# What marks of Scripturalism show it to be something you will not put your trust in?



## JohnV

If I'm not mistaken, this thread is starting to break up. It's getting into the area of "You said this", "No, I didn't". Before this thread gets closed I'd like to ask everyone a question or two. 

It's curious that this thread is about how we know. I'm sure of a few things, and I'm not sure of them in the way Scripturalism describes how I know these things, it seems to me. Nor do I find that our Church fathers knew the doctrines in that way. It seems that 1 John 1 keeps coming to mind, about knowing and being verified witnesses because "we saw", "we touched", "we lived with", and "our fellowship is with God". 

However, this intro is just a way to introduce my question. I want to ask a "how do you know?" question, but one a bit different. It is clear enough to me that Scripturalism's object of faith is the propositional Word, not God Himself as three persons of the Trinity; we are not led to God through the Word, but we are led to the Propositional Truth through the pages of the Bible by Scripturalism. So here's the question to all of you:

What marks of Scripturalism show it to be something you will not put your trust in? I stated one of the marks that I noticed, but there are quite a few more. What are the ones that impressed themselves upon you?

At the same time, as Sean has stated what he thinks the common objection to Scripturalism seems to be to him, as he understands it, what mark stands out in the objections that make them appear wrong to Scripturalists?


----------



## JohnV

Don't address your responses as if to each other. Address them to me as if I'm a neutral observer.


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> ... It is clear enough to me that Scripturalism's object of faith is the propositional Word, not God Himself as three persons of the Trinity; we are not led to God through the Word, but we are led to the Propositional Truth through the pages of the Bible by Scripturalism.
> 
> ... what mark stands out in the objections that make them appear wrong to Scripturalists?



Clearly we are working from a different set of presuppositions - this is why your objection seem "clear enough" to you but strange to me. I'm working from the presumption that we come to know God through His self-revelation in Scripture when we believe those truths He has spoken to us. Now it's hard for me to see how one could reject this position. Why do you suppose that coming to know God's Word would would mean anything less than knowing God? What other way can you know God?

Let me add that to know _of_ propositions is not the same as knowing those propositions. You can know of a proposition and not believe it is true. To actually _know _a proposition it must be true, and you must understand it, and you must believe it. When I say knowing God's Word, I mean understanding and believing the truths God has revealed. That is knowing God.

But for those who object to this - what do they offer as an alternative? Experiencing God? What does that mean? If one can not express a truth, can they really call it knowledge? How do they know? It's a "apparent contradiction" to claim knowledge that is unintelligible.


----------



## JohnV

Thank you, Anthony. That's a pretty clear summary. That's what I was asking for. I won't respond or critique, but let it stand as it is.

I would ask others not to interact with Anthony's answer here, but just to try to answer the question. 

And if you have a better idea as to how to get through the impasse, I'm game for that too.


----------



## Davidius

JohnV said:


> It seems that 1 John 1 keeps coming to mind, about knowing and being verified witnesses because "we saw", "we touched", "we lived with", and "our fellowship is with God".



I'd be interested in seeing a Scripturalist understanding of this.


----------



## MW

JohnV said:


> What marks of Scripturalism show it to be something you will not put your trust in?



Unattainable idealism. It is like going to the car in order to drive it to an appointment and discovering you have locked your keys inside it.


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'd be interested in seeing a Scripturalist understanding of this.


[bible]1 John 1:1-3[/bible]
I don't see anything that tells me that knowledge is attainable through the senses. I can tell people what I saw, heard, felt, witnessed and not be making any epistemic claims. And note carefully that those things they saw and heard were being "proclaimed". So whatever is going on, we can say certainly if it were not "proclaimed" in God's Word, we would not "know" it. 

So there are no necessary experiences required for the reader to know what is being conveyed. What is required is belief in the testimony of Scripture.


----------



## JohnV

Thank you, Matthew. Having read the interaction between you and Sean and Anthony, I can see what you mean. I don't know if the analogy is all that clear to others, but I see it. 

If I may, I want to try to put it into my own words, words to see if I do indeed have it. Sean and Anthony are reverting the terms and arguments that you would use back to you. There's not that much in the arguments themselves, the ones that are returned to you, but they keep playing you between the terms and their definitions: if you address the one, they revert to the other; if you address the other, they revert to the first. Another analogy might be one-way ping pong: returning the volley is not part of the game, but just getting in a good first volley. You only return what you want to receive. And that's how you perceive Sean's and Anthony's responses to your arguments. 

If I may anticipate a bit, this is close to what I am expecting from Rich. For him the words that Scripturalists use don't have any substance in them, if I understand Rich correctly. They say a lot, but don't really say anything. It turns out to be just semantic play, syllogistically parlayed back and forth, but nothing behind the words and definitions. 

This is close to the same criticism, I believe. 

Do I have it right? Or even close?


----------



## MW

What errors are new with Scripturalism today? We now have a denial that the apostles knew they were seeing Jesus. So in the course of a thread we have (1.) the Bible is not the Word of God; (2.) the Bible errs in its descriptions of the sensory world -- weights, measurements, etc.; and (3.) the apostolic testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ was not based on what they "knew." And all this is happily tolerated on a "Puritan" board! Enough is enough.


----------



## MW

JohnV said:


> Do I have it right? Or even close?



Right on target. The clearest example is seen in the way they deny the Scriptural testimony to the trustworthiness of the senses on the basis of an anaysis of the word to know which is not in Scripture. Hence they use their experience of the way the word "to know" is used in every day life in order to derive distinctions in the way the word is used in Scripture so that they can deny that we can gain knowledge by experience.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> ... And all this is happily tolerated on a "Puritan" board! Enough is enough.


 Indeed.


----------



## JohnV

Now, now, Anthony. I asked others not to respond to your observation. I would ask of you the same courtesy to others.


----------



## JohnV

armourbearer said:


> Right on target. The clearest example is seen in the way they deny the Scriptural testimony to the trustworthiness of the senses on the basis of an anaysis of the word to know which is not in Scripture. Hence they use their experience of the way the word "to know" is used in every day life in order to derive distinctions in the way the word is used in Scripture so that they can deny that we can gain knowledge by experience.



