify." Sudduth only continues your foolishness. I have never argued that all extra-biblical beliefs are false and neither Dr. Robbins nor I needed him to point this out. I realize that´s a blow to both of your overinflated egos, but there you have it. It was Sudduth who wrongly imputed this idea to Robbins, to which he later apologized and confessed his lack of understanding. Even apart from divine omniscience, we even know from Scripture in numerous places that there are extra biblical truths, such as John 21:25; "œAnd there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written." There is no such thing as "œalethic scripturalism." This is a phantom Sudduth created in his own fevered and desperate mind as he interacted with men who failed to understand the first principles of Clark´s epistemic system. Instead of realizing this, since, after all, he purports to be a doctor of philosophy, he plowed ahead with the same blindness as you have. Like Sudduth, Paul you failed to keep your eye on the ball and now you continue to try and impute your own confusion to me. 

Shameful.




> 1. You've not shown that I equivocated



I did and repeatedly. I said with Bahnsen that knowledge consists of TRUE opinions or beliefs with an account of their TRUTHFULNESS. Opinions may be true or false "“ ACTUALLY EVERY PROPOSITION IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE "“ but since all opinions lack an account of their TRUTHFULNESS, they remain opinions. However, opinions, like conjectures in science (which is all science consists of) for example, can be shown to be false. In neither case can an account be given as to their truthfulness so they remain guesses and opinions. So from my use of JB "“ which I´ve shown by pounding on top of your bald head "“ is nothing more than an opinion "“ you keep barking JTB, pound your chest, and claim victory over Scripturalism. 

Pathetic. 




> I know he's distinguished them. One is JB and the other is JTB. I nowhere said that JB counts as knowledge.



Nowhere? You´ve done exactly this repeatedly and right above. :



> Sean's Argument:
> 
> 1. If someone has a JTB then s/he has knowledge (cf. S4).
> 
> 2. Extra-biblical beliefs can be justified (cf. S2 and S3).



I´ve never asserted 2 and have at no time claimed I can account for the truthfulness of opinions I have offered in our exchange. This is a lie and again demonstrates your attempt to willfully capitalize on an equivocation. 

Dishonest. 



> I've said that if Sean *allows for JB* then Sean must allow for extra-biblical knowledge since alethic Scripturalism is false.



Alethic Scripturalism has never been mentioned until now and has only come into play as a result of your crawling in desperation to Sudduth for help. 

More lies. 



> If alethic Scripturalism is false, then there are *true* extra-biblical propositions.



Of course AS is false, it´s not Scripturalsim any more than Reformed epistemology is Reformed. Nothing remotely like it has ever been taught by Clark or Robbins or advance by me. 

In your desperation to save the irrationalism you subscribe to from the trash heap of history where it belongs, you have disingenuously and dishonestly attempted to put words in my mouth.

I can see now why Dr. Robbins refused to have anything to do with you or your "book" and why he advised any of those likely candidates on your list to have nothing to do with you. 

Dr. Robbins is clearly a much wiser man than me.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Sean, perhaps you could explain your view with reference to the Lord's healing of the man born blind, John 9. He did not yet know if his Healer was a sinner or not, but he knew that whereas he was blind, now he saw.
> 
> It seems to me that your view of knowledge would require a reformulation of the historic doctrine concerning Christ's miracles as evidence. There are clearly two kinds of knowledge which are associated with the miracles. One is based on what is perceived in the natural action, and the other is based on who Christ is.



See Clark's reply to Reymond in Clark Speaks From the Grave. Biblically, seeing is a matter intellection as a result of divine illumination, not an inference drawn from sensation (see for example 1Cor. 2:14 which I cited above and Mat 16:16ff comes to mind as well).

BTW I appreciate you're remarks to Paul and your attempt to return this thread back to its topic.

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> See Clark's reply to Reymond in Clark Speaks From the Grave. Biblically, seeing is a matter intellection as a result of divine illumination, not an inference drawn from sensation (see for example 1Cor. 2:14 which I cited above and Mat 16:16ff comes to mind as well).



I understand if this is off topic for this thread. Perhaps a new thread could deal with it. I would still like to see an explanation as to how persons "knew" that Jesus had performed miracles.


----------



## Magma2

> I understand if this is off topic for this thread. Perhaps a new thread could deal with it. I would still like to see an explanation as to how persons "knew" that Jesus had performed miracles.



Sounds good to me. Not quite sure where that discussion might go?

If you have Clark Speaks From the Grave that might be a good place to start. Also Clark's reply to Mavrodes linked above. 

[Edited on 9-13-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 1. Of course this is like our other discussion. No in-depth analysis, just a bunch of say-so.



Are you denying Van Til's full bucket problem, Paul? Who needs analysis for that? It is unquestioned Van Tillianism.



> 2. We'd need to discuss further this idea of allowing deductive categories to resolve paradox. There are more than 3 ways I can make this go, so Matthew has not done the appropriate job showing he understands Van Til.



The Trinity is one example. God's plan and prayer is another example. The fully sufficient God and a creation to glorify Him is another example. Need I go on? Van Til states quite explicitly that these must be maintained as apparent contradictions. If I need to analyse this for your benefit, Paul, then I doubt you understand basic Van Tillianism.



