# Clarkian Knowledge and Archetypal/Ectypal Theology



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> I believe there is a personal element to all of knowledge, so that it is not ever to be restricted to propositions. ...



I agree there is a personal element to knowledge - but it does not follow that knowledge is anything more than propositional. Any non-propositional knowledge would be unknowable (at best) and utter nonsense (at worst).

Please tell me one non-propositional truth you know. 



armourbearer said:


> However, the reformed have denied the mystical idea of knowing God immediately.



Could you explain this? First, what do you mean by immediately, and second why is that mystical? Is not the knowledge of God, his character, not immediate knowledge.

JonhV mentioned the knowledge of interpreted dreams. This seems like immediate knowledge so maybe I don't understand what you mean by "immediate".


----------



## JohnV

Anthony:

It seems that you grasped my intention before I stated it, concerning the mediacy or immediacy of knowledge. 

Where I would think that you may have misunderstood me is that at the same time my question is also a critique of the suggestion that knowledge is only propositional. 

But I want to be sure to understand what you're saying. Therefore a question for you: by asserting that knowledge is only propositional, are you saying that knowledge is that which can be put into propositional form? Or are you saying that one cannot know a matter until it is in propositional form? Or are you suggesting something else, perhaps? Help me understand this. 

For it seems to me that the TA/TE approach as some understand it is not that much different than the supposition that all knowledge is propositional. In other words, you can replace the term "TE" with the term "propositional" and have the same kind of structure. In such a case, then, the term "TA" would refer to God's pre-propositional knowledge, since God does not require a subject/predicate structure to His knowledge, but knows both so that they come into existence in relation to each other. If you can explain this for me, I would be grateful.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Please tell me one non-propositional truth you know.



God, i.e., whom, not what.



Civbert said:


> Could you explain this? First, what do you mean by immediately, and second why is that mystical? Is not the knowledge of God, his character, not immediate knowledge.



Immediate in the context of AT and ET is without the mediation of human conceptions. Joseph and Daniel interpreted dreams by means of human conceptions.


----------



## JohnV

Maybe one more possibility, Anthony:

Do you perhaps mean that all truth is finally able to be put into propositional form, but that it is not necessarily first discerned propositionally? Or do you maybe separate proposition from verbalized form? 

Help me understand this, please.


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> ... Therefore a question for you: by asserting that knowledge is only propositional, are you saying that knowledge is that which can be put into propositional form? Or are you saying that one cannot know a matter until it is in propositional form? Or are you suggesting something else, perhaps? Help me understand this.


I think the first - "knowledge is that which can be put into propositional form" - is best. But the second - "that one cannot know a matter until it is in propositional form" - is very close. I would say, that one can not be aware of knowing something if he has not consciously understood that thing in propositional form. It may be possible to know something, yet not be conscious of knowing it, but that knowledge would still be propositional.

The simplest definition of knowledge is "justified true belief". All would agree that when we know a thing this assumes we "believe" it is true. But we also believe our opinions are true. So it must be more than belief that defines knowledge. So we say it is must be justified true, not simply true. Now we might disagree on what "justifies", but it would be difficult to conceive of knowing if we it can not be considered as true or false. 

Since we can not believe something is true unless it can be assigned a true/false values, then it must be capable of being formed into a meaningful statement. And all statements can be put into propositional form. And a proposition is a subject, copula, and a predicate (that conveys the meaning of a statement). This is essential for rational thought. Predication is necessary for us to say "this is true, and that is false, or "I just can not say either way".

By the way, I recommend Brian (the Brain's) article on traditional logic. 

So what we can know must be able to be stated in the form of a proposition. If it can not be presented in such a form, it will be nonsense to us - and nonsense is not knowledge. Knowledge is necessarily propositional. 




JohnV said:


> ...
> For it seems to me that the TA/TE approach as some understand it is not that much different than the supposition that all knowledge is propositional. In other words, you can replace the term "TE" with the term "propositional" and have the same kind of structure. In such a case, then, the term "TA" would refer to God's pre-propositional knowledge, since God does not require a subject/predicate structure to His knowledge, but knows both so that they come into existence in relation to each other. If you can explain this for me, I would be grateful.



Here is where I think the TA/TE model is speculative. Since we can not know a non-propositions (since a non-proposition has not true/false state) then if TA is non-propositional, it is not knowable - it is nonsensical. Then again, if the TA is merely God's complete set of thoughts (all true propositions), then TA/TE makes sense - and then TE is simply those propositions God has revealed to man.

While both predicate and subject are known to God together, it does not follow that God's knowledge is not propositional or structured into predicates and subjects. The essential concept of knowledge entails that it must be propositional or God does not "know" anything. Or if he does not know propositionally, then God's mind is nonsensical to mans. But we are made in God's image and God speaks to us. Scripture is God's mind revealed to man, and since the truths of scripture and all language are propositional, it seem prudent (at the very least) to suppose God's knowledge is itself propositional. Especially if we are going to believe we can know God's will through his revelation in Scripture.


----------



## Civbert

In answer to my request "Please tell me one non-propositional truth you know.":


armourbearer said:


> God, i.e., whom, not what.



And who is God? Your response implies you can answer the question.


----------



## JohnV

Thanks for the response, Anthony. I'm going to think about that for a while. 

I'm asking these questions and thinking about this in terms of the AT/ET model.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> In answer to my request "Please tell me one non-propositional truth you know.":
> 
> And who is God? Your response implies you can answer the question.



Actually, I'm not a dog and I don't chase my tail. Who is God? can only be answered in terms of relation, which itself is meaningful only in terms of experience. What is God? would require me to posit attributes, which would then suit your purpose.

Think about what the Proverbs say about an angry countenance or a soft answer, and the effects these modes of communication have on others. Think also about what it means to call Christ God's unspeakable gift, and to talk about joy unspeakable and full of glory. In these things our experience surpasses our ability to conceptualise. Yet we know these things. We know things which surpass knowledge. That is because God is greater than our hearts, and hence greater than our knowedge. The object known surpasses the subject knowing. Humans have always communicated with their young with non-propositional knowledge. That is why the Bible places as much importance on the manner in which we say things as on the matter which is spoken.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> Thanks for the response, Anthony. I'm going to think about that for a while.
> 
> I'm asking these questions and thinking about this in terms of the AT/ET model.



Your welcome. I'm sure my answers could have been clearer. For me, explaining why I believe knowledge is propositional is like trying to show why integral calculus works. I've seen the proofs and understood them and am convinced they are correct, but when I try to explain, my thoughts don't flow freely.

Have you even seen the graphical proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. When you see it, it's really simple. But to explain it... argh!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

According to Junius and most of Reformed theology following him, yes, there can be a finite, accommodated "copy" or analogy (better) of what God knows.

Is there an a priori reason why God cannot be said to ordained such?

The roots of the TA/TE distinction are much more ancient than Hume.

Why is relevant to this discussion?

Junius began using the terminology in 1590 in De vera theologia as Rev Winzer has mentioned several times.

rsc



Civbert said:


> FYI:
> 
> 
> Thoughts. Is there such a thing as a "copy" of a proposition? That is, if you know P and I know P, do we know two different propositions? I guess that depends on your idea of what knowledge is.
> ....
> Is Humes the first to use the concept of ectypal? It seems for Humes, the idea depends on his concept ontology which was empirical, no? His view was all knowledge was ectypal - you know not an object "in itself" (archetypal) but a reflection or image of the object (ectypal). This is a little different than what I've read about ET and AT, but it seems to be related.
> 
> Very interesting discussion so far.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Actually, I'm not a dog and I don't chase my tail. Who is God? can only be answered in terms of relation, which itself is meaningful only in terms of experience. What is God? would require me to posit attributes, which would then suit your purpose.



"Who is God?" is only answered meaningfully with propositions:


> (God) *is* infinite in being and perfection (Job_11:7-9, Job_26:14), a most pure spirit (Joh_4:24), invisible (1Ti_1:17), without body, parts (Deu_4:15, Deu_4:16; Luk_24:39; Joh_4:24), or passions (Act_14:11, Act_14:15), immutable (Mal_3:6; Jam_1:17), immense (1Ki_8:27; Jer_23:23, Jer_23:24), eternal (Psa_90:2; 1Ti_1:17), incomprehensible (Psa_145:3), almighty (Gen_17:1; Rev_4:8), most wise (Rom_16:27), most holy (Isa_6:3; Rev_4:8), most free (Psa_115:3), most absolute (Exo_3:14), working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will (Eph_1:11), for His own glory (Pro_16:4; Rom_11:36); most loving (1Jo_4:8, 1Jo_4:16), gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin (Exo_34:6, Exo_34:7); the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Heb_11:6); and with all most just and terrible in His judgments (Neh_9:32, Neh_9:33), hating all sin (Psa_5:5, Psa_5:6), and ; who will by no means clear the guilty (Exo_34:7; Nah_1:2, Nah_1:3).
> (WCF 2:1



God is almighty, omnipotent, perfect, eternal, the Creator, without end, our Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, love, merciful, gracious, just, etc. These are all _propositions_ revealed to us in Scripture. Each is meaningful and knowable and thus the Scriptures answer the question - who is God - with propositions. The "relationship" we have with God is His speaking to us in meaningful knowable thinkable _propositional _truths. 

Now you my object and say I answered "what" God is, and so I have. But if God is more than what the Scriptures say, then we do not know. If you want to know who God is, then we can say more is God is God - the propositional answer he gives us in Exodus 3:14. 

So if one can not answer who God is with propositions, then one doesn't _know _ who God is. But the answers are simple and given to us in written form. To know who God is - is to know his Word. 

To know God, just read the book and believe. 

No _experience _required.


----------



## Civbert

R. Scott Clark said:


> According to Junius and most of Reformed theology following him, yes, there can be a finite, accommodated "copy" or analogy (better) of what God knows.
> 
> Is there an a priori reason why God cannot be said to ordained such?


 To reveal some of what he knows to us? He clearly has. 



R. Scott Clark said:


> The roots of the TA/TE distinction are much more ancient than Hume.
> 
> Why is relevant to this discussion?




Junius began using the terminology in 1590 in De vera theologia as Rev Winzer has mentioned several times.

rsc[/QUOTE]

Humes was someone who I found that used the terms ectypal and archetypal - so I was wondering if he was a source of the concept. It is relevant because Humes used the terms in a similar fashion and I am trying to understand how the concepts were developed. I haven't found the terminology elsewhere (not that my resources are exhaustive despite the Internet and Google  ). 

I guess what I'm saying is that a copy of a proposition is the same things as the proposition. When you think of the number 7 and I think of the number 7, we are are both thinking the exact same 7 - not two different 7's. Seven does not mean 6 to you and 8 to me. And so if God knows _p _and he reveals _p _to me such that I know _p_, then we both know the same thing, regardless if God knows it eternally and I know it temporally, _p _is _p_. (the law of identity.)


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> "Who is God?" is only answered meaningfully with propositions:
> 
> God is almighty, omnipotent, perfect, eternal, the Creator, without end, our Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, love, merciful, gracious, just, etc. These are all _propositions_ revealed to us in Scripture. Each is meaningful and knowable and thus the Scriptures answer the question - who is God - with propositions. The "relationship" we have with God is His speaking to us in meaningful knowable thinkable _propositional _truths.



Perhaps you may want to look up Shorter Catechism, question 4, and Larger Catechism, question 7. The historical reason for the "what" instead of the "who" is the one I provided you.



Civbert said:


> To know God, just read the book and believe.
> 
> No _experience _required.



Now you are completely out of line with reformed thinking. Next you will be telling me that faith does not include trust.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Now you are completely out of line with reformed thinking. Next you will be telling me that faith does not include trust.



Faith _implies _trust.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Faith _implies _trust.



I'm not sure what the difference is between includes and implies; but supposing there is nothing inimical, would you be happy to say that knowledge _implies_ experience? Then, on the basis that a good Clarkian would at least agree God's knowledge is quantitatively different from ours, would you agree that our implied experience of God must be quantitatively different from our knowledge of God, seeing the object of knowledge acts in a quantitatively greater manner than our knowledge can conceive Him?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

You moved the thread into a different direction so I formed a new thread around Clark's thought.

Interesting to note that you're helping to distinguish Clarkianism from this historically Reformed formulation.

Rev Winzer: Is it fair to say that the WCF Divines carried forward the TA/TE and that Clark's thought is out of sync with the framers of the WCF as well?


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Rev Winzer: Is it fair to say that the WCF Divines carried forward the TA/TE and that Clark's thought is out of sync with the framers of the WCF as well?



Hi Rich. Clark's thought is constructed in terms of idealism, which the Westminster divines generally rejected. The Confession's position on the "marks" of Scripture and assurance of grace indicates their belief that knowledge was possible by means of information external to Scripture. There were some radicals at the Assembly who were Fifth Monarchy men and Cambridge Platonists. I hope to do some deeper study on the Cambridge Platonists at some stage, especially in the light of Peter Sterry's writings. Generally their dependence on Plato is seen in their conception of the will; but it wouldn't surprise me to see the eternal forms of Plato converted to the axioms of revelation.