That's plenty clear enough, I would think. Thanks.


----------



## MW

JohnV said:


> Now, now, Anthony. I asked others not to respond to your observation. I would ask of you the same courtesy to others.



At that point he is responding to my reflection on his comment that the apostle's did not "know" they were seeing Jesus.


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> Now, now, Anthony. I asked others not to respond to your observation. I would ask of you the same courtesy to others.


 Sorry. Mea culpa.


----------



## JohnV

armourbearer said:


> At that point he is responding to my reflection on his comment that the apostle's did not "know" they were seeing Jesus.



OK. I didn't want to cut off all discussion. There's still a thread going on. I understand. Fair is fair. I just didn't want to see this going in the same direction that other threads involving Scripturalists have gone. I was trying to cut it off at the pass, so to speak, before it came to that point.


----------



## JohnV

My intention is to attempt to get around the fact that we were working from different starting points, and so talking past each other. I wanted to get us all on the same page. 

For myself, either what Sean and Anthony are saying is too deep for me to understand, or it's just too much for the simpleton. There's no inbetween because we're not connecting on the same level. The problem is two-fold then: which is it? and, how do I communicate that? That was my intention. And it goes both ways; both sides can do the same thing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnV said:


> Thank you, Matthew. Having read the interaction between you and Sean and Anthony, I can see what you mean. I don't know if the analogy is all that clear to others, but I see it.
> 
> If I may, I want to try to put it into my own words, words to see if I do indeed have it. Sean and Anthony are reverting the terms and arguments that you would use back to you. There's not that much in the arguments themselves, the ones that are returned to you, but they keep playing you between the terms and their definitions: if you address the one, they revert to the other; if you address the other, they revert to the first. Another analogy might be one-way ping pong: returning the volley is not part of the game, but just getting in a good first volley. You only return what you want to receive. And that's how you perceive Sean's and Anthony's responses to your arguments.
> 
> If I may anticipate a bit, this is close to what I am expecting from Rich. For him the words that Scripturalists use don't have any substance in them, if I understand Rich correctly. They say a lot, but don't really say anything. It turns out to be just semantic play, syllogistically parlayed back and forth, but nothing behind the words and definitions.
> 
> This is close to the same criticism, I believe.
> 
> Do I have it right? Or even close?



I think that's a good summary John.

I really don't have any status in these discussions with some because "...I just go by my gut..." and cannot critique a thing according to appropriate epistemological categories. It's not enough for me to say _that_ I can reason and _that_ I can learn things from my senses because I have been created by God to be able to do so and that He holds me accountable for them. Nay, I must be able to explain _how_ God has enabled me to do this and I must do it in a way that is explicable in philosophical categories. The only people qualified to talk about knowing God are the philsophically sophisticated.

Nevertheless, for those who care, I offer the following observations:

1. I find Scripturalism to be detached and cold at times. If a thing cannot be explained in rational terms it cannot be known. To claim otherwise is to be accused of believing in the Force.

2. I find it's assignment of letters, words, and syntax to be arbitrary markers to be un-Confessional:


> VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;17 so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.18 But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,19 therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,20 that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;21 and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.22



3. I believe it primarily advocates a position of *solo*-Scriptura (as opposed to *sola*-Scriptura) given a number of threads where confessionalism is deprecated in favor of Clarkian views of the Scriptures.

4. Perhaps most ironic of all, I'm starting to detect a bit of mysticism from those I would have expected it least of all. My thread about the letter A was very revealing to me. I related to another brother how puzzled I was over the way Sean and Anthony were talking about the way they gain knowledge and that the Words of Scripture themselves didn't necessarily convey it. I'm still not sure how awareness leads to knowledge but I now better understand why someone like Cheung would be consistent with a Clarkian notion because it's not reading or physical things that teach us but immediate illumination apart from the need of a medium. This is what I mean by mystical - that a person could just as well become aware of all these Scriptural truths by meditating on a mountain. I wonder what the point of studying philosophy to get one's categories straight when this knowledge is all made immediately aware to us by God anyhow.

All that said, I will grant that I could be unintentionally mis-characterizing some aspects of Clarkianism. I can honestly say that I've tried to understand it and will continue to do so. 

To Sean and Anthony: I know some of these characterizations might cause you to react sharply to me. They are not aimed at you, they are my observations of why I don't like the system and, if it's based on my ignorance, then I'm learning but those are my observations thus far.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> What errors are new with Scripturalism today? We now have a denial that the apostles knew they were seeing Jesus. So in the course of a thread we have (1.) the Bible is not the Word of God; (2.) the Bible errs in its descriptions of the sensory world -- weights, measurements, etc.; and (3.) the apostolic testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ was not based on what they "knew." And all this is happily tolerated on a "Puritan" board! Enough is enough.



Is this an example of self-righteous indignation? A display of emotive frustration? Or could it be perhaps that the Lord has convicted you and you're now chaffing under His correction? I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been there, done that . . . and more than once I might add.  

For the record, it is you who denies the biblical account and Jesus’ words per Mat 16:17. No Apostle came to recognize Jesus as the Christ via sensation. Your have neither accounted for your empiricism from Scripture nor have you deduce it from Scripture. It is clear, at least to me, that it is you who has merely imposed your sensual philosophy upon Scripture. 

Further, even *recognizing* Jesus AS Jesus is the immediate work of God and not the result of the bogus epistemic Pelagianism you subscribe to. We have the account given of the disciples following the resurrection walking with Jesus on the road to Emmaus whose “eyes were prevented from recognizing Him (Luke 24:16).” What prevented them Rev. Winzer? Were their senses malfunctioning? Did they need glasses? 

Yet, despite talking with Jesus and traveling with him for some distance – and even eating with Him – it was only at the very moment right before Jesus left do we read; “And their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.” Who opened their eyes Rev. Winzer? Did they both just happen to find their glasses at that precise moment and, voilà, there was Jesus? I’m sorry, but your sensate epistemology has been demolished once again under the sheer weight of Scripture. 

As I said earlier, could it be it be that the basic premises of Scripturalism exposes unbelief and in this case even your own? That would certainly explain your reaction above.