> For example, Van Til says that, "The rules of formal logic must be followed in all our attempts at systematic exposition of God's revelation, whether general or special"? ( Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, 28. On p. 143 he refers approvingly to Kuyper's view that "all men have to think according to the rules of logic according to which alone the human mind can function.")
> 
> So, again, what does Matthew *mean?*



Paul, you are gaining a proficiency in bringing in irrelevant points that everybody agrees with. Who doubts that formal logic must be followed? Once followed, however, Van Til believes the revelation of God will lead us to conclusions which must be held paradoxically, and which can only find a solution in God's exhaustive knowledge.

Van Til states quite explicitly:



> To be faithful to the system of truth as found in Scripture one must not take one doctrine and deduce from it by means of syllogistic procedure what he thinks follows from it. One must rather gather together all the facts and all the teachings of Scripture and organize them as best as he can, always mindful of the fact that such ordering is the ordering of the revelation of God, who is never fully comprehensible to man. -- Christian Theory of Knowledge, p. 38.



Van Til is quite explicit. Any analysis which cancels out the plain meaning of his words is simple misrepresentation. Van Til's method utilises logic solely for the purpose of arriving at the teachings of Scripture, not for ordering them in a systematic manner according to deductive categories. Van Til refused to allow the Word of God to be judged by the autonomous reasoning of man.

Of course, what Van Til ignored is the fact that interpretation is an activity of man, and man interprets Scripture according to preconceived categories of thought. But it was easy for Van Til to ignore this point, since, as he was the first to admit (to G. C. Berkouwer in his Fetschrift) that his works are weak on exegesis.



> 3. Repent and not repent, Van Til can easily, Calvinist that he was, say that this is talking about God's covenant faithfulness.



At that point he would require a category of thought provided by the human system, and thus betray his analogical ideology.



> 4. The open theist *does not* take into account all the biblical data. Van Til can point this out and refute the open theist.



But Van Til can only do so by retaining the paradox of a God who does not repent (full bucket) and who does repent (adding water). By his own explicit statement, he would be reasoning autonomously if he sought to introduce categories which relieve this apparent contradiction.



> 5. A resolution to the full bucket paradox is not required, Scripture says enough about God's knowledge and relation to time and change, which directly refute open theism.



Paul, you have already tried to resolve the full bucket paradox with your acceptance of traditional distinctions of essential and manifestative glory. You probably even accept the traditional explanation that prayer is a sub-category of God's plan, and hence God is simply fulfilling His plan when He answers prayer. But for Van Til a plan of God determining all things, and prayer that changes things, is an apparent contradiction.



> 6. Van Til's system, ironically, directly deals with what the open theist is doing. The open theist is *imposing* a deductive paradigm on Scripture and making scripture fit that paradigm. Thus *they* determine what is possible, not God. This is precisely what Van Til was getting at.



Yes, there is a partial refutation of open theism there, because Van Til will not allow one doctrine of revelation to be used to cancel another out. But anyone who has read the more philosophical of the open theists will know that they use process theology's concrete and the changing. This essentially acknowledges a dual reality. At that point Van Tillian paradox cannot introduce traditional categories to explain that God is not concrete and changing at the same time, but that He is rather being represented as concrete and changing in different senses, i.e., concrete in Himself, changing in His covenantal actions.



> 7. You seem a bit unstudied on theological paradox, here's some references:



Why don't you quote the relevant portions of this material in response to my comments and show where I am supposedly misunderstanding Van Til. That would be the more responsible thing to do, and would provide me with an opportunity for rebuttal. Then you will be in a better position to know if I have studied the issue or not and/or read the material you reference. Your condescending tone is not appreciated, Paul.

Blessings!


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> See Clark's reply to Reymond in Clark Speaks From the Grave. Biblically, seeing is a matter intellection as a result of divine illumination, not an inference drawn from sensation (see for example 1Cor. 2:14 which I cited above and Mat 16:16ff comes to mind as well).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand if this is off topic for this thread. Perhaps a new thread could deal with it. I would still like to see an explanation as to how persons "knew" that Jesus had performed miracles.
Click to expand...


That's a good question. I don't think everyone who saw them also "knew"that they were the miracles. 

As a Scripturalist, I know Jesus performed miracles because they are described in the Bible. For those who were there in person: those who knew, knew because it was revealed to them by God. The common point is that that the knowledge is revealed to us by God, either though the Word, or through the Spirit. 

Some there may have seen the miracles and not believed what they saw. And why should they? I'm sure that they had magicians in that time that created amazing illusions. Surely there were people like you and me who are rational people who not only don't assume the lady was cut in two, but assume she was_ not_ cut in two - disbelieving the evidence before our eyes.

If someone turned water into wine before my eyes, I'd assume it was a trick. The ONLY way I could believe a miracle had occurred before me is if the Holy Spirit himself intervened to overcome my sceptical (and completely reasonable) mind. 

The miracles Jesus performed were for believers, not the unbelievers. If I knew I was with Jesus the only Son of God, then I'd believe any thing he did that violated the rules of nature. I'd believe it because it was the Christ himself that was revealing these things to me. The only propositions I think are justified true are those revealed to me by God. Whatever God reveals to me, I believe is true. The rest is questionable. Ergo Scripturalism. 

Thanks for the interesting question. Maybe the moderators will consider snipping these posts to a new thread.

[Edited on 9-13-2006 by Civbert]


----------