The divines of course were not confronted with the quagmire of epistemological method which has become standard since Hume and Kant; but there is enough in their writings to indicate a position which I call biblical rationalism, and which upholds the integrity of right reason in matters of faith. It is beyond doubt that they would have sided with Clark in affirming the integrity of our knowledge of God, but they would have done so without entering into the semantics of the qualitative/quantitative distinction. They probably would have contented themselves with a statement like Dabney's: "These great truths, that God is really (though not completely) known to them that seek Him, are the practical foundation of all the holiness and all the homage of earth and heaven" (The Sensualistic Philosophy, 174). As Dabney goes on to explain, "the principles of our reason compel us to hold that truth is intrinsic and immutable. If a proposition is true, then it is true everywhere, and to all grades of minds... This, then, is the noble prerogative of the Reason, that its very nature, as an agent for the apprehension of Truth, establishes its kinship to all the realms of mind in heaven and earth. In the attainment of Truth, whose original dwelling-place must be in the eternal bosom of God, the reason sees its heirship and recognizes itself as the offspring of God."


----------



## tewilder

Civbert said:


> I agree there is a personal element to knowledge - but it does not follow that knowledge is anything more than propositional. Any non-propositional knowledge would be unknowable (at best) and utter nonsense (at worst).



Do you know what it is like to see something blue? If so, is that a proposition?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

armourbearer said:


> They probably would have contented themselves with a statement like Dabney's: "These great truths, that God is really (though not completely) known to them that seek Him, are the practical foundation of all the holiness and all the homage of earth and heaven" (The Sensualistic Philosophy, 174).


A plug, a plug! Dabney's _Sensualistic Philosophy_ is available:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18755


----------



## CDM

> Humes was someone who I found that used the terms ectypal and archetypal - so I was wondering if he was a source of the concept. It is relevant because Humes used the terms in a similar fashion and I am trying to understand how the concepts were developed. I haven't found the terminology elsewhere (not that my resources are exhaustive despite the Internet and Google  ).
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that a copy of a proposition is the same things as the proposition. When you think of the number 7 and I think of the number 7, we are are both thinking the exact same 7 - not two different 7's. Seven does not mean 6 to you and 8 to me. And so if God knows _p _and he reveals _p _to me such that I know _p_, then we both know the same thing, regardless if God knows it eternally and I know it temporally, _p _is _p_. (the law of identity.)





armourbearer said:


> I'm not sure what the difference is between includes and implies; but supposing there is nothing inimical, would you be happy to say that knowledge _implies_ experience? Then, on the basis that a good Clarkian would at least agree God's knowledge is quantitatively different from ours, would you agree that our implied experience of God must be quantitatively different from our knowledge of God, seeing the object of knowledge acts in a quantitatively greater manner than our knowledge can conceive Him?



I'm dying to hear a respopnse to this. Anthony?  



armourbearer said:


> Hi Rich. Clark's thought is constructed in terms of idealism, which the Westminster divines generally rejected. The Confession's position on the "marks" of Scripture and assurance of grace indicates their belief that knowledge was possible by means of information external to Scripture. There were some radicals at the Assembly who were Fifth Monarchy men and Cambridge Platonists. I hope to do some deeper study on the Cambridge Platonists at some stage, especially in the light of Peter Sterry's writings. Generally their dependence on Plato is seen in their conception of the will; but it wouldn't surprise me to see the eternal forms of Plato converted to the axioms of revelation.
> 
> The divines of course were not confronted with the quagmire of epistemological method which has become standard since Hume and Kant; but there is enough in their writings to indicate a position which I call biblical rationalism, and which upholds the integrity of right reason in matters of faith. It is beyond doubt that they would have sided with Clark in affirming the integrity of our knowledge of God, but they would have done so without entering into the semantics of the qualitative/quantitative distinction. They probably would have contented themselves with a statement like Dabney's: "These great truths, that God is really (though not completely) known to them that seek Him, are the practical foundation of all the holiness and all the homage of earth and heaven" (The Sensualistic Philosophy, 174). As Dabney goes on to explain, "the principles of our reason compel us to hold that truth is intrinsic and immutable. If a proposition is true, then it is true everywhere, and to all grades of minds... This, then, is the noble prerogative of the Reason, that its very nature, as an agent for the apprehension of Truth, establishes its kinship to all the realms of mind in heaven and earth. In the attainment of Truth, whose original dwelling-place must be in the eternal bosom of God, the reason sees its heirship and recognizes itself as the offspring of God."



  Keep up the good work, Rev. Winzer and Anthony.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> I'm not sure what the difference is between includes and implies; but supposing there is nothing inimical, would you be happy to say that knowledge _implies_ experience?



I can agree with "if one has faith a X, then one will trust X". But I don't know how to formulate "knowledge implies experience". "If one has knowledge, then one ... . I don't know what to put here. 

I would say that all men have the knowledge of the existence of God, and this knowledge makes him inexcusable. I believe men are born with this knowledge - and that no "experience" (beyond being created" is responsible for man having this knowledge. 

But if we consider the knowledge of the gospel, in most case there was an experience of hearing the Word preached and the experience of regeneration. But this too is unnecessary experience. An infant in his mothers womb can receive saving knowledge since ultimately, it is a work of God on him mind and heart. God does mostly work through ordinary means in letting us know things, by hearing his Word, reading the Scriptures, listening to a gospel message - but God can give one "immediate" knowledge of the gospel (if I am using the term correctly).




armourbearer said:


> Then, on the basis that a good Clarkian would at least agree God's knowledge is quantitatively different from ours, would you agree that our implied experience of God must be quantitatively different from our knowledge of God, seeing the object of knowledge acts in a quantitatively greater manner than our knowledge can conceive Him?


 As far as I understand you here. I don't know of anyone who claims we have the same quantity of knowledge as God. 

I'm not sure what a "quantitatively greater manner" means. And I don't think I'm seeing the "knowledge implies experience".

I can add off hand that, as a "good Clarkian", I reject empiricism. I say that it is impossible to go from pure sensation and convert it into a proposition. And my understanding of empiricism is the theory of knowledge that says all knowledge is derived from the sensory experience. (Usually this assumes that at birth, the mind is a blank slate - a .) 

And as a preemptive comment - reading is _not _empiricism - since it depends on a priori knowledge the connection between written symbols and the ideas they represent. You can't read a sentence if you don't know how to read in the first place. The same applies to hearing words. 

I also reject rationalism with says knowledge is a product of reason alone. 

So do you believe all knowledge is a product of experience (as in reading, hearing words, etc)?


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> Anthony,
> 
> You moved the thread into a different direction so I formed a new thread around Clark's thought.



I think that was a good editorial decision. However, could you change the title of the thread to Knowledge _and_ Archetypal/Ectypal Theology. I find "Clarkianism" objectionable as I'm sure Van Tilians would "Vantilianism". I'm interested in looking at what knowledge is (and propositional knowledge is heardly unique to Gordon Clark). 

I think Rev Winzer was careful not to necessarily tie AT/ET with the the Van Tillian idea of "no common point of intellectual content between man and God" or that ET was analogical. I think those are potential views that might fit into the AT/ET framework, but they are not implied by the concept.

And if the AT/ET are really just depicting the relationship between God's ultimate knowledge of himself, and the knowledge he reveals to us - I don't consider it antithetical to my Clarkian view of knowledge. It might be a bit of a square peg in a round hole ... but it could still fit.  



SemperFideles said:


> Interesting to note that you're helping to distinguish Clarkianism from this historically Reformed formulation.



Maybe. Not sure about that. After all, there is no universal "historical Reformed formulation". Clark's thought may differ with some reform_ers_, but they are not unique to him or absent in the historical reformed faith.

Again, please drop the use of Clarkianism. I am a Clarkian, not a Clarkianist. I have no objection to being called either a Clarkian or a Scripturalist. I don't care for the term Clarkianism - it sounds pejorative to my ears.

Thanks.


----------



## Civbert

tewilder said:


> Do you know what it is like to see something blue? If so, is that a proposition?



Yes. Any answer I give would be a proposition and probable in the form of a simile since you asked me "what it is like". I could say "seeing something blue is like the taste of cream cheese after sipping strong coffee". The is a statement, either true or false. A proposition.


----------



## VictorBravo

NaphtaliPress said:


> A plug, a plug! Dabney's _Sensualistic Philosophy_ is available:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18755



And I'll add, buy it. It is amazing.


----------



## MW

victorbravo said:


> And I'll add, buy it. It is amazing.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> So do you believe all knowledge is a product of experience (as in reading, hearing words, etc)?



So far as humans are concerned, that is what Rom. 1:20 teaches. As Calvin says "men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him... But upon his individual works he has engraved unmistakable marks of his glory, so clear and so prominent that even unlettered and stupid folk cannot plead the excuse of ignorance."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> I think that was a good editorial decision. However, could you change the title of the thread to Knowledge _and_ Archetypal/Ectypal Theology. I find "Clarkianism" objectionable as I'm sure Van Tilians would "Vantilianism". I'm interested in looking at what knowledge is (and propositional knowledge is heardly unique to Gordon Clark).


Done.


> Maybe. Not sure about that. After all, there is no universal "historical Reformed formulation". Clark's thought may differ with some reform_ers_, but they are not unique to him or absent in the historical reformed faith.


I was careful to distinguish by saying "..._this_ formulation..." referring to the TA/TE distinction.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> So far as humans are concerned, that is what Rom. 1:20 teaches. As Calvin says "men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him... But upon his individual works he has engraved unmistakable marks of his glory, so clear and so prominent that even unlettered and stupid folk cannot plead the excuse of ignorance."



It would take more than a single verse to convince me that all knowledge is a product of experience. And the verse, and it's context supports that all men have the knowledge of God instilled in them by God directly, not by mans' reasoning from experience. 



> Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,


Since it speaks of his "invisible attributes", then seen is not "to sense with the eyes" but to understand with the mind. And what is understood, is understood "by" the things made not as a consequence of the created world. Especially in light of Rom 1:19 which tells us that God made "manifest" in them" by reveling it to them. 


> Rom 1:19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.



And even Rom 1:18 tells us that the wrath of God is "revealed from heaven".


> Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,


Now I don't know about most people, but when I meditate on mountains and stream, I don't sense or deduce or induce God's wrath. In fact, without presupposing God exists, I don't see any valid or sound argument that leads one from "see that butterfly" to understanding God's wrath.

So how I understand Rom 1:18-20 is God instills the knowledge of himself within all men, so that none have an excuse for turning away from Him. I don't see men meditating on nature and without exception, seeing God's invisible attributes: his wrath and his eternal power and Godhead. It just doesn't follow - and these verses convict all men.

It seems to me that Romans teaches us that experience has nothing to do with spiritual knowledge.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Since it speaks of his "invisible attributes", then seen is not "to sense with the eyes" but to understand with the mind. And what is understood, is understood "by" the things made not as a consequence of the created world. Especially in light of Rom 1:19 which tells us that God made "manifest" in them" by reveling it to them.



Whether you understand "by" in terms of agency or instrumentality, the conclusion is the same -- knowledge requires experience.

No, I wouldn't pin the position solely on this verse. But this verse provides a clear account of the relationship of men to general revelation, as is acknowledged by all orthodox divines. I could also refer to the miracles, which excite amazement; parables, which express astonishment at men seeing but not perceiving; prophecies, which can be ascertained to be true by fulfilment; poetry, which related divine things by human feelings; the types of the OT, which foresignify truth in cultic institutions; sacraments, as signs and seals of inward grace; and so on and so forth.

The very idea of special revelation presupposes the importance of experience for knowledge. The WCF echoes Heb. 1:1 in its statement that God revealed himself in divers manners in times past; it then proceeds to state that Scripture was written in order to wholly preserve this revelation. Revelation predates inscripturation. Act-revelation comes first, followed by word-revelation. This is the basis upon which reformed biblical theology is established. To deny the importance of experience for knowledge is to demolish the idea of history as a medium for revelation, and consequently to undermine the historical facts of which Scripture speaks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Whether you understand "by" in terms of agency or instrumentality, the conclusion is the same -- knowledge requires experience.
> 
> No, I wouldn't pin the position solely on this verse. But this verse provides a clear account of the relationship of men to general revelation, as is acknowledged by all orthodox divines. I could also refer to the miracles, which excite amazement; parables, which express astonishment at men seeing but not perceiving; prophecies, which can be ascertained to be true by fulfilment; poetry, which related divine things by human feelings; the types of the OT, which foresignify truth in cultic institutions; sacraments, as signs and seals of inward grace; and so on and so forth.