Further, I’m a little surprise that you would now stoop to lying. No one has said the Scripture “errs in its descriptions of the sensory world.” No one has said the Scriptures err at all. Is this just another flailing reaction of yours out of your own frustration, desperation and emotion? Besides, the Scripture nowhere asserts that there is a “sensory world” or even that men have sensations. It's my view that this is just your bald assumption not born of Scripture, but of your evident Thomism. For what it's worth you can't even find the word "sensation" anywhere in Scripture and you certainly haven't been able to deduce anything close to it either. 

I’m glad you said “enough is enough” because you haven’t provided even one sound argument, even any real challenge, in defense of your views.

God willing my tone per the above is acceptable for these boards, because I certainly think it is fitting in response given the vitriolic nature of your attack. It is clear to me that you are incapable of a dispassionate and rational discussion especially when it challenges your own errant philosophic and anti-Scriptural presuppositions.

Perhaps you should cool off for a while before jumping in again?


----------



## Davidius

Magma2 said:


> For the record, it is you who denies the biblical account and Jesus’ words per Mat 16:17. No Apostle came to recognize Jesus as the Christ via sensation. Your have neither accounted for your empiricism from Scripture nor have you deduce it from Scripture. It is clear, at least to me, that it is you who has merely imposed your sensual philosophy upon Scripture.
> 
> Further, even *recognizing* Jesus AS Jesus is the immediate work of God and not the result of the bogus epistemic Pelagianism you subscribe to. We have the account given of the disciples following the resurrection walking with Jesus on the road to Emmaus whose “eyes were prevented from recognizing Him (Luke 24:16).” What prevented them Rev. Winzer? Were their senses malfunctioning? Did they need glasses?
> 
> Yet, despite talking with Jesus and traveling with him for some distance – and even eating with Him – it was only at the very moment right before Jesus left do we read; “And their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.” Who opened their eyes Rev. Winzer? Did they both just happen to find their glasses at that precise moment and, voilà, there was Jesus? I’m sorry, but your sensate epistemology has been demolished once again under the sheer weight of Scripture.
> 
> As I said earlier, could it be it be that the basic premises of Scripturalism exposes unbelief and in this case even your own? That would certainly explain your reaction above.



Perhaps another relevant passage would be Peter when he was asked "Who do _you_ say that I am?" Upon giving the correct answer, Christ said that it had not been revealed to him by flesh and blood, but by the Father.

I'm confused about Scripturalism and Romans 1, though, and other places where the creation is said to be telling of God.


----------



## Magma2

JohnV said:


> My intention is to attempt to get around the fact that we were working from different starting points, and so talking past each other. I wanted to get us all on the same page.
> 
> For myself, either what Sean and Anthony are saying is too deep for me to understand, or it's just too much for the simpleton. There's no inbetween because we're not connecting on the same level. The problem is two-fold then: which is it? and, how do I communicate that? That was my intention. And it goes both ways; both sides can do the same thing.



I don't think you're a simpleton, nor do I think what has been said is "too deep." Perhaps the problem is it is so contrary to your own basic and even reflexive assumptions? The other problem is that perhaps I haven't explain things as well or as thoroughly as I should, but I don't think these boards are really conducive for anything more than thumbnail sketches and rejoinders. 

I will recommend to you the same thing I recommended to Rich and that is read Clark and start with the volume on Christian philosophy (http://www.trinitylectures.org/prod...d=146&osCsid=3a0c88975b2e0e7b1180316c2f729a22 ). 

Clark is brilliant in exposing even our most strongly held and hidden sacred cows by bringing them to light of Scripture.


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> ...At the same time, as Sean has stated what he thinks the common objection to Scripturalism seems to be to him, as he understands it, what mark stands out in the objections that make them appear wrong to Scripturalists?


In order to answer, I need to respond to the objections posted. I'm not sure how to this and avoid replying to those who are posting the objections.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

What is this thread about John because I need to moderate it if it's a dialogue for non-Clarkians to expound why they don't like Scripturalism then we need to keep it that way.

I believe this might be useful for Clarkians to have to "look in" without responding so they can figure out how they need to articulate better (if some of the objections can be overcome by better instruction). The tit-for-tat only leads to arguments.

I may not agree with my students but I do read feedback forms and take heed to the criticism I get in ways I can improve my communication of ideas.


----------



## JohnV

OK, that's pretty clear, Rich. You seem to me to be saying that Scripturalism is strictly propositional, consisting of its parts of terms, syntax, and definitions, and nothing else. And its connection with reality is mystical, making the jump to "I know" through no discernible medium. In other words, it can talk about knowing quite well, but cannot itself know, and denies any thought of such knowledge. Is that right?


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> To Sean and Anthony: I know some of these characterizations might cause you to react sharply to me. They are not aimed at you, they are my observations of why I don't like the system and, if it's based on my ignorance, then I'm learning but those are my observations thus far.



I appreciate your thoughts and honesty. This isn't a popularity contest after all, the truth never is. If my delivery of some of the ideas I've expressed are the reasons for your gut reactions, then I take full responsibility. I'm nowhere as erudite and as eloquent as Clark who was a scholar of unusual genius. I guess you can just say I'm just a hack and I don't think even Rev. Winzer would disagree.


----------



## JohnV

Well, thanks for your input, Sean, but you haven't answered the question. I'm not asking for reactions to each other's observations about the other just yet. I'm asking for observations about the positions that have been conveyed. Let's leave the persons out of this for now.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnV said:


> OK, that's pretty clear, Rich. You seem to me to be saying that Scripturalism is strictly propositional, consisting of its parts of terms, syntax, and definitions, and nothing else. And its connection with reality is mystical, making the jump to "I know" through no discernible medium. In other words, it can talk about knowing quite well, but cannot itself know, and denies any thought of such knowledge. Is that right?



I think so John.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Is this an example of self-righteous indignation? A display of emotive frustration? Or could it be perhaps that the Lord has convicted you and you're now chaffing under His correction? I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been there, done that . . . and more than once I might add.



Correction? No, I'm not going to change my reformed confessionalism for idealistic individualism which twists and turns every which way to justify itself, all the while undermining basic Christian beliefs.



Magma2 said:


> For the record, it is you who denies the biblical account and Jesus’ words per Mat 16:17. No Apostle came to recognize Jesus as the Christ via sensation. Your have neither accounted for your empiricism from Scripture nor have you deduce it from Scripture. It is clear, at least to me, that it is you who has merely imposed your sensual philosophy upon Scripture.



More Scripturalist conflations. The issue is not the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; but that the apostles knew they saw Jesus alive. Civbert's denial of this point undermines the basis Christian tenet that Christ "showed" himself alve by many infallible proofs, Acts 1:3. 
The same conflation is carried on for the next two paragraphs.



Magma2 said:


> As I said earlier, could it be it be that the basic premises of Scripturalism exposes unbelief and in this case even your own? That would certainly explain your reaction above.



Yes, I confess, it exposes my unbelief in theological liberalism. It has hit a raw nerve, I can't bear to see people deny the fundamentals of the faith. I do not exercise a false charity towards men who claim to represent the faith but do not.



Magma2 said:


> Further, I’m a little surprise that you would now stoop to lying. No one has said the Scripture “errs in its descriptions of the sensory world.” No one has said the Scriptures err at all. Is this just another flailing reaction of yours out of your own frustration, desperation and emotion? Besides, the Scripture nowhere asserts that there is a “sensory world” or even that men have sensations. It's my view that this is just your bald assumption not born of Scripture, but of your evident Thomism. For what it's worth you can't even find the word "sensation" anywhere in Scripture and you certainly haven't been able to deduce anything close to it either.



The facts speak for themselves, as testified by Civbert over the course of this oft-splintered thread.

No, I can't find the word "sensation" in Scripture, but then I can't find the word "proposition" either. That neither word is to be found in Scripture poses no problem to the realist view, but is an insurmountable wall for the idealist.



Magma2 said:


> I’m glad you said “enough is enough” because you haven’t provided even one sound argument, even any real challenge, in defense of your views.



Coming from a person who is of the opinion that I cannot know that he exists, this does not present much of a challenge.



Magma2 said:


> God willing my tone per the above is acceptable for these boards, because I certainly think it is fitting in response given the vitriolic nature of your attack. It is clear to me that you are incapable of a dispassionate and rational discussion especially when it challenges your own errant philosophic and anti-Scriptural presuppositions.



False teachers always call for discussion when their views are exposed as error. They would have the Christian church to bear with them as they try to explain themselves.


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> Now, now, Anthony. I asked others not to respond to your observation. I would ask of you the same courtesy to others.


 Others are responding to _our_ observations which is why I find this confusing. I thought you asked Scripturalist to answer what we find wrong with the objections to Scripturalism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Sean and Rev. Winzer,

You have responded to one another. The reasons are clear to both sides at this point.

Let's keep the thread on track.


----------



## Magma2

JohnV said:


> Well, thanks for your input, Sean, but you haven't answered the question. I'm not asking for reactions to each other's observations about the other just yet. I'm asking for observations about the positions that have been conveyed. Let's leave the persons out of this for now.



Well, I can't help sort out your confusion if you don't state what it is exactly. I can only assume I'm not even sure what you're asking because so far what I've read seems to me very vague. OTOH I think I've been extremely clear and I think my opponents position is without biblical warrant and is also easy to understand. They assume because they have eyes, ears and noses and that the Lord God is Creator that eyes, ears and noses are a means to knowledge. Unfortunately for them, this doesn't follow. 

As I said early on to Rev. Winzer if knowledge required experience then God could not know anything at all.


----------



## JohnV

SemperFideles said:


> What is this thread about John because I need to moderate it if it's a dialogue for non-Clarkians to expound why they don't like Scripturalism then we need to keep it that way.
> 
> I believe this might be useful for Clarkians to have to "look in" without responding so they can figure out how they need to articulate better (if some of the objections can be overcome by better instruction). The tit-for-tat only leads to arguments.
> 
> I may not agree with my students but I do read feedback forms and take heed to the criticism I get in ways I can improve my communication of ideas.



No, Rich, this is for Clarkians too. It is also for them to observe what it is about the anti Scripturalism view that they cannot understand or see, and why they cannot put their trust in the types of arguments that are presented as counters. 

But I don't just want us to talk about our observations of the other sides arguments or tactics. I'm hoping that we can circumvent all these by stating them, and then discuss the arguments in a way that actually interacts with what others are saying. I still want an answer to my question about Jesus and His love, because I think Anthony went right around it, only sounding like he answered it. I have no doubt that he thinks he answered it, but I don't think he is open to what I really asked. I don't think he understands what I asked. So if we talk about the things that obviate the other side for us, then maybe we can cut through all the bluster, and get to the heart of the matter. And maybe we can finally get some real answers. 

I'm thinking this from my side. But what if maybe, just maybe, Anthony and Sean are right, and I missed what they said? I'm open for that too. So, let's give them a chance as well. 

The common objections so far is disconnectedness with the religious heart of the faith. In the area of knowledge, Scripturalism has all the bases covered, but it is only a semantic covering, and does not speak to the spirit of the man. This seems to summarize the observations against Scripturalism so far. 

I would still like to see some more Scripturalist responses before I can summarize its observations.


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> Sean and Rev. Winzer,
> 
> You have responded to one another. The reasons are clear to both sides at this point.
> 
> Let's keep the thread on track.



Perhaps you should get out your little gavel again since I see now Rev. Winzer is now accusing Clark of being a false teacher. I'm happy to keep things on track, but I think such arrogant and uncalled for slander should be at least noted.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnV said:


> No, Rich, this is for Clarkians too.



Roger, at least you weren't the only one confused Anthony. Have at it...


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Perhaps you should get out your little gavel again since I see now Rev. Winzer is now accusing Clark of being a false teacher. I'm happy to keep things on track, but I think such arrogant and uncalled for slander should be at least noted.



I've not mentioned Clark once. More conflation by the Scripturalist. I have restricted myself to statements made by Civbert. Magma2 ought to stick to the facts as they can be known, and not state mere opinions.