Very well put. I think the main problem I have with the idea that all knowledge is merely proposition is the idea that everything we know can be expressed in logical syllogisms.

Frankly, Anthony, saying "...blue is like cream cheese..." is completely inadequate. It wouldn't communicate what blue is to a blind man. Some things cannot be expressed in words.

The Christian religion is certainly about propositional truth - ideas that can be expressed in axioms and conclusions but it is far more than that. When Adam is said to _know_ Eve there is much more communicated than some sort of cold, rational calculation where Adam expresses his knowledge of her in axiomatic language.

My largest problem with the way you express knowledge is that it is dissonant with the rich emotional expression that is unmistakable in the Psalmists and the Prophets. In trying to shoehorn them into an "...all knowledge is proposition..." you do great injury to the truth that we all _know_ and have experienced. Your philosophical explanation of such things might be adequate for you but it does not jive at all with experience and cannot express the world of things that we truly know without a philsopher having to tell us that we really don't.

Now, no doubt Anthony, you will ask me to prove that I know something without expressing it. Where you tell me I can express a thing like a young married couple on their wedding night in a proposition, the Scriptures say that it is inexpressible. You seem to think that by the mere proposition of it you have knowledge of it.
[bible]Proverbs 30:18-19[/bible]


----------



## JohnV

I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I hope you don't mind. Matthew and Anthony, I would like to see some more on both your views first. So I'll just read along.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> Very well put. I think the main problem I have with the idea that all knowledge is merely proposition is the idea that everything we know can be expressed in logical syllogisms.


Well that depends on what you mean by know. When you experience something - what then do you know?




SemperFideles said:


> Frankly, Anthony, saying "...blue is like cream cheese..." is completely inadequate. It wouldn't communicate what blue is to a blind man. Some things cannot be expressed in words.


But that is exactly what it does. Since a blind man can not "experience" blue, he can only know what blue is "like". And the question was, how do you know what blue is like. How else would you communicate what blue is "like" to a blind man. 

Whatever can not be communicated in words - is not, by definition, knowledge.




SemperFideles said:


> The Christian religion is certainly about propositional truth - ideas that can be expressed in axioms and conclusions but it is far more than that. When Adam is said to _know_ Eve there is much more communicated than some sort of cold, rational calculation where Adam expresses his knowledge of her in axiomatic language.



Of course not, but then that is not the same "knowledge" as we have been using it. If we start saying that every time we use of the word "know", it has to agree with every use in scripture we are going to find it impossible to "know" anything. And that is because the bible does not use the term "know" with the same meaning each time. When I claim to know "David was the king of Israel", I certainly do not mean "know" in the same sense that Adam "knew" Eve. 

It is very seductive to say that Christian knowledge is more than mere cold, rational propositions. But this is a pejorative description of knowledge. To know God, to know Scripture, would necessarily lead to fear, humility, gratitude, etc. But the emotions that follow knowledge of God, are not the knowledge itself. We do not base our Christian faith on "emotional" reactions to our beliefs. 

And I dare say that if someone claims to know the Word, and he does not _react _with fear and humility, and gratitude, then he doesn't really know the Word. That is, he has not shown any evidence of believing what he claims to know. Knowledge presumes belief, and evidence of believing that God is a jealous God and "an all consuming fire" ought to be at least some real discomfort. If believing that "Jesus died for my sins", and that "faith is a free gift of God", doesn't knock me to my knees in prayer, than maybe I don't really believe it. The emotions are reactions, they are NOT the knowledge that produces them. If they were, then since we all react differently and in different degrees, then no one knows anything that anyone else knows.



SemperFideles said:


> My largest problem with the way you express knowledge is that it is dissonant with the rich emotional expression that is unmistakable in the Psalmists and the Prophets. In trying to shoehorn them into an "...all knowledge is proposition..." you do great injury to the truth that we all _know_ and have experienced.



I think you are forcing 20th century categories on Old Testament ideas. The writers of the OT did not speak about any "rich emotional expressions". In fact, I don't know if the word "emotion" appears in Scripture. I think the idea of "intellect" verse "emotion" is a relatively modern and humanistic conception.




SemperFideles said:


> Your philosophical explanation of such things might be adequate for you but it does not jive at all with experience and cannot express the world of things that we truly know without a philosopher having to tell us that we really don't.



Defining knowledge as something beyond propositional truths would necessarily lead to mysticism, experientialism, and irrationalism. We do not need to divorce our reactions to knowledge from the knowledge - just not define our knowledge in terms of emotion and irrational experiences.



SemperFideles said:


> Now, no doubt Anthony, you will ask me to prove that I know something without expressing it. Where you tell me I can express a thing like a young married couple on their wedding night in a proposition, the Scriptures say that it is inexpressible.



Where does it say that knowledge is inexpressible?



SemperFideles said:


> You seem to think that by the mere proposition of it you have knowledge of it.
> [bible]Proverbs 30:18-19[/bible]



I think we are starting to equivocate. To "know" your wife in the "biblical" "Adam and Eve" sense is not the same as to know Paul traveled to Rome.

If you want to define knowledge something beyond what can be expressed in words, then you are going to have trouble with systematic theology or any thing like univocal knowledge. A knowledge that includes mystical experience is not communicable. What you think you know, I can never know. And when you read "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee;" you will not know what that means because you have not had the experience of walking in Galilee.

Now what does this have to do with AT/ET.....?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Well that depends on what you mean by know. When you experience something - what then do you know?
> 
> But that is exactly what it does. Since a blind man can not "experience" blue, he can only know what blue is "like". And the question was, how do you know what blue is like. How else would you communicate what blue is "like" to a blind man.
> 
> Whatever can not be communicated in words - is not, by definition, knowledge.


I could have bet someone my entire life savings what your response would be Anthony. You're very predictable.

Nobody asked what blue was like. The point is that blue cannot be communicated by words. Only a Clarkian would tell me I don't "know" what Blue is. It plays well with idealists. As a philosophy, it is out of touch with reality. Arguing over whether a man knows what blue is is philosophy for a dilettante. Nice to sit around smoking our pipes making such foolish statements.



> Of course not, but then that is not the same "knowledge" as we have been using it. If we start saying that every time we use of the word "know", it has to agree with every use in scripture we are going to find it impossible to "know" anything. And that is because the bible does not use the term "know" with the same meaning each time. When I claim to know "David was the king of Israel", I certainly do not mean "know" in the same sense that Adam "knew" Eve.


Well, that's _your_ problem though. The only way a Clarkian knows how to use the word "know" is justified true belief. The Bible has a richer understanding of it.



> It is very seductive to say that Christian knowledge is more than mere cold, rational propositions. But this is a pejorative description of knowledge. To know God, to know Scripture, would necessarily lead to fear, humility, gratitude, etc. But the emotions that follow knowledge of God, are not the knowledge itself. We do not base our Christian faith on "emotional" reactions to our beliefs.


My true pejorative was to point out that your expression of God's truth neglects aspects of the character of God's revelation and the way we know God. Only you would think the choice is between pure propositions and experience. You err on the side of the one without the other. The Bible expresses both. I know the Scriptures. The way you talk about God is out of step with them.



> I think you are forcing 20th century categories on Old Testament ideas. The writers of the OT did not speak about any "rich emotional expressions". In fact, I don't know if the word "emotion" appears in Scripture. I think the idea of "intellect" verse "emotion" is a relatively modern and humanistic conception.


Funny, I think you're forcing idealistic rational categories on the Scriptures in a modern and humanistic way. I don't have a problem jumping back and forth between didactic an poetic expressions of the Word. You're comfortable only in one sphere of knowledge.



> Defining knowledge as something beyond propositional truths would necessarily lead to mysticism, experientialism, and irrationalism. We do not need to divorce our reactions to knowledge from the knowledge - just not define our knowledge in terms of emotion and irrational experiences.


Lack of nuance and imbalanced. Typical. Knowledge is only one thing.



> Where does it say that knowledge is inexpressible?


Put down your philosophy textbook and read the Word of God. I pray the Holy Spirit will lead you into this obvious truth.



> I think we are starting to equivocate. To "know" your wife in the "biblical" "Adam and Eve" sense is not the same as to know Paul traveled to Rome.


Maybe you can argue with God some more for using that word in Revelation. Very frustrating when God is uncooperative with our systems.



> If you want to define knowledge something beyond what can be expressed in words, then you are going to have trouble with systematic theology or any thing like univocal knowledge. A knowledge that includes mystical experience is not communicable. What you think you know, I can never know. And when you read "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee;" you will not know what that means because you have not had the experience of walking in Galilee.


Again, I'm agreeing with the Word (and historic Reformed categories) that knowledge includes the didactic as well as inexpressible things. Just because I can use a metaphor to tell you what I was thinking about when I saw my kids born does not tell you what I know about those events.


> Now what does this have to do with AT/ET.....?


Underscores how your limited view of knowledge is not the way the Word speaks of it. Give men the Word of God and it resonates with human experience. It richly portrays mankind in his created complexity and how God interacts with men in human history. Your philosophy is reminiscent of most other ideal philosophies that create philosophical conceptions of philosophy but nobody in the real world utilizes because it disallows what every human knows is true. Your insistence that we know nothing from experience is no less absurd to me than Spinoza's insistence that we're all really part of one mind.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> I could have bet someone my entire life savings what your response would be Anthony. You're very predictable.


 That's good right?. It means I am consistent. Thanks. But somehow, I don't think that was meant as a compliment. It's sad that a moderator is now lowering the tone of this thread. 



SemperFideles said:


> Nobody asked what blue was like. The point is that blue cannot be communicated by words. Only a Clarkian would tell me I don't "know" what Blue is.


And I wasn't asked "what is blue" and I didn't try to tell you what is blue. I was asked what seeing blue is _like_.



tewilder said:


> Do you know what it is like to see something blue? If so, is that a proposition?



And that calls for a simile, which is a proposition.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> ... very predictable. ...Only a Clarkian... out of touch with reality. ... a dilettante. ... foolish statements. ... that's _your_ problem .... The only way a Clarkian knows ... I know the Scriptures. ... out of step with them. ... Lack of nuance and imbalanced. Typical. ... Put down your philosophy textbook and read the Word of God. ... obvious truth. ... Again, I'm agreeing with the Word .. Underscores how your limited view of knowledge is ... no less absurd to me than.



Nice talking to you Rich. It's a real pleasure. Perhaps you can be a little less personally insulting and I'll consider interacting with you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> That's good right?. It means I am consistent. Thanks. But somehow, I don't think that was meant as a compliment. It's sad that a moderator is now lowering the tone of this thread.


Well I'm sad that you're sad. How does that make you _feel_?



> And I wasn't asked "what is blue" and I didn't try to tell you what is blue. I was asked what seeing blue is _like_.
> 
> And that calls for a simile, which is a proposition.


True. I should have said that your simile was lame.

What is blue then? Not what is blue like but what is blue.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Nice talking to you Rich. It's a real pleasure. Perhaps you can be a little less personally insulting and I'll consider interacting with you.


I like the way you summarized the way I sized up your philosophy of knowledge. I don't understand how I was personally insulting in the way I used those any more than I could have considered your comments personally insulting when you referred to my views as "emotional" and telling me I'd have a problem with systematic theology given my views of knowledge. If you don't want to interact on this thread any more than it really doesn't hurt my feelings.

Incidentally, I've changed the title of the thread again to reflect this is not merely about knowledge.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> The very idea of special revelation presupposes the importance of experience for knowledge. The WCF echoes Heb. 1:1 in its statement that God revealed himself in divers manners in times past; it then proceeds to state that Scripture was written in order to wholly preserve this revelation. Revelation predates inscripturation. Act-revelation comes first, followed by word-revelation. This is the basis upon which reformed biblical theology is established. To deny the importance of experience for knowledge is to demolish the idea of history as a medium for revelation, and consequently to undermine the historical facts of which Scripture speaks.



I'm still not getting you. 

Maybe an example would help - something less abstract.

(and I'm not saying abstraction is a negative, I just want to simple example of experience leading to knowledge.)



> Heb 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,



God "spoke". He did not send us his feeling or sensations or experiences. He "spoke" means words. Various ways means written, out loud, in dreams, through angles, through a burning bush. God speaks, man hears. Is that what you mean by experience, the experience of hearing and understanding? 

What's the connection with AT/ET?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

I read you again...


Civbert said:


> ...very seductive...pejorative...We do not base our Christian faith on "emotional" reactions to our beliefs...I think you are forcing 20th century categories on Old Testament ideas...I think the idea of "intellect" verse "emotion" is a relatively modern and humanistic conception...Defining knowledge as something beyond propositional truths would necessarily lead to mysticism, experientialism, and irrationalism...We do not need to divorce our reactions to knowledge from the knowledge...irrational experiences...I think we are starting to equivocate...you are going to have trouble with systematic theology or any thing like univocal knowledge.



You're just such a nice guy!