----------



## JohnV

Magma2 said:


> Well, I can't help sort out your confusion if you don't state what it is exactly. I can only assume I'm not even sure what you're asking because so far what I've read seems to me very vague. OTOH I think I've been extremely clear and I think my opponents position is without biblical warrant and is also easy to understand. They assume because they have eyes, ears and noses and that the Lord God is Creator that eyes, ears and noses are a means to knowledge. Unfortunately for them, this doesn't follow.
> 
> As I said early on to Rev. Winzer if knowledge required experience then God could not know anything at all.



So you objection is that the ant Scripturalists just aren't listening, as plain as you have made the case. According to your last sentence, they rely on their ears and eyes and noses, because God has created them to corelate to reality, and then they deny the connection is logical.


----------



## JohnV

I've got to sign out for a few hours. It's now early evening. I'll be back in the morning.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> As I said early on to Rev. Winzer if knowledge required experience then God could not know anything at all.



Read John 17 for the Trinitarian experience.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> Perhaps you should get out your little gavel again since I see now Rev. Winzer is now accusing Clark of being a false teacher. I'm happy to keep things on track, but I think such arrogant and uncalled for slander should be at least noted.



Sean,

My remarks were intended to be moderating because the dialogue between you two was clear about where you two stood and longer elaborations on them are unnecessary. You accused a minister of sinning, he accused you of holding to false teachings. The dialogue does not need further elaboration at this point and I ask both parties to cease.  (there it is)


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> .... I still want an answer to my question about Jesus and His love, because I think Anthony went right around it, only sounding like he answered it. I have no doubt that he thinks he answered it, but I don't think he is open to what I really asked. I don't think he understands what I asked. So if we talk about the things that obviate the other side for us, then maybe we can cut through all the bluster, and get to the heart of the matter. And maybe we can finally get some real answers..



I'm a little confused - again. What was the question? I'd like to avoid going around the questions, but I'm afraid I missed the question entirely. I'm really not trying to be obtuse. I'm lost on this. There was such a sudden exchange of posts that I'm not certain what you are referring to, and I've apparently left a negative impression on you.


----------



## JohnV

Magma2 said:


> I'm not even sure what you're asking because so far what I've read seems to me very vague. OTOH *I think I've been extremely clear and I think my opponents position is without biblical warrant and is also easy to understand.*(emphasis mine, jv)
> 
> As I said early on to Rev. Winzer if knowledge required experience then God could not know anything at all.



It is the bolded part that this thread is about, Sean. There is a gap here between the speaker and the hearer, between the one who explains it and the one who tries to understand it. It won't do to accuse each other of being deaf to the explanations. It is not that we don't hear, it's that we cannot agree. It isn't even just that we will not agree; there are things that are in you explanations that make it forbidden for us to agree. At least, that's what's making me differ. I won't sell a diamond to get a stone, and that's what is being offered me, simply because, as I understand you, you don't see the value in the diamond. 

Since it is possible, therefore, that you might say the same thing to me, I want to see if there are objective indicators available to both our views that would force a point of connection, a falsifier that both sides cannot help but abide by. Who has the diamond? And is there as test for that diamond to see who has it? I think there is. And that's the aim here. 

OK, 'nuff splainin'. I'm hoping, Sean, that you will participate. If not, I can try to analyze your position about what you trust or do not trust, and you can tell us if you agree. 

But for now I've got other things that need doing. I'll be back this afternoon sometime for a little while.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

John V,

What offends me re “Scripturalism” is the unwillingness to accept that the word of God is more than propositions. It is also a gateway through which we may apprehend His presence. “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The heart of God is revealed in His word, to a greater or lesser extent, according as the Spirit wills. 

I live in the word of Christ. Thus in Him, I fellowship with the living God, my Father.

This appears to me alien – “mystical” – to the “Scripturalists”.

Steve


----------



## JohnV

Steve:

I think that's very clearly stated. Thanks. 

A number of us share this same concern, I think. Though we might state it differently ourselves, it comes out pretty much the same.


----------



## Civbert

JohnV:

I think you missed my question.


----------



## Magma2

JohnV said:


> So you objection is that the ant Scripturalists just aren't listening, as plain as you have made the case.



Yes, I think some are just not listening. It is akin to the situation in Zec 7:11; "But they refused to pay attention, and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing." Others are listening so it's not a total loss. I'm happy with small blessings. 

Look back over the posts on the other threads dealing with the question of epistemology (since they keep getting subdivided I can't point to just one). I'm frankly amazed at how little actual interaction there has been from my opponents with the Scriptural evidence and arguments adduced in support of the idea that experience or sensation is not a requirement for knowledge nor is it necessary. 

Instead of interaction they merely counter with things like fallacious and Pharisaic weather forecasting methods as so-called "proof" that knowledge comes by observation. When you point out that Jesus was arguing in an ad hominem fashion, they don't counter with support for their questionable exegesis and supposition that weathermen are in the knowledge business, they just shut their ears, mumble some bromides about Reformed Tradition, and move on. 



> According to your last sentence, they rely on their ears and eyes and noses, because God has created them to corelate to reality, and then they deny the connection is logical.



Implied in that last sentence was that there is no logical connection between being created by God and coming to the knowledge of the truth of anything through our eyes, ears and noses.


----------



## Magma2

Jerusalem Blade said:


> What offends me re “Scripturalism” is the unwillingness to accept that the word of God is more than propositions.



I'll suppose I should take this as just another comment stemming from ignorance. Scripturalists never say that the Word of God consists only of propositions. The Scriptures also contain commands. 



> I live in the word of Christ. Thus in Him, I fellowship with the living God, my Father.
> 
> This appears to me alien – “mystical” – to the “Scripturalists”.



Perhaps the reason it appears mystical to some of us is due to your mystical and irrational spin on things. I would think to live in the word of Christ might mean something along the lines of Van Til's idea of thinking God's thoughts after Him. But clearly you don't mean anything like that at all. Consequently, your assertions do seem alien to Scripture and Scripturalism has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Magma2

JohnV said:


> It won't do to accuse each other of being deaf to the explanations. It is not that we don't hear, it's that we cannot agree. It isn't even just that we will not agree; there are things that are in you explanations that make it forbidden for us to agree.