----------



## crhoades

{Mod.}
Truth _and_ love, gentlemen. Truth and love.
{/Mod.}


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> Maybe one more possibility, Anthony:
> 
> Do you perhaps mean that all truth is finally able to be put into propositional form, but that it is not necessarily first discerned propositionally? Or do you maybe separate proposition from verbalized form?
> 
> Help me understand this, please.



I would differentiate between propositions and their verbalized form. The verbalized form of a proposition can take many forms. Different languages, different word orders, different composition of words can convey the same proposition. When God tells us Jesus dies on the cross, it doesn't matter what language, or if it's written or spoken. I know what 

I define a proposition as the meaning of a statement or sentence with conveys a truth. A proposition is composed of a subject, predicate and copula. The only thing we _can _say we _know _as true or false is a sentence or statement which can be put into the form of such as "A is B". Propositions convey the state of things, what is true or false about something - like all men are sinners. Usually we are not actively conscious of the propositional form of statements, but non-the-less, if we can say "this thing is true" or "that is false" we are speaking about an idea whose meaning is propositional in form. We said a thing is true (or false) about something else.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

Insofar as I have been petty and sinful in this, I repent. In light of the Cross of Christ, I can do no less to a fellow heir.

Please forgive me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I've reflected upon this a bit more. I don't always put things in the best words when I'm strongly trying to make a point.

First, I am not well-studied in philosophy. I don't claim to be. I might learn more for apologetic purposes but consider the study of its fine points to be a specialized study and not something I'm terribly interested in pursuing.

Second, I'll never be much of a "party follower" in philosophical systems. Those that see things in extreme "you're with me or against me" probably think I'm Van Tillian. They would be wrong to think I'm so committed to a philosophical system to conclude this. Some may even believe my criticism of Clarkian knowledge is because I'm "...for Van Til..." and therefore "...against Clark...." Not so.

In my limited study of the history of philosophy, I tend to agree with those who hold that a valid objection to a philosophy is whether it comports to the universal condition of men.

I heard Bahnsen once lecture that a typical trick of philosophical proponents is to just ignore the anomolies that don't fit within their philosophical framework. He compares it to having a small suitcase that you say you can fit everything within. When you actually go to pack the suitcase and get it closed there are items of clothing sticking out of the sides. Instead of acknowledging the reality that the worldview doesn't account for the anomolies, the philosopher merely takes out the scissors and cuts away the offending material. Anybody who has studied the history of philosophy knows hundreds of examples. Rationalists deny particulars. Empericists deny or ignore universals. Dan Barker, in his debate with Paul Manata, just called some questions "stupid" that he didn't think needed an answer.

What does this have to do with AT/ET? Well ET is the totality of the Revelation of the Word of God. While I don't consider myself much of a student of the finer points of philosophy, I do consider myself a serious student of the Word of God. I know the voice of my Shepherd through His Word and meditate on the richer meaning of it constantly.

When I state that there is rich, emotional epression in the Word of God, it is a fact. Any student of the Word would understand precisely what I'm saying. When the Psalmist declares: "Oh how I love your Word!" it is a chord that resonates within me. If one's categories only allow me to be "emotional" or "irrational" to say that then I guess I'll have to live with someone's strict definition of the terms.

Honestly, the issues that I have to teach in opposition to most frequently are a neo-Pentecostal expression of the Word of God that substitute experience for the study of the Word. I have to labor hard and long with the immature to teach them to trust the didactic literature of the Word and to study that constantly because it is the basis for which we understand the rest of the Word.

Yet, given the Truth of the propositional language of the Word, when the Spirit works with the Word there is a doxology that flows from the Truth of that knowledge that is joy inexpressible. I am not poetic enough to describe it but the Psalmists are. As I taught through the Psalms it dawned on me that as I understand the rest of the teaching of the Word more and more that the Psalmists' praises and laments resonate more clearly with me. I used to find the songs obscure. Thus, the propositional truth of the Word informs my praise but there is something more in the praise that I cannot describe that the Psalmist does best under inspiration but all understand.

Even without great knowledge of the Word, one only needs to be a human being to appreciate certain language and agree that the sentence: "Adam knew his wife..." is an apt verb to give meaning to what the sexual relationship is between husband and wife.

Thus, I understand I will likely never convince you by philosophical argument to abandon some of your philosophical positions. I frankly will never have the stomach or the interest for the finer points where people are debating points that only a philosopher would question. It's the same reaction I get when Arminians try to philosophically defend the idea that man is not responsible for his sin in a compatabilist universe. We all _know_ we're responsible until somebody comes along and tries to convince us we're not. It's the same thing with our Moms. We all _know_ who are Moms are until a philosopher tries to convince us that we don't really know such information.

Thus, when Rev. Winzer states that our knowledge of God is primarily relational it is something that 99% of Christ's sheep are going to say: "That's a great way of putting that!" It expresses a profound principle in a compact way. Let me suggest that, with intent to be loving and helpful to you, the fact that you challenge such language concerns me. I don't understand how a man that knows God in His Word could possibly challenge this. Because I'm concerned I want to say in so many words: "Dude, put down the Clark stuff for a second because the rest of us totally get that and I can't believe you don't!"

Now I suppose we could all be hopelessly deceived. Perhaps that's your position. In short, the fact that your Clarkian views cause you to deny or re-define stuff that everyone takes for granted is much like the guy who is using scissors to cut the offending garments of clothing that don't fit within the suitcase. A philosophy that calls "Adam knew Eve..." as an example of equivocating over what knowledge is causes me grave concern.

I do not wish you ill Anthony and I do consider you a fellow heir. I don't think your philosophy is dangerous but merely that it doesn't account for reality properly. If you believe so then I know I won't convince you with these rambling observations. I would merely suggest that the philosophy will never gain traction with nearly all Christians for the reasons I enumerated. Your philosophy of knowledge will have to do more than tell us that we don't know something unless its propositional. Maybe you're only concerned about being convinced otherwise yourself but you're not going to convince the rest of Christendom that knows what they know without having to be told that they don't know. Even Sophia (1 year old) knows her Daddy and I know her in many ways that neither of can express in propositional language. 

I'll never give up that rich knowledge that I have of God and the profound knowledge I have of him for merely what I know of Him propositionally. I know Him propositionally but oh so much more.

Whether after all this you believe it or not, I desire that you know God more deeply as well.


----------



## JohnV

Civbert said:


> I would differentiate between propositions and their verbalized form. The verbalized form of a proposition can take many forms. Different languages, different word orders, different composition of words can convey the same proposition. When God tells us Jesus dies on the cross, it doesn't matter what language, or if it's written or spoken. I know what
> 
> I define a proposition as the meaning of a statement or sentence with conveys a truth. A proposition is composed of a subject, predicate and copula. The only thing we _can _say we _know _as true or false is a sentence or statement which can be put into the form of such as "A is B". Propositions convey the state of things, what is true or false about something - like all men are sinners. Usually we are not actively conscious of the propositional form of statements, but non-the-less, if we can say "this thing is true" or "that is false" we are speaking about an idea whose meaning is propositional in form. We said a thing is true (or false) about something else.



This doesn't help, Anthony. I'm sorry. I'm not getting the logical connections. I understand that proposition goes beyond language, that the same proposition may be stated in several different ways, using different languages, or even different words in the same language, without changing the original proposition. You're pointing to the structure itself. I've got that, and I agree with that notion. 

But you are pointing to that which may be known, and how it may be known. The AT/ET model points to him who is the knower of that which may be known, whether it is AT of God (and perhaps angels too, although we have not discussed that as yet), or ET of God or man. I do not see these models as necessarily mutually exclusive, as much as talking about different things within the same topic. However, I can't fit your propositional model of that which may be known into the AT/ET model of the minds of the knowers, because neither one agrees satisfactorily with how I understand these things. (Not that I have a carefully and fully formulated understanding, but that I at least have a basic structure in place.) 

My basic structure begins with God's simplicity, that to know and to be are not two different things to God. Knowledge, therefore, is primarily revelation of God's character. So far, we're agreed, as far as I can see. You call that proposition, and I would not; and that's where we begin to differ. I see creation as revelation too. That is, revelation can be displayed in more ways than proposition. Granted that God spoke, and things came into being. But it is an accommodation of God's character, not just of His knowledge, to assert from that revelation that knowledge is propositional for God as well. It tends to violate the simplicity of God. Thus the AT/ET model is superior in this respect, it seems to me.

However, the AT/ET model, as superior as it may be in respecting God's character in terms of His knowledge, must be careful not do the same in subsequent assertions. And this is where I am having trouble with that model. But that's another thread now, and not this one.

I


----------



## Magma2

Rev. Winzer writes:



> Whether you understand "by" in terms of agency or instrumentality, the conclusion is the same -- knowledge requires experience.
> 
> No, I wouldn't pin the position solely on this verse. But this verse provides a clear account of the relationship of men to general revelation, as is acknowledged by all orthodox divines. I could also refer to the miracles, which excite amazement; parables, which express astonishment at men seeing but not perceiving; prophecies, which can be ascertained to be true by fulfilment; poetry, which related divine things by human feelings; the types of the OT, which foresignify truth in cultic institutions; sacraments, as signs and seals of inward grace; and so on and so forth.
> 
> The very idea of special revelation presupposes the importance of experience for knowledge. The WCF echoes Heb. 1:1 in its statement that God revealed himself in divers manners in times past; it then proceeds to state that Scripture was written in order to wholly preserve this revelation. Revelation predates inscripturation. Act-revelation comes first, followed by word-revelation. This is the basis upon which reformed biblical theology is established. To deny the importance of experience for knowledge is to demolish the idea of history as a medium for revelation, and consequently to undermine the historical facts of which Scripture speaks.



While sidelined I naturally have been following this thread with some interested, and aside from some mischaracterizations of Clark’s Scripturalism, I do want to take issue with Rev. Winzer’s assertion that “knowledge requires experience.” While there are many examples I could chose, I think Jesus’ exchange with Peter in Matthew 16 is enough to overthrow this notion that knowledge requires experience. Multitudes experienced first hand the miracles of Jesus and I’m quite sure they were filled with awe and any number of emotions, but none of these experiences, regardless of how powerful, provided anyone with any knowledge whatsoever concerning the truth of who Jesus is. So-called “Act-revelation” was completely besides the point to those witnessing these mighty works of God even right before their very eyes as not one of the multitude arrived at any knowledge at all concerning who Jesus was. Yet, when Peter correctly identifying Jesus as the Christ, Jesus said; "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” 

Nowhere does Jesus call Peter blessed for arriving at knowledge via his experience and as a result of “Act-revelation.” Instead, Jesus said that “flesh and blood” (i.e., Peter’s experience) did not reveal the truth to him, but rather it was an immediate act of God the Father that revealed the truth to Peter’s mind. 

To quote someone calling himself “The Ghost of Van Til” over on Manata’s blog:

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

If this one account wasn’t enough to disprove Rev. Winzer’s assertion, Jesus also tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16. In response to the rich man’s plea that Abraham send Lazarus to his five brother to warn them, Abraham replies; "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead." 

Jesus tells us that even witnessing the miracle of seeing someone rise from the dead will not convince *or* convict anyone of the truth, which is exactly what did occur when Jesus in fact raised Lazarus from the dead. (Why, even Manata didn't believe Van Til's ghost. ) Rather than recognizing Jesus as the Christ, the religious experience of those witnessing this event drove Christ’s enemies to crucify Him. Act-revelation played no cognitive role whatever. Without the Word – the divine propositions – witnessing miracles, having feelings, and whatever else anyone wants to include in the mix play no cognitive role whatsoever. Truth is, by definition, propositional for only propositions can be either true or false. 

As I see it, the error of Rev. Winzer and others is that they put their empirical cart before the propositional horse. Paul tells us that Christians “walk by faith, not by sight” and Jesus said man does not live by empirical means alone, but by every word which proceeds from the Father’s mouth. Yet, Rev. Winzer asserts here and in another thread (the one Paul Manata regularly links to) that experiences play a cognitive role, but nowhere does he actually demonstrate what that is or even how it might work. 

Finally, knowledge does not require experience, for if it did, then God, who is an immutable and pure spirit, could not know anything.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Multitudes experienced first hand the miracles of Jesus and I’m quite sure they were filled with awe and any number of emotions, but none of these experiences, regardless of how powerful, provided anyone with any knowledge whatsoever concerning the truth of who Jesus is.



This is the conflation inherent in the propositional-only model of knowledge. The fact that they did not come to a knowledge of the truth of who Jesus was does not mean they did not derive knowledge from the miracles. They must have derived some knowledge from them otherwise they would not have marvelled. The people must have *known* they were seeing something out of the ordinary.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> This is the conflation inherent in the propositional-only model of knowledge. The fact that they did not come to a knowledge of the truth of who Jesus was does not mean they did not derive knowledge from the miracles.