What things make it *forbidden* for you to agree? Forbidden by whom? Certainly not the Scriptures. If the Scriptures teach that flesh and blood are not a means by which we come to knowledge of the truth, then I would think we would be obliged to believe them.



> At least, that's what's making me differ. I won't sell a diamond to get a stone, and that's what is being offered me, simply because, as I understand you, you don't see the value in the diamond.



Perhaps you're just one of those people who bought a Zirconium thinking it was actually a diamond and now you can't tell the difference between the two? 



> Since it is possible, therefore, that you might say the same thing to me, I want to see if there are objective indicators available to both our views that would force a point of connection, a falsifier that both sides cannot help but abide by. Who has the diamond? And is there as test for that diamond to see who has it? I think there is. And that's the aim here.



Well, if you're "forbidden" to accept a view that is clearly not your own, but it is supremely biblical , I think perhaps you are in no position to even begin to answer "Who has the diamond?"


----------



## Civbert

Jerusalem Blade said:


> What offends me re “Scripturalism” is the unwillingness to accept that the word of God is more than propositions.


I think that is one of the key problems. But even is I were to accept that, how would this help? Whatever the "more" is, it isn't anything we can say is true except metaphorically. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> It is also a gateway through which we may apprehend His presence. “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The heart of God is revealed in His word, to a greater or lesser extent, according as the Spirit wills.


Here's another point of difference - what does "heart" mean? And how is it different than "mind"? 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I live in the word of Christ. Thus in Him, I fellowship with the living God, my Father.


So do Scripturalists. I don't see any difference here.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> This appears to me alien – “mystical” – to the “Scripturalists”.


 Not sure what that means.


----------



## JohnV

I've got just about enough here to go on to the next step. But I've been feeling under the weather today, and I'm not up to it right now. I guess I'm going to summarize Sean's objection to anti-Clarkianism, and I think I am going to go by his summary in the other thread, the one about how we know. So I've got some work ahead of me, when I'm feeling better. 

Meanwhile, I ask everyone to look closely at the six posts in a row, just above this one. Look closely, and you will see what I'm getting at. There is a method going on in them that have nothing to do with the arguments in favour of Scripturalism. That's the objective indicators that I'm trying to get us all to see.


----------



## JohnV

Here is a quote from Sean from another thread in which we discussed Scripturalism:


> For what it's worth, I think most of the objections against Scripturalism are, in one way or another, a form of the question; how do you know you have a bible in your hands? Of course, Clark might have countered; how do you get Justification by Faith alone from ink marks on a page? -- which was usually more than enough to leave his critics silent. Clark’s arguments weren’t always negative though, for example Clark responded to George Mavrodes' criticism concerning the question, "don't we have to read our bibles" as follows:
> 
> "The substantial question is how do we know the contents of the Bible. If Louis XIV or my wife could be replaced with an imposter twin, then maybe the Bible in my hands is a cunningly devised substitute.... In fact, until these [skeptical] arguments are successfully circumvented, no one has a firm basis on which to object to my general position. If anyone tries to avoid this material and relying on common opinion, charges me with paradoxes, he has failed to grasp even the first point."



Two things stand out, namely that skepticism of Scripturalism tends to veer toward an attack on Scripturalism's assessment of the integrity of knowledge through the senses, and that those who criticize Scripturalism fail to grasp the main points. That is, then, that there is a lack or failure in regard to interacting with the main arguments of Scripturalism. And this lack or failure makes this critical view of Scripturalism untrustworthy to Sean. 

Have I caught the gist of it, Sean?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Not to interrupt such an...edifying...discussion, but can someone point me to a simple definition of Scripturalism?


----------



## JohnV

JD:

I think that Anthony coveys it pretty well in his first post in the thread concerning Scripturalism's use of logic. I'm not focusing in this thread on how people define their own views, but how they define the others' views. There is an impenetrable wall, it seems, in understanding each other, when all the while the subject matter is how we know. If I may give an analogy, someone playing in water would, one would think, be making some splashes or water sounds. If that is missing, isn't it right to be wondering if the person is actually playing in water? If one is talking about knowing truth, would not the characteristics of knowing truth be present? And if that is not present, am I not right in wondering if the truth is known?


----------



## Civbert

jdlongmire said:


> Not to interrupt such an...edifying...discussion, but can someone point me to a simple definition of Scripturalism?



Scripturalism is the worldview that says that man's knowledge comes from the Scriptures and those thing deducible therefrom. It basically says that "the Bible Alone is the Word of God" is the axiom or starting point for man's knowledge. 

It's basis is the WCF where it says:


> 1:6 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 (Gal_1:8, Gal_1:9; 2Th_2:2; 2Ti_3:15-17).



It's the Christian answer to the secular philosophies such as empiricism, rationalism, mysticism, etc.


----------



## JohnV

I wanted to be able to show that I have understood the basic bones of contention for each party by restating their positions back to them in my own words. In this way it should be clear that I have put some effort into understanding the different arguments presented. I don't mean to set myself up as someone who is above all this, but rather that it is possible to put oneself in the other's epistemic shoes, so to speak, and look at from that standpoint for a while. 

Now I have to set up the next stage of this attempt of mine to cut through the stalemate. 

If we take a different subject for just a moment, an easier one, maybe I can make my point a bit simpler. We know that there are three millennial views that are acceptable in Reformed circles: A-, Pre-, and Post-. We also know that the Church does not decide which one is right. If there were enough Biblical indication to pin it down to one, then the Church would, of course. But there is not enough, and that's why the Church Okays the three views.

Now there are various Bible scholars who hold to these views. Each view is held by some who are respected Bible scholars. It is not that any one view has the advantage over the other. Numbers of followers might indicate which is most common, which is most popular, which is most understandable, or which is most acceptable, but number of adherents does not tip the balance in itself. 

But neither does one person holding a church office. One holding office, having the responsibility of preaching and teaching, does not add to the weight of one view or the other just because he has been commissioned to an ecclesiastcal office. Just because he might be the one ordained in that particular congregation to preach and teach, his views are not thereby elevated above the views of ordinary parishioners. There still is no tipping of the balance, so to speak, because it is still true that different respected Bible scholars cannot settle the matter amongst themselves, and neither does the Church. It is wrong of a minister to use his office or his place of Biblical authority to make a determination for one of the views just because he holds office. It is wrong of a minister to use his office to advantage in a discussion of equally stated positions. The parishioner isn't allowed to call his view Bible doctrine, so neither should the minister. A parishioner might not be able to state the position as well as a minister, but that does not mean that his view is a lesser view. 

A matter of liberty of conscience is a matter of liberty of conscience for all, equally. And if this is so for ministers, then it is especially so for those who do not hold positions of church authority. It also applies to scholars, even Biblical scholars, working beside the Church on matters of _adiaphora_

In short, there is a limit to personal views on things not plainly revealed in the Bible. Along with holding any one view, there has to be a respect for other views, a humility that one does not know as much as he ought to know to make claims of certainty. If there were certainty on such matters, surely the Church would be the first to state it. One should not raise himself above others; and especially one should not raise himself above the Church. 

Another thing to look at is that at the heart of this discussion is the subject of truth. Anyone who is talking about truth, who knows something about truth, ought to display a humility before the seat of truth. There is no room for arrogance there at all. Talking about truth should automatically obviate a "better-than-thou" attitude. Pride cannot be part of the character of someone who has come face to face with truth. The more one comes into contact with truth, the more he realizes his own errors, how he has been sold to sin. Coming to the truth is a part of sanctification. And so it is the work of the Spirit. It is not we who condescend upon those who do not understand or appreciate our theories; it is the Spirit who condescends upon us who were in our errors and sins. We are not sanctified so that we might be better than others; we are sanctified so that we might be better than we were. There is no room for pride, and that is a mark of someone who makes a claim for truth.

So my next question is this: have we heard the other side's arguments for what is really being said, even if it may not be being said very well? Are we facing, and willing to face, the things that are in the arguments? Can we hear it? Are we open to what the other is saying?


----------



## Magma2

JohnV said:


> Two things stand out, namely that skepticism of Scripturalism tends to veer toward an attack on Scripturalism's assessment of the integrity of knowledge through the senses, and that those who criticize Scripturalism fail to grasp the main points. That is, then, that there is a lack or failure in regard to interacting with the main arguments of Scripturalism. And this lack or failure makes this critical view of Scripturalism untrustworthy to Sean.
> 
> Have I caught the gist of it, Sean?



I think you're close. To be clear and for the record (since it seems my post reminding Rev. Winzer of what is being discussed was removed) the biblical epistemology I'm seeking to defend and advance is that of *Gordon Clark.* This is the Scripturalism Rev. Winzer calls theological liberalism of all things! If I've misrepresented Clark's views in any way it would be helpful if someone would point it out, but it's clear that those who stand in judgment of Clark's Scripturalism simply have not interacted with Clark's thought to any significant degree (if at all) so I guess I shouldn't hold my breath. 

Regardless, anyone who has read Clark will quickly see that he was a thorough going anti-empiricist. He called it his "pet peeve" and his opposition to the very idea advanced by Rev. Winzer and others that knowledge requires experience appears in almost all of his books. The problem with those who assert the "integrity of knowledge through the senses" is that they haven't shown that the senses have any integrity much less that they are a means to knowledge. My opponents merely beg the question.


----------



## Magma2

JohnV said:


> If we take a different subject for just a moment, an easier one, maybe I can make my point a bit simpler. We know that there are three millennial views that are acceptable in Reformed circles: A-, Pre-, and Post-. We also know that the Church does not decide which one is right. If there were enough Biblical indication to pin it down to one, then the Church would, of course. But there is not enough, and that's why the Church Okays the three views.
> 
> Now there are various Bible scholars who hold to these views. Each view is held by some who are respected Bible scholars. It is not that any one view has the advantage over the other.



This is a poor analogy. For one thing Scripturalism doesn't beg the question which I would think is a clear advantage over those who merely assert the "integrity of knowledge through the senses."




> So my next question is this: have we heard the other side's arguments for what is really being said, even if it may not be being said very well? Are we facing, and willing to face, the things that are in the arguments? Can we hear it? Are we open to what the other is saying?



Perhaps if they would advance some coherent defense of their views they would be taken more seriously. Begging the question is not an argument, at least not a rational one. Plus, the few biblical passages advanced in their defense have been addressed and overcome. Despite some claiming to be the oracle of Reformed theology it appears Scripture itself doesn't support any of my opponents empirical assumptions. I think if they were to express the type of humility you call for they would have to admit they have failed on this score. Besides, what hasn't been discussed yet is the one pedagogical aspect of miracles as they touch on epistemology and empiricism. The "senses" would tell us that axes don't float, men can't walk on water, chariots of fire don't all of a sudden appear, and the dead do not rise from the grave. The lesson of biblical miracles is that there is not such thing as the "integrity of knowledge through the senses." God's word alone is true.


----------



## JohnV

Sean:
Thanks for affirming my summary of your position. 

In response to what you said above, namely,



Magma2 said:


> This is a poor analogy. For one thing Scripturalism doesn't beg the question which I would think is a clear advantage over those who merely assert the "integrity of knowledge through the senses."



I am comparing things for which we have direct Biblical data to things for which we have deduced or induced Biblical data. The Bible does not give us an epistemological formula other than knowing by knowing God. The first letter of John might be titled, "How we may know", or "By this we know." And each time it refers to this theme it is through an objective indicator. The key question is how we know others' faith and belief along with our own. Fellowship with those who touched and saw our Lord, fellowship with the Father, is where it begins; an objective indicator of personal and demonstrable confessional content is where it ends. From these we derive unstated axioms concerning the philosophical theorem of knowledge. It is not like the millennium in this way, where we are comparing directly revealed bases. We can be more assertive concerning millennial views than we can about the philosophical theorem of epistemology, Biblically or revelationally speaking. It is more by demonstation of the Spirit's indwelling and confessional content than it is by logic or argumentation, by the convincing ability of the confessor. 