That's exactly what you need to demonstrate Rev. Winzer and not merely assert. Scripture explains the miracles and also their didactic purpose in Jesus' ministry. That's a far cry from saying miracles, in and of themselves, are a means of cognition.



> They must have derived some knowledge from them otherwise they would not have marvelled.



How does this follow? Besides, I don't deny that the multitudes marveled. I've said as much above. But having a feeling or a sense of awe or marveling is not a means of cognition nor one of its requirements. You've said it is. Therefore, it is you who needs to demonstrate that "marveling" or whatever other experience you care to mention has epistemic import and that such experiences are, in your words, a requirement for knowledge. As I've already demonstrated, the Scriptures teach the exact opposite of what you assert. 



> The people must have *known* they were seeing something out of the ordinary.



Seeing something out of the ordinary and having it be a means to knowledge are two different things. For example, the Pharisees inferred from their experience of one such miracle that Jesus was possessed and concluded; "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." What exactly then did the Pharisees know as a result of Jesus healing a deaf, dumb demon-possessed man? Seem to me nothing.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Seeing something out of the ordinary and having it be a means to knowledge are two different things.



You acknowledge that they saw something out of the ordinary. Their experience led to knowledge. I rest my case.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> You acknowledge that they saw something out of the ordinary. Their experience led to knowledge. I rest my case.



I don't know why you're resting your case, because you haven't made one yet. 

You have yet to show how seeing something has any cognitive import at all according to the Scriptures or according to anything else for that matter. It seems to me you've forgotten the Lord's word in Jeremiah 5: 'Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes, but see not; Who have ears, but hear not." Seeing something with the eyes in your head is not a means of cognition. So says the Lord anyway.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> I don't know why you're resting your case, because you haven't made one yet.
> 
> You have yet to show how seeing something has any cognitive import at all according to the Scriptures or according to anything else for that matter. It seems to me you've forgotten the Lord's word in Jeremiah 5: 'Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes, but see not; Who have ears, but hear not." Seeing something with the eyes in your head is not a means of cognition. So says the Lord anyway.



I'm resting my case because everything you say depends upon a belief that what is seen is known. You have said it again in the beginning of paragraph 2, when you refer to "seeing something." Your instinctive use of a predicate in reference to the action of seeing demonstrates perfectly that knowledge comes by means of experience.

As for Jeremiah, you are proving my case. The people are SENSELESS because they have eyes but see not. This means that a SENSIBLE person has eyes AND sees. The Lord's rebuke is applicable only on the supposition that eyesight leads to seeing.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> I'm resting my case because everything you say depends upon a belief that what is seen is known. You have said it again in the beginning of paragraph 2, when you refer to "seeing something." Your instinctive use of a predicate in reference to the action of seeing demonstrates perfectly that knowledge comes by means of experience.



Actually, seeing something doesn't answer the question of either what or how? Like I've said, you merely assert what you need to demonstrate. The biblical material adduced already speaks volumes against your position, but evidently you can't *see* that. 

As John Robbins wrote some years ago:



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



So far you've provided no account whatever for your position that "knowledge requires experience." The Scriptures nowhere supports either your "relational" existentialism or your empiricism and Jeremiah provides you no support either. 




> As for Jeremiah, you are proving my case. The people are SENSELESS because they have eyes but see not. This means that a SENSIBLE person has eyes AND sees. The Lord's rebuke is applicable only on the supposition that eyesight leads to seeing.



Seeing and hearing in Scripture is more often than not a metaphor for understanding and belief, as it is in Jeremiah and as it is used repeatedly in the NT. Seeing and hearing has to do with intellection - not sensation. 

Another example of this is what Jesus said in Mat 13: 

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

Notice, Jesus speaks and those who hear do not hear. I think we can assume their auditory equipment was functioning fine. The problem Jesus tells us was not that the people needed hearing aids, rather they didn't understand and they didn't believe. The Lord's rebuke has to do with unbelief and it has absolutely nothing to do with "supposition that eyesight leads to seeing." To suggest these passage are advancing some sort of sensate philosophy such as the one you are advancing is absurd.


----------



## MW

Thankyou for the quote from John Robbins: "Knowledge is possessing true ideas and knowing them to be true." Now, Sean, you have already acknowledged that the people saw something out of the ordinary when they saw the miracles of Christ. Miracles of Christ are something out of the ordinary. Ergo, you have acknowledged that in seening the miracles of Christ they came to knowledge, according to the definition of John Robbins.

Stop using predicates in relation to seeing and we will have something to talk about. Otherwise your arguments are nonsense.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Stop using predicates in relation to seeing and we will have something to talk about. Otherwise your arguments are nonsense.



I guess we don't have anything to talk about since you refuse to account for your assertion that knowledge requires experience.

I'm content at this point to let readers to decide who here is, to use L.'s analogy, using scissors to cut away the offending biblical material that doesn't fit with his own preconceived philosophic notions. 

Your attack on propositional revelation in favor of your unsupported and unaccounted for existential or "relational" epistemology is without any biblical warrant at all. But how could it be? Any defense of your position would require the use of propositions, and, since the biblical ones already adduced do not fit your philosophic construct, you simply cut them away or ignore them. 

in my opinion your existential or "relational" epistemology is positively dangerous and has more in common with men like Richard Gaffin. Admittedly, you haven't worked out your system nearly as far as he has, but he too prefers the non-rational/relational model as opposed to the revelatory/propositional one advanced by Clark. For Gaffin we are ushered into union with Christ not by mere belief in the propositions of the Gospel alone, but rather through the experience of baptism. For Gaffin knowledge requires experience too.

To echo something you said on another thread, I do fear for any man who is straying into this desert path. May God save you!


----------



## Civbert

Thanks Sean. Welcome back.

Rev. Matthew Winzer, I still am unsure about what your whole point is regarding knowledge requiring experience. Are we simply off on an interesting tangent, or is there somewhere you wanted to go with this.

For the sake of argument, let's say knowledge does require experience (seeing, hearing, whatever). That still does nothing to counter that knowledge is propositional. So that line of reason (experience/knowledge) does not seem to go anywhere.

A further look at the "seeing" and "hearing" to gain knowledge: let's say (again for the sake of argument) that those who saw the miracles of Christ did come away having some ideas about the meaning of what they saw. We still have not established that these ideas are epistemic knowledge. No doubt they interpreted their experiences in light of a priori knowledge, to draw some conclusions - but were the truths of these conclusions justified. Did they have sufficient epistemic justification for the truth of their conclusions? 

As far as I'm concerned, unless Christ himself told them the meaning of the miracles, they did not gain any knowledge simply from witnessing them. But even if one disregards my Scripturalism, I don't think any experience itself provides sufficient justification for establishing any truth. It may be sufficient for to them believe what they concluded they saw, but there is no escaping that fact that conclusions based on experience remain uncertain. Thus their conclusions fall short of being knowledge. 


So whatever ideas they came away with could only be described as opinions. Any claim of true belief that hinges on the interpretation of an experience has insufficient warrant for calling it knowledge. Experience is wonderful for establishing strong and sometimes reliable opinion, but Calvin is very close when he 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.” 

So I conclude that experience is great for developing scientific opinions, and for "feeling" certain - but is inadequate grounds for producing knowledge. And second, non-propositional knowledge is an oxymoron when trying describe an epistemological principle. 

Part of the reason I got into this debate was because I was left with the opinion that many who use the AT/ET model seem to think it shows that God's AT knowledge is non-propositional. I believe this goes far beyond what Scripture tells us, or what can be deduced from Scripture. I've heard that archetypal theology is the knowledge God possesses that he has not revealed to us - and that we know God through ET, the knowledge he _has _revealed to us. Since we can not know AT, it seems speculative to suppose it is non-propositional - and it does little to help us understand our relationship to God.


----------



## MW

Sean, you have ignored my challenge about predication. Either the people saw something out of the ordinary or they did not. You have said they did. That is enough to establish my case that knowledge comes through experience.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> As far as I'm concerned, unless Christ himself told them the meaning of the miracles, they did not gain any knowledge simply from witnessing them. But even if one disregards my Scripturalism, I don't think any experience itself provides sufficient justification for establishing any truth. It may be sufficient for to them believe what they concluded they saw, but there is no escaping that fact that conclusions based on experience remain uncertain. Thus their conclusions fall short of being knowledge.



The Scriptures bear testimony that when people saw the miracles of Jesus they understood what they were seeing and responded appropriately. Matt. 15:31, "Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel."

The Scriptures speak of people believing *because* they saw. John 20:29, "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed."

It is a mongrel species of Scripturalism which disbelieves the Scriptures in order to establish the authority of Scripture. The one phrase, "and ye shall know," repeated numerous times throughout the Bible, suffices as a rebuttal to this nonsense.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> The Scriptures bear testimony that when people saw the miracles of Jesus they understood what they were seeing and responded appropriately. Matt. 15:31, "Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel."



I'm sorry but this says nothing about knowledge. All it demonstrates is they _believed _it was to God's glory. 



armourbearer said:


> The Scriptures speak of people believing *because* they saw. John 20:29, "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed."


This only speaks of belief - and the second half - contrary to your position speaks of being more blessed if you believe _without _seeing Jesus. Thus it weighs _against _your position.
[bible]John 20:29[/bible]

Very interesting! The ESV has it in the form of a question. This further goes against experience for knowledge. Apparently, experience doesn't even justify belief, much less knowledge.

And of course Mat 16:17 really disproves that knowledge requires experience.
[bible] Mat 16:17 [/bible]



armourbearer said:


> It is a mongrel species of Scripturalism which disbelieves the Scriptures in order to establish the authority of Scripture. The one phrase, "and ye shall know," repeated numerous times throughout the Bible, suffices as a rebuttal to this nonsense.



Rev. Winzer. I would appreciate if you answered my question more directly. I still don't see you point and have yet to see a cogent rebuttal. I've looked through the bible where it says "and ye shall know" (33 times in the KJV) and I did not see any example that proves knowledge requires experience. It seems to me to be a strange epistemology that insists that sensory perceptions is necessary for knowledge when the Bible has many examples of the Spirit and the Word of God giving knowledge apart from any experience. Frankly, I don't know what to make of your persistence on this single point.


----------



## Civbert

I was looking more at the phrase "and ye shall know" and it's very interesting. The pattern is God says "I shall do X and Y" and then "ye shall know that I am Lord". But notice that if God had not first said "I shall do X and Y" then it would not follow that they would know God was the Lord. God first has to tell them what He is going to do. It was the Words in advance of the experience that makes it so they would know He was the Lord.

But even so, it does not make "experience" _necessary_ for knowledge. It only shows that in order to know God is the Lord, He has to speak to us first. God speaks, and we know. God reveals, and we know.



> (Exo 6:7) And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
> 
> (Exo 16:12) I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God.
> 
> (Num 14:34) After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
> 
> (1Ki 20:28) And there came a man of God, and spake unto the king of Israel, and said, Thus saith the LORD, Because the Syrians have said, The LORD is God of the hills, but he is not God of the valleys, therefore will I deliver all this great multitude into thine hand, and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 6:7) And the slain shall fall in the midst of you, and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 7:4) And mine eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have pity: but I will recompense thy ways upon thee, and thine abominations shall be in the midst of thee: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 7:9) And mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: I will recompense thee according to thy ways and thine abominations that are in the midst of thee; and ye shall know that I am the LORD that smiteth.
> 
> (Eze 11:10) Ye shall fall by the sword; I will judge you in the border of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 11:12) And ye shall know that I am the LORD: for ye have not walked in my statutes, neither executed my judgments, but have done after the manners of the heathen that are round about you.
> 
> (Eze 12:20) And the cities that are inhabited shall be laid waste, and the land shall be desolate; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 13:9) And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
> 
> (Eze 13:14) So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with untempered morter, and bring it down to the ground, so that the foundation thereof shall be discovered, and it shall fall, and ye shall be consumed in the midst thereof: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 13:21) Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 13:23) Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 14:8) And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 14:23) And they shall comfort you, when ye see their ways and their doings: and ye shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it, saith the Lord GOD.
> 
> (Eze 15:7) And I will set my face against them; they shall go out from one fire, and another fire shall devour them; and ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I set my face against them.
> 
> (Eze 17:21) And all his fugitives with all his bands shall fall by the sword, and they that remain shall be scattered toward all winds: and ye shall know that I the LORD have spoken it.
> 
> (Eze 20:38) And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 20:42) And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your fathers.
> 
> (Eze 20:44) And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have wrought with you for my name's sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.
> 
> (Eze 22:22) As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I the LORD have poured out my fury upon you.
> 
> (Eze 23:49) And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
> 
> (Eze 25:5) And I will make Rabbah a stable for camels, and the Ammonites a couchingplace for flocks: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 35:9) I will make thee perpetual desolations, and thy cities shall not return: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 36:11) And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 37:6) And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
> 
> (Eze 37:13) And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
> 
> (Joe 2:27) And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.
> 
> (Zec 2:9) For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.
> 
> (Zec 6:15) And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the LORD, and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God.
> 
> (Mal 2:4) And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
> 
> (Joh 8:32) And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.


----------



## Civbert

[bible]John 8:30-32[/bible]

No experience required.


----------



## MW

Civbert, (1.) Faith includes assent to knowledge. (2.) If condition X leads to fact Y, the people must have known condition X in order to be led to fact Y.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Civbert, (1.) Faith includes assent to knowledge. (2.) If condition X leads to fact Y, the people must have known condition X in order to be led to fact Y.



So a priori knowledge is required for one to be "led to fact Y". And nothing requires that this a priori knowledge X required experience, or even that they had epistemic justification to know Y. 

We develop _opinions _based on a prior knowledge and experience. We _know _based on a priori knowledge _without _experience. If subjective interpretation of experience is a necessary condition for a particular conclusion Y, then conclusion Y is an opinion. 

Since the truth of a subjective interpretation of experience is itself uncertain, then it is insufficient grounds for justifying the truth of any conclusion it is necessary for.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Sean, you have ignored my challenge about predication. Either the people saw something out of the ordinary or they did not. You have said they did. That is enough to establish my case that knowledge comes through experience.



For a man who has just ignored a half dozen Scriptural references and who failed to correctly exegete the one you did interact with by completely missing the use of metaphor, you'll have to excuse me if I don't want to play semantical games. 

Like others on this forum, I have enormous respect for you and even if you never write another thing, you're reply to Murray and the so-called Well Meant Offer was devastating and definitive. However, on this point you're just wrong. 

Seeing something out of the ordinary -- or even seeing anything at all -- has no cognitive import at all and without the addition of divine propositions can produce no knowledge about anything whatsoever. You are simply mistaken. 

Let me put it to you this way, I watched a magician on TV the other day. Some guy named David Blaine. I saw a lot of things that were out of the ordinary. I even saw him levitate. One of my employees believes Blaine has supernatural powers. But to Blaine or another magician or perhaps the camera men helping to create some of his tricks, I'm quite sure his performance was quite ordinary. That doesn't mean that magic tricks have any cognitive value or that knowledge requires experience.


----------



## Magma2

Civbert said:


> This only speaks of belief - and the second half - contrary to your position speaks of being more blessed if you believe _without _seeing Jesus. Thus it weighs _against _your position.
> [bible]John 20:29[/bible]
> 
> Very interesting! The ESV has it in the form of a question. This further goes against experience for knowledge. Apparently, experience doesn't even justify belief, much less knowledge.
> 
> And of course Mat 16:17 really disproves that knowledge requires experience.
> [bible] Mat 16:17 [/bible]




As a fellow defender of that "mongrel species of Scripturalism" this is a great point Anthony. The account of Thomas is an example of God's merciful condescension to our own weaknesses and frailties and is not biblical warrant for the empirical or "relational" epistemology Rev. Winzer defends . . . or, I should say, asserts.

I would say the sacraments are another example of God's condescension. The experience of breaking bread and drinking wine even until your stuffed and drunk can never provide the necessary premises by which we might infer Christ's cross work. The necessary premises are provided by the words of institutions. Without the divinely revealed propositions even the sacraments would be without any cognitive meaning. That's not to say that a nice glass of wine or a freshly baked loaf of bread has no value, it's just that bread and wine aren't a means by which we come to a knowledge of the truth. 

I think this whole exchange is really sad in a way, because if you'll look at Rev. Winzer's posts per that link Paul Manata routinely provides, you'll notice that he is rightly critical of any epistemology which eliminates the work of the Spirit. Yet, when we affirm the absolute necessity of the Spirit's direct and immediate illumination through the Word in which He works in order for one to know anything at all, we're attacked as promoting some "mongrel species of Scripturalism." It reminds me of other uninformed critics who accuse Clark's Scripturalism of being "gnostic." 

I think what "The Ghost of Van Til" said deserves repeating:

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


----------



## MW

Civbert, Did you read the Scriptures with the phrase, "and ye shall know?" Simply restating your epistemic formula will not do. Exod. 16:12, "At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God." Condition X is not a priori knowledge. It is the eating of flesh and being filled with bread -- an experience. Conclusion Y is that they will know the Lord is their God.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Seeing something out of the ordinary -- or even seeing anything at all -- has no cognitive import at all and without the addition of divine propositions can produce no knowledge about anything whatsoever. You are simply mistaken.
> 
> Let me put it to you this way, I watched a magician on TV the other day. Some guy named David Blaine. I saw a lot of things that were out of the ordinary. I even saw him levitate. One of my employees believes Blaine has supernatural powers. But to Blaine or another magician or perhaps the camera men helping to create some of his tricks, I'm quite sure his performance was quite ordinary. That doesn't mean that magic tricks have any cognitive value or that knowledge requires experience.



Sean, you know that what Christ did is out of the ordinary, so why would you compare His power to a sham magician? Please respond in a manner which is in accord with your profession of faith.

The Scriptures, as has been shown, testify that the people saw miracles. You have not come to terms with this fact. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious because you know the consequences are devastating to your epistemic claim.

If seeing has no cognitive import, how can you predicate things of seeing?


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> I think this whole exchange is really sad in a way, because if you'll look at Rev. Winzer's posts per that link Paul Manata routinely provides, you'll notice that he is rightly critical of any epistemology which eliminates the work of the Spirit. Yet, when we affirm the absolute necessity of the Spirit's direct and immediate illumination through the Word in which He works in order for one to know anything at all, we're attacked as promoting some "mongrel species of Scripturalism." It reminds me of other uninformed critics who accuse Clark's Scripturalism of being "gnostic."



I'm not sure what posts are being referred to, but I affirm wholeheartedly that the work of the Spirit is essential for knowledge. The spirit of the Almighty gives every man knowledge; but everything in its kind. First the natural, then the spiritual. Reformed theology teaches the importance of general revelation. There is bona fide knowledge outside of the Scriptures, of which the Scriptures themselves testify. There are external "notes" whereby the Scriptures manifest that they are the very Word of God (Larger Catechism, answer 4). The demonstration of the Spirit whereby a person comes to faith in Christ and in the Scriptures is of a completely different order of persuasion. No form of human argument can produce it. It is a work of sovereign and irresistible grace.

But now, who cannot see the obvious fallacy which is present in Sean's defence of Scripturalism? It is one thing to say knowledge requires the work of the Spirit. It is quite another to suggest that knowledge is *solely* the work of the Spirit. Actually, Sean involves himself in a contradiction -- one moment saying this work of the Spirit is "immediate," the next moment saying it is "through the Word." This is all part and parcel of the fallacious manner in which idealist Scripturalism presents itself.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Civbert, Did you read the Scriptures with the phrase, "and ye shall know?" Simply restating your epistemic formula will not do. Exod. 16:12, "At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God." Condition X is not a priori knowledge. It is the eating of flesh and being filled with bread -- an experience. Conclusion Y is that they will know the Lord is their God.



Like I said, they wouldn't know anything if God had not first _said_ what he was going to do. God's Word is a priori to knowledge - not experience.


----------



## MW

But how did they know God had done it? That is what you cannot answer.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> But how did they know God had done it? That is what you cannot answer.


They knew God did it because God _told _them he was going to do it. He _spoke_, He _revealed_, God spoke _propositions _saying what He was going to do.

That's my whole point. If God had not given them that knowledge (propositions), then they would not have known He did anything. They did not know God did it because they experience it, but because God _said _he was going to do it.


----------



## Civbert

I has composed a nice long post on what "-ism" applied to Scripturalism and which did not. But to sum it up, idealism, rationalism, gnosticism, and fideism do not apply; but dogmatism and foundationalism do apply.

Idealism does not apply because idealist say only minds exists. Rationalism says that knowledge is a function of reason alone, and has not role for God's Word or the Holy Spirit. The rest I leave for everyone to look up.

Scripturalism is an explicit rejection of rationalism, empiricism, and mysticism. It is most exactly dogmatism and a form of foundationalism. 

It is also a rejection of Thomistic philosophy that may be the most common view of the anti-Scripturalist. I'm not sure because anti-Scripturalist I've read have not given any cogent alternative epistemology.

Labels are fine when used appropriately. The convey knowledge in a succinct manner. So I have no problem with labeling per se, just to the misapplication of them. And slapping a label on something as if this was an argument unto itself is also of little value in debate.

P.S. I do not mean anti-Scripturalist as a pejorative term, simply a short-cut for a person who rejects Scripturalism for one reason or another.


----------



## Civbert

Recommended reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Although it's always questionable what you find on the net, that's also true for books and anything else other than Scripture. But the wikipedia articles are still reasonable in my opinion and can help one develop more informed opinions.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> They knew God did it because God _told _them he was going to do it. He _spoke_, He _revealed_, God spoke _propositions _saying what He was going to do.



This only leaves you with a WHAT, but no way of telling WHEN. Please explain how they would have known WHEN God had done what He said He was going to do. It is a completed action which is included in the condition which leads to the conclusion that the Lord is their God. This is made explicit in the example of Matt 24:32, "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; *When* his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, *ye know* that summer is nigh."

Concerning your differentiation of idealism from Scripturalism, you have not accounted for the fact that idealism holds that other things exist, only that it is an opinion. Consider Plato's men looking at the shadows on the wall. That is the same way Scripturalism regards phenomena.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> This only leaves you with a WHAT, but no way of telling WHEN. Please explain how they would have known WHEN God had done what He said He was going to do. It is a completed action which is included in the condition which leads to the conclusion that the Lord is their God. This is made explicit in the example of Matt 24:32, "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; *When* his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, *ye know* that summer is nigh."



Well then if the "when" is not clear, then the experience can not lead to knowledge - but merely opinion. Again we must abandon experience as a means of knowledge. But since the Christian has the enlightening by the Spirit, apart from experience, he has an epistemic justification. So now we have left "experience" further away from justifying knowledge.




armourbearer said:


> Concerning your differentiation of idealism from Scripturalism, you have not accounted for the fact that idealism holds that other things exist, only that it is an opinion. Consider Plato's men looking at the shadows on the wall. That is the same way Scripturalism regards phenomena.


In fact, that fact is not a fact. 

Idealism holds that _only_ minds exist. If idealism were simply that we only know propositions, then idealism is correct. But since I have pointed out that idealism is more than "knowledge is propositional" then you are incorrect. 

By the way, when you see a duck, is the duck in your brain, or is an image of a duck in your brain? Also, does that image of a duck make it a duck, or is it because it conforms to the definition of a duck (which are propositions). And how do you know a duck is there unless you already knew what a duck was prior to the experience. And are you justified in saying you know you see a duck, when in fact, you are looking at a young goose. It seems that experience is unreliable for justifying knowledge- and since knowledge only includes truths, then a possible false mechanism (sensory perception) would not justify knowledge. This is just the tip of the iceberg and a reasonable epistemology needs to deal with them to be useful. And you will find that experience fails time and time again to provide epistemic justification by any reasonable definition. Again I say that the only reasonable _justification_ of knowledge is revelation. Do you deny this? 


Matt 24:32 is a parable, not a statement on epistemology. A parable is not the truth itself, parables point to other truths.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Well then if the "when" is not clear, then the experience can not lead to knowledge - but merely opinion. Again we must abandon experience as a means of knowledge.



How can opinion lead to knowledge? You have said the WHEN would only be an opinion. But it is WHEN they had eaten flesh and were filled with bread that they would know that the Lord is their God. I wish you would take the Scriptures seriously.



Civbert said:


> But since the Christian has the enlightening by the Spirit, apart from experience, he has an epistemic justification. So now we have left "experience" further away from justifying knowledge.



Enlightening by the Spirit is an experience. It is an inward work of the Spirit of God. This shows yet another fallacy of your unscriptural scripturalism.



Civbert said:


> Idealism holds that _only_ minds exist. If idealism were simply that we only know propositions, then idealism is correct. But since I have pointed out that idealism is more than "knowledge is propositional" then you are incorrect.



You may want to consider reading up on Plato's three-story universe.



Civbert said:


> Matt 24:32 is a parable, not a statement on epistemology. A parable is not the truth itself, parables point to other truths.



You refuse to accept the literal import of any Scripture which conflicts with your philosophy. For the lesson of a parable to be true (the heavenly things), that which the parable relates must be true (the earthly things).


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Sean, you know that what Christ did is out of the ordinary, so why would you compare His power to a sham magician?



Because it provides further demonstration that seeing something out of the ordinary is not cognitive. The Scriptures tell us that those who witnessed the miracles of Christ inferred that He was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Even others inferred that Jesus was Satanic. And to think, all this from seeing something out of the ordinary. 

Since you're not willing to believe the Scriptures seeing they completely refute your sensate and "relational" epistemology, I thought a magician might help.  



> Please respond in a manner which is in accord with your profession of faith.



I did. My profession of faith is that coming to knowledge of the truth is a gift of God and knowledge does not require experience. 



> The Scriptures, as has been shown, testify that the people saw miracles. You have not come to terms with this fact. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious because you know the consequences are devastating to your epistemic claim.



I only know what Jesus did was miraculous because the Scriptures say so. Same applies to you. No experience necessary.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> I'm not sure what posts are being referred to, but I affirm wholeheartedly that the work of the Spirit is essential for knowledge.



Ask Paul Manata. I'm sure he has the link memorized.  



> The spirit of the Almighty gives every man knowledge; but everything in its kind. First the natural, then the spiritual.



Rom 11:8; just as it is written, "GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."

Appears to me God gave man something besides knowledge.



> Reformed theology teaches the importance of general revelation. There is bona fide knowledge outside of the Scriptures, of which the Scriptures themselves testify. There are external "notes" whereby the Scriptures manifest that they are the very Word of God (Larger Catechism, answer 4).



There you go. The Scriptures refute your empiricism so you turn to tradition. I don't deny that many in the Reformed tradition have been followers of Aquinas and Aristotle and not Augustine. You've provided another example of that tradition which still believes knowledge requires experience and that sensation plays a role in the acquisition of knowledge. As far as I'm concerned a central pillar of Reformed theology is that while tradition can be useful, Scripture ALONE is the final authority by which all tradition must be judged. I'm sorry but your appeal to "Reformed theology" doesn't provide you with much of a refuge. 

The psalmist said; "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork." However, no man can arrive at this truth through a telescope, and while astronomy is useful, it is not a cognitive enterprise. How do we know the heavens declare the glory of God? Because the Scriptures tell us so that's how. 



> But now, who cannot see the obvious fallacy which is present in Sean's defence of Scripturalism? It is one thing to say knowledge requires the work of the Spirit. It is quite another to suggest that knowledge is *solely* the work of the Spirit. Actually, Sean involves himself in a contradiction -- one moment saying this work of the Spirit is "immediate," the next moment saying it is "through the Word." This is all part and parcel of the fallacious manner in which idealist Scripturalism presents itself.



Didn't you and I go over this before? I'm starting to have the experience of deja vu.  

To know God, to come to know the truth, is to come to know something of what God knows. Have you forgotten John 16:13; Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

Notice the Spirit will lead God's people into all truth (and not just some - as if other truths were experientially discerned) and He does not speak on His own accord and apart from the revealed word (pretty much wiping out all claims to extra-biblical knowledge of the enthusiasts and other experience mongers). 

I recall Luther had a good reply to those who came crying "the Spirit, the Spirit" divorced from the Word and who set up the kind of dichotomy you've attempted above. He said "my spirit slaps your spirit on the snout." 

1 Cor 2:11b; Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 

Thoughts are spiritually discerned and are not arrived at by some existential or "relational" experience. I think Edward's sermon A Divine and Supernatural Light, Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God, Shown to be Both Scriptural and Rational Doctrine might be helpful:



> And this light and knowledge is always spoken of as immediately given of God, Matt. 11:25-27: "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son but the Father: neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Here this effect is ascribed alone to the arbitrary operation, and gift of God, bestowing this knowledge on whom he will, and distinguishing those with it, that have the least natural advantage or means for knowledge, even babes, when it is denied to the wise and prudent. And the imparting of the knowledge of God is here appropriated to the Son of God, as his sole prerogative. And again, 2 Cor. 4:6, "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ." This plainly shows, that there is such a thing as a discovery of the divine superlative glory and excellency of God and Christ, and that peculiar to the saints: and also, that it is as immediately from God, as light from the sun: and that it is the immediate effect of his power and will; for it is compared to God's creating the light by his powerful word in the beginning of the creation; and is said to be by the Spirit of the Lord, in the 18th verse of the preceding chapter. God is spoken of as giving the knowledge of Christ in conversion, as of what before was hidden and unseen in that. Gal. 1:15,16, "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me." The Scripture also speaks plainly of such a knowledge of the word of God, as has been described, as the immediate gift of God, Psalm 119:18: "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." What could the Psalmist mean when he begged of God to open his eyes? Was he ever blind? Might he not have resort to the law and see every word and sentence in it when he pleased? and what could he mean by those wondrous things? Was it the wonderful stories of the creation, and deluge, and Israel's passing through the Red Sea, and the like? Were not his eyes open to read these strange things when he would? Doubtless by wondrous things in God's law, he had respect to those distinguishing and wonderful excellencies, and marvellous manifestations of the divine perfections, and glory, that there was in the commands and doctrines of the word, and those works and counsels of God that were there revealed. So the Scripture speaks of a knowledge of God's dispensation, and covenant of mercy, and way of grace towards his people, as peculiar to the saints, and given only by God, Psalm 25:14: "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will show them his covenant."



I'm sorry Rev. Winzer, seeing that your entire epistemic framework fails to comport with Scripture at any one point, in my opinion you really need to go back to the drawing board. 

Peace.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> How can opinion lead to knowledge? You have said the WHEN would only be an opinion. But it is WHEN they had eaten flesh and were filled with bread that they would know that the Lord is their God. I wish you would take the Scriptures seriously.


It doesn't. And for the third time my point is reinforced. Since experience only leads one to opinion - it can not give knowledge. Therefore the only way for them to know anything is God's Word and the Spirit. And this is explained in the next sentence that your comment's split.

Also, I do take Scripture seriously, my whole epistemic foundation is Scripture. I resent your assertion to the contrary. You are trying make points by making disparaging remarks. 



armourbearer said:


> Enlightening by the Spirit is an experience. It is an inward work of the Spirit of God. This shows yet another fallacy of your unscriptural scripturalism.


 On the contrary, this shows that you should agree with my Scripturalism. If you had simply said the experience you are arguing for was the Word and Spirit - then you'd be in agreement with me. I just don't use the term experience that way because in normal discussions of epistemology experience refers to sensory perceptions and immages, not the work of the Sprite and Word. 



armourbearer said:


> You refuse to accept the literal import of any Scripture which conflicts with your philosophy. For the lesson of a parable to be true (the heavenly things), that which the parable relates must be true (the earthly things).


 Do you accept the literal import of Scripture that speaks of God's hands and eyes? Some verses are supposed to be literal and some are metaphorical, and some are parable. In all cases, the truth, the spiritual knowledge, is not found in the literal interpretation but in understanding the meaning of the parallel truth. If you took parables as literally, then you will start finding all sorts of flaws and inconsistencies in the Word. Since I am a Scripturalist, I want to understand the truth the parable is pointing to.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Because it provides further demonstration that seeing something out of the ordinary is not cognitive. The Scriptures tell us that those who witnessed the miracles of Christ inferred that He was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Even others inferred that Jesus was Satanic. And to think, all this from seeing something out of the ordinary.
> 
> Since you're not willing to believe the Scriptures seeing they completely refute your sensate and "relational" epistemology, I thought a magician might help.



Funny. But you are confusing a premise with a conclusion. They inferred the wrong thing. But you have acknowledged they got the premise right when you agreed the Scripture teaches they saw something out of the ordinary.



Magma2 said:


> I only know what Jesus did was miraculous because the Scriptures say so. Same applies to you. No experience necessary.



Yes, but the people who saw Jesus' miracles, whom the Scriptures credit with having seen His miracles, did not have the Scriptures to tell them they saw His miracles. That is what you cannot cope with.


----------



## MW

Civbert, if I have caused you to resent something I said, I am sincerely sorry, but I regret to tell you that your hermeneutical method is unorthodox. Figurative language is undoubtedly used in Scripture, but the figures are only meaningful because they themselves have a literal signification. No, I do not believe God has human body parts; but human body parts function in a certain way, and these functions denote something when they are figuratively attributed to God. But you claim that the figures mean nothing.

God gives evidence for Himself to the Israelites time and again. He foretells certain things which are going to come to pass, and then tells them that WHEN these things have come to pass they will KNOW He is the Lord. Condition X leads to conclusion Y, yet according to your epistemology condition X is an opinion and conclusion Y is knowledge. Anyone who accepts the divine authority of the Scriptures could not possibly adopt your idealist Scripturalism with a good conscience. Your epistemology denies what God explicitly claims.

The parables are literal and speak of "earthly things" as our Lord told Nicodemus. Couched within these earthly things are heavenly lessons. It is these two things which your Scripturalism confuses. You deny to men a knowledge of earthly things because the Scriptures deny to them a knowledge of heavenly things without special revelation. Yet the Scriptures constantly chide unbelievers for knowing earthly things whilst being ignorant of heavenly things. Mt 16:3, "And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?"


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> I don't deny that many in the Reformed tradition have been followers of Aquinas and Aristotle and not Augustine. You've provided another example of that tradition which still believes knowledge requires experience and that sensation plays a role in the acquisition of knowledge. As far as I'm concerned a central pillar of Reformed theology is that while tradition can be useful, Scripture ALONE is the final authority by which all tradition must be judged. I'm sorry but your appeal to "Reformed theology" doesn't provide you with much of a refuge.



Sean, now you are playing the fanatic, pitting the reformed tradition against Scripture alone, when it is clear as day you are pitting the reformed tradtion's interpretation of Scripture against your own private interpretation. Vain man would be wise!


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Sean, now you are playing the fanatic, pitting the reformed tradition against Scripture alone, when it is clear as day you are pitting the reformed tradtion's interpretation of Scripture against your own private interpretation. Vain man would be wise!



Private interpretation? This from a man who hangs his entire empirical and "relational" epistemology on a demonstrably errant and literalistic interpretation of the metaphorical language used in Jeremiah and elsewhere and a misapplication and overextension of a PARABLE! Jesus was not teaching an empirical component to knowledge as you wrongly assert as you attempt to cram a parabolic analogy into that epistemic box you've imposed on Scripture. You even miss the irony in light of your professed empiricism found in the very passage where the Parable of the Fig Tree is found:

24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
25 "Behold, I have told you in advance.

Not only does it NOT follow that experiences are cognitive, much less a "requirement of knowledge," Jesus specifically warns his followers about the deceptions of false Christs who also contend that knowledge requires experience. How else could so many be so easily duped by their miraculous "signs and wonders" if they didn't believe, like you, that experience is a requirement for knowledge? Following experience is not the road or even an aid to knowledge, it's the road to destruction. 

Finally, what I find vain is placing even Reformed tradition above the Scriptures. There is a church that shares your devotion to tradition, but it's not the Reformed one. This is the Reformed tradition:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, *or traditions of men.*

I might add within that rubric of traditions of men:

*All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both. *

I'm sorry to say your appeal to tradition this time was no help to you at all.

In order not to  

See you on another thread.  


*2 Cor 5:7; for we walk by faith, not by sight--*


----------



## Civbert

Rev. Winzer. 


armourbearer said:


> ... Figurative language is undoubtedly used in Scripture, but the figures are only meaningful because they themselves have a literal signification.


 But the truth being conveyed is found in the what they point to. The parable itself is not to be taken literally. If fact, they are often fictional. 



armourbearer said:


> ... No, I do not believe God has human body parts; but human body parts function in a certain way, and these functions denote something when they are figuratively attributed to God. But you claim that the figures mean nothing.


 I made no such claim.



armourbearer said:


> God gives evidence for Himself to the Israelites time and again. He foretells certain things which are going to come to pass, and then tells them that WHEN these things have come to pass they will KNOW He is the Lord. Condition X leads to conclusion Y, yet according to your epistemology condition X is an opinion and conclusion Y is knowledge.


 I don't think you understood what I'm saying. Condition X is what God said. This is not an opinion. 



armourbearer said:


> ... Anyone who accepts the divine authority of the Scriptures could not possibly adopt your idealist Scripturalism with a good conscience. Your epistemology denies what God explicitly claims.


 I think you have it backwards. Anyone who adobts Scripturalism is simply making the Scriptures the foundation of epistemic justification. A Scripturalist makes God's explicet claims as foundational. What you are doing is trying to induce empiricism from Scripture. - but so far this has not worked out. No where does Scripture tell us it is insufficent for knowledge. In fact, the divines who athored the Westminster Confession of Faith said that that "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (WCF 1:6). 

Now where does it say knowledge requires experience?

*Rev Winzer - if God had not first said what He was going to do, would they have known? *




armourbearer said:


> The parables are literal and speak of "earthly things" as our Lord told Nicodemus. Couched within these earthly things are heavenly lessons.



[bible] Joh 3:11-12[/bible]
Even "earthly things", for us to "know" them, most come from the Word.

More often the parables were stories that had no literal truth in themselves. The truth lay only with the ideas the parables pointed to.



armourbearer said:


> ... It is these two things which your Scripturalism confuses. You deny to men a knowledge of earthly things because the Scriptures deny to them a knowledge of heavenly things without special revelation.


 Scripturalism recognizes the inherent fallacy of going from particulars to universals. It rejects empiricism - and embraces the truth that Scripture provides - "all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (WCF 1:6). 



armourbearer said:


> ... Yet the Scriptures constantly chide unbelievers for knowing earthly things whilst being ignorant of heavenly things. Mt 16:3, "And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?"


 This chiding shows how lost empiricism is. Jesus chides them for claiming to have knowledge via earthly sign, but rejecting the true knowledge from heaven. They reject the truth for the illusion. [bible] mat 16:2-4[/bible]
Notice that Jesus does not actually credit them with knowing the future weather, but for knowing how to interpret evidence. They were doing _weather forcasting_. And epistemologically speaking, just like all weather forecasting, these are opinions!! No weatherman has epistemic justification in claiming to know if it will snow or rain tomorrow. The Pharisees did not "know" if the weather would be foul or fair. 

Again, this is another verse that supports Scripturalism _when_ you read it in context - and not snip out the small part that superficially seems contrary to Scripturalism.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Private interpretation? This from a man who hangs his entire empirical and "relational" epistemology on a demonstrably errant and literalistic interpretation of the metaphorical language used in Jeremiah and elsewhere and a misapplication and overextension of a PARABLE!



Sean, you were the one who quoted Jeremiah; I simply corrected your misapplication. On the parable of the fig tree, your idealistic Scripturalism has been weighed in the balance of reformed hermeneutics and found wanting. Your epistemology destroys the very idea of a parabolic teaching and figures of speech, together with the biblical force of miracles, prophecies, and various other modes of revelation.

As for the rest of your post, it is not the reformed tradition against Scripture, but the reformed interpretation of Scripture against Sean's interpretation of Scripture. If you had eyes to see you would perceive that the passage of the Confession you have quoted applies as equally to your own fanatical opinions as to the tried and true reformed tradition.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Sean, you were the one who quoted Jeremiah; I simply corrected your misapplication. On the parable of the fig tree, your idealistic Scripturalism has been weighed in the balance of reformed hermeneutics and found wanting. Your epistemology destroys the very idea of a parabolic teaching and figures of speech, together with the biblical force of miracles, prophecies, and various other modes of revelation.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, it is not the reformed tradition against Scripture, but the reformed interpretation of Scripture against Sean's interpretation of Scripture. If you had eyes to see you would perceive that the passage of the Confession you have quoted applies as equally to your own fanatical opinions as to the tried and true reformed tradition.


----------



## MW

Civbert, there is no doubt God said condition X would lead to conclusion Y. My point depends on it. Scripture asserts experience leads to knowledge. Being filled with flesh and manna in accord with God's Word leads to the conclusion that He is God. What you cannot manage, and seem constantly to evade, is the fact that they must KNOW that they have been filled with meat and manna in order to be led to the conclusion that the Lord is their God. God did not tell them that they had been filled, but that they would be filled. They had to know that they were filled as a necessary condition in order to be led to the conclusion.

As for your confused understanding of parabolic instruction, read the text of Scripture: Matt. 24:32, 33, "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: *So likewise ye,* when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." There is no LIKEWISE if verse 32 does not present a true state of affairs. And even if the state of verse 32 was merely fictional or imaginative, the objective lesson of verse 33 plainly teaches that SEEING what Christ had foretold is a precondition to KNOWING.

Concerning Matt. 16:24, the Lord Jesus explicitly says, "YE CAN DISCERN." No amount of sophistication can wrest His words to suit your epistemic nonsense.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm going to allow closing comments and then close this thread as it is not going anywhere.

Those who read my previous comments know that I'm sympathetic to Rev. Winzer's views here as I believe they are not only in harmony with Scripture but with our Reformed Confession that accurately summarize the teachings of the Scriptures.

I also believe this thread has been helpful in illuminating the Scripturalist presuppositions. Those who are persuaded of them will not be easily persuaded from them. I understand they believe they have Scriptural warrant. I obviously disagree. As I stated earlier, there is far too much loose material that has to be cut away. Summarizing Rev. Winzer's thoughts as merely empiricism is certainly an example to many that things are either ideally rational or they are completely empirical. Either all is deduced rationally or nothing is. It's an all or nothing game here. I've actually pointed many to this thread so they can see an example of where the epistemic presuppositions lead - denial of the obvious for the sake of the system.

My post will obviously invoke the ire of some of the Scripturalists here. I'm an unsophisticated hack after all. I know what the reaction will be. I've been told by you, Anthony, that you're proud of being predictable. In fact, you and Sean are both very predictable. You're actually more predictable in your reactions to things than those I've known for a long time. As a person who has to manage many personality types, I would actually find you two most manageable. I don't mean this in a pejorative way but it is ironic that those who place the least amount of stock in empirical observation are themselves most predictable as empirical subjects.

I will finally end with a few summarizing points for onlookers:

1. Notice the conflation of all language here: a thing is only known if it is rationally deduced from Scripture. Everything else is an opinion. An example of some things that are all opinions:

Sweet Potato Ice Cream tastes good.
Sushi is delicious.
Abraham Lincoln was a good President.
My wife's name is Sonya.
Ingestion of 1 gram of Plutonium will kill you.
When my car runs out of gas, the engine will stop.

Who, when they run out of gas, has merely an "opinion" that they need to go to the gas station? This is what idealism leads to.

{Uh oh! I'm an empericist now. I wear the Scarlet E.}

2. Westminster Divines are drug through the mud and said to be influenced too much by Aristotle and Aquinas. Of course, where they might be quoted in part to support a presupposition they are just fine. 

The poor WCF Divines: they're both maligned and extolled when they either don't fit a system or are said to support it. They're even assumed to be rational earlier in the same thread so I'm having trouble figuring out when they were Aquinian and when they were Clarkian. Reminds me of some in the FV who play both sides of the fence and claim to be Confessional.

3. I encourage all to read about the difference between _solo_-Scriptura and _sola_-Scriptura to determine whether the apologists here are consistent with the Reformed expression of the latter.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> .. I know what the reaction will be. I've been told by you, Anthony, that you're proud of being predictable. .



I'm curious now what your prediction of my response will be. Go ahead and write my closing remarks and I'll add or correct them. If you understand my position, and you fairly represent it, I will be very pleased and have nothing further to add.

And please, don't say "I knew you were going to say that".


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> I'm curious now what your prediction of my response will be. Go ahead and write my closing remarks and I'll add or correct them. If you understand my position, and you fairly represent it, I will be very pleased and have nothing further to add.



OK, if I had to guess, I would say you would write this:

As I was reading your closing comments, Rich, I was cut to the heart! I am now fully persuaded to turn from my errant Scripturalist ways!

You may now edit my prediction and provide your closing comments.


----------



## Civbert

*Closing Remarks*

I think some of the problem I've found in arguing about epistemology comes down to people not really talking about the same thing. Maybe this comes from ignorance, or simply because people are working off of different presuppositions. As a Presuppositionalist, I tend to think this is more the case. 

When I am speaking about epistemology, I have a very specific definition of knowledge in mind. I am not using the term to mean "things we are certain about", but things which we have a epistemic justification for believing true. An epistemology is a theory of knowledge. When we start thinking in-depth about our worldview - our philosophy - we need to answer questions like "how do I know" and "what is knowledge" and "why". These question can not be dismissed with pat answers like "seeing is believing" or I just know. Now you can live your whole life as a functional human being without addressing those questions, but you are still function under assumptions that answer them by implication. 

So when we speak of epistemology - it is not asking simply what we a sure about, but what is true and believed and justified. Simple certainty applies to "if my car runs out of gas, the engine will stop". What is debatable, is if knowledge applies here. Can we know the future? Can we conclude that all crows are black because we have observed 10,000 black crows - or a lifetime of crows. Can one induce universal truths from particular occurrences. Plato tried to answer this over a thousands of years ago. 

Another question is if knowledge is personal or impersonal. What I mean is this, can one person know A, and another person know not-A. This is personal knowledge. But if knowledge is truth, then can someone know something that is in-fact, false. One the other hand, if we say that knowledge is universal truths, it becomes much harder to justify knowing it. If we say the knowledge is just what one is reasonable certain about (like when I cross this bridge, it will not collapse), then knowledge is no longer universal. People can "know" contradictory things.

Also, if knowledge is truth, what is true. Not only do we need to understand what truth means - beyond a metaphor - but we need to say how we know a truth from an falsehood. Is the color blue true or false? Can we "know" the color blue? How do we justify this knowledge?

There are many difficult questions to answer if one is to have a cogent and rational epistemology. But we can always reject "rational" as being "rationalism" or idealistic. I suppose one could argue that knowledge is more than what we can think cogently about. We can do as some and embrace mysticism. But this rejection of rational knowledge is self defeating. If we can not speak of knowledge in terms of cogent ideas, then we can not give a logical defense truth. It's a mystery. And speaking of logic, who says the laws of logic are universal? In the eastern philosophies, they don't believe reality is so "black and white". To them, truth is a matter of grays. 

Definitions are often the heart of disagreements. People like to think their definitions are true and other's are false. The problem with this is definitions are tautologies (if you assume logic), and it is more important to be consistent with your definitions, then have the "right" definitions. I define knowledge as "justified true belief" and justification as being deduced from a-priori truths (or justified by immediate enlightenment from God). But others will argue that I am literally wrong. The problem is that being wrong or right does not apply. There is not single definition of "knowledge" or "car" or "optimism". The issue is not a matter of right or wrong but of good or bad. A bad definition will not get the job done. Maybe it's self defeating or too vague. Maybe it contradicts how you use other terms. The point is to be specific and be consistent. And understand how other people are using terms. Ask them to define their terms, and be ready to define your's. Only then you can defend them as good and useful and coherent. 

Do our terms have to conform to Scripture? Yes and no. Of course, when we are reading Scripture, we need to understand the terms as they are meant. Only then can you reason correctly. But when we are speaking _about_ Scripture, or about philosophy, we want terms that we understand and are clear. We don't need to restrict ourselves to using _only _the words found in the Bible or even exactly as they are used in the Bible. Scripture doesn't use terms univocally throughout the text. And we can invent knew terms that help us explain our thoughts. Read any theologian to see examples. You won't find "archetypal" or "etypal" in the bible. These terms were invented to help explain some ideas about the relationship between God and man. These are certainly extra-biblical in that the ideas are not explicit in Scripture. So to is the idea of the Trinity. What matters is being clear, and avoiding equivocating.

Scripturalism is an answer to the questions of philosophy. It is not an answer to how we "know if our car is going to need gas tomorrow". That is a different beast all together. It answers the question of epistemic justification. So by definition, there are some things it will justify as knowledge, and other's will not. Other epistemology's will, by definition, produce a different knowledge set. By empiricism, one can know that a tree is brown, and man evolved from apes. It will say we can truly "know" how far it is to the moon, and how old the universe is. It can tell us what we had for dinner, and that there is no God. These are all equally valid bits of empirical knowledge. On the other hand Scripturalism can not justify what we had for dinner, but it will justify that God created the world, and Jesus died for the sins of the elect, and even that 2 + 2 = 4. It will tell you how best to love your neighbor - but not which color looks best on you. It doesn't justify knowing that George Bush is president, but it will justify David was the king of Israel. 

The point is, that different epistemologies will justify different answers to what we can know. But we can not prove epistemologies based on the knowledge they justify. Effectively, it matters little that Scripturalism won't justify knowing where the best price of tomato soup will be found, it also doesn't justify that walking on water is impossible. I know Jesus walked on water, and, although this is based on epistemic _opinion_, I'll still go to Safeway for tomato soup. 

I'd love to edit this down and clean it up, but for now, I'll spell check it and wait for other opportunities to discuss these issues. Hopefully, people can keep things a little less personal and more rational. Me, I have a great deal of respect for things that are rational. Rationalism I can't abide. 

And please read those articles on Wikipedia about epistemology and empiricism and rationalism. That will help you with the background information you need to keep things philosophical.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Scripturalism is an answer to the questions of philosophy.



Hence from the outset it fails to truly represent the Scripture of truth, because Scripture is an answer to the questions of sin and salvation -- relational issues, not rational ones. The problem with idealist philosophy in general is its insistence that man must become like God, whereas the Bible teaches salvation is a reality because God became man. God does not require man to become something that he is not, or deny what man essentially is. By becoming man our Lord Jesus Christ declared there was something true and valuable about the human state which should remain unchanged. Hence throughout the Scriptures man is addressed in his own thoughts without calling into question his natural ability to know. His problem is moral, not rational. Idealism seeks to make men what they are not, whereas the Bible teaches the true integrity of humanity to consist in a dependence on what they can never be. Idealist scripturalism takes it place with all of the other man made systems which claim to know the way to truth, whereas holy Scripture is a Sovereign revelation of God to man which is the truth and not merely a means to it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Great closing comments.


----------