So if this rule of humility applies to millennial views, how much more does it apply to matters not directly doctrinal. The authority of theorems concerning the latter are scholastic, not ecclesiastical; and are therefore not binding upon anyone. The scholastic realm has no binding power upon the Church. Only ecclesiastical authority has that power. Yet even scholars who do work in the areas concerning Biblical truth should be demonstrating that same character of truth in their knowledge in as far as they have grasped it. 






> Perhaps if they would advance some coherent defense of their views they would be taken more seriously. Begging the question is not an argument, at least not a rational one. Plus, the few biblical passages advanced in their defense have been addressed and overcome. Despite some claiming to be the oracle of Reformed theology it appears Scripture itself doesn't support any of my opponents empirical assumptions. I think if they were to express the type of humility you call for they would have to admit they have failed on this score. Besides, what hasn't been discussed yet is the one pedagogical aspect of miracles as they touch on epistemology and empiricism. The "senses" would tell us that axes don't float, men can't walk on water, chariots of fire don't all of a sudden appear, and the dead do not rise from the grave. The lesson of biblical miracles is that there is not such thing as the "integrity of knowledge through the senses." God's word alone is true.



It is not true by any scholarly measure that a lack of another advanced theory justifies the one proposing a theory. Just because others do not advance a theory that you can take seriously does not mean that yours is automatically the one to take seriously. 

Yet all the same, the question remains whether you have seriously attempted to hear the objections. If I understand everyone correctly, your summary of their objections does not fit what they were objecting to. Your summary is more of a caricature (vb) of the objections than a serious attempt to understand them. We could ask in return what you are afraid of that you have to do that instead of trying to honestly represent our own views back to us, and then answering them for what they really are. 

This is the honesty and humility that I am trying to get at. It has nothing to do with the subject of epistemology, yet it has everything to do with it as much as it has everything to do with every subject. It is an objective indicator of whether or not what you're saying has any objective meat to it, of whether it is trustworthy. If I can't trust you to understand what I am asking in my questions, if you're just going to pidgeon-hole everything that doesn't agree with your theorem, how can I trust you that you're giving me an honest and truthful, a trustworthy account of how we know? 

Even lacking a serious counter theorem to yours, where is the integrity and humility in your theorem that makes it a trustworthy thing to believe? Clark aside, where is it in your accounting of it?

I'm not saying that the Scripturalists on this Board are the only ones lacking integrity and honesty. There is more pidgeon-holing going on here than just from the Scripturalists. But there is a difference. Some are doing so from the defence position behind the lines of confessionalism, while you and Anthony are doing so from a position of advancing something additional to the confessional basis. We're all guilty of arguing wrongly, of arguing ineffectively, or arguing without due care to how others take what we're saying. Yet what can be discerned behind this poor attempt at defending the confessional standard is the confessional standard that is being defended. This does not excuse the erroneous arguments, but these erroneous arguments do not undermine the trustworthiness of the standards themselves. I can disagree with Matthew, for example, and yet not disagree with the same principle he's trying to defend. We all need to come to grips with how immovable truth is on its own, without our help. 

But, again, we're here talking about a theorem of epistemology that is extra-Biblical, not doctrinal, not binding. It does not stand over the doctrines of the Church, and is not superimposable upon them. It is a proposed theory. That's what we have been discussing. The sides are trusting or not trusting the proposal, believing or not believing the arguments. For me, I have to see the ingredients and characteristics of truth and of people who have come into contact with truth before I can put my trust in them. Even if the arguments are right, it is not safe to put my trust in them until I see the Spirit also in them. And someone who has that is not afraid of objections, and does not have to misrepresent objections in order to stand. Someone who stands for the truth has a real heart for those who do not have the truth because he knows well how it is only by God's grace, not his own doing, that he has been rescued from ignorance.


----------



## Magma2

> The scholastic realm has no binding power upon the Church. Only ecclesiastical authority has that power. Yet even scholars who do work in the areas concerning Biblical truth should be demonstrating that same character of truth in their knowledge in as far as they have grasped it.



If the Scriptures teach that in Christ are hidden all treasures of knowledge then all Christians are bound to believe it. Period. If someone wants to assert that knowledge can be found apart from Scripture then it would follow that Christ can be also found apart from Scripture. I would think the burden of proof would be on the one making such a bold assertion, not me. 




> It is not true by any scholarly measure that a lack of another advanced theory justifies the one proposing a theory. Just because others do not advance a theory that you can take seriously does not mean that yours is automatically the one to take seriously.



What I've said is that the arguments advanced in support of the opposing theory, knowledge REQUIRES experience, has not been supported by Scripture and the arguments advanced have been fallacious, that means false for those in Rio Linden. 



> Your summary is more of a caricature (vb) of the objections than a serious attempt to understand them. We could ask in return what you are afraid of that you have to do that instead of trying to honestly represent our own views back to us, and then answering them for what they really are.



I disagree completely. I think a caricature is to label the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark "theological liberalism." That's pretty vicious too. 



> Even lacking a serious counter theorem to yours, where is the integrity and humility in your theorem that makes it a trustworthy thing to believe? Clark aside, where is it in your accounting of it?



What theorem are you talking about? I think I've given significant biblical account for the counter that knowledge does not require experience and if you don't want to trust that I really don't know how I can help you? Perhaps I can  



> I'm not saying that the Scripturalists on this Board are the only ones lacking integrity and honesty.



And I'm not suppose to take offense to this?



> There is more pidgeon-holing going on here than just from the Scripturalists. But there is a difference. Some are doing so from the defence position behind the lines of confessionalism, while you and Anthony are doing so from a position of advancing something additional to the confessional basis.



Hogwash. Clark called his position, his axiom, his starting position, "the Westminster Principle" at least in his reply to George Mavrodes and he builds his philosophy in large part from WCF 1.

See his reply to Mavordes if you want some idea of how this works. Clark was arguably one of the foremost defenders of the Confessionalism of Westminister and to suggest he was going beyond the Confession is a charge I think you need to back up.



> But, again, we're here talking about a theorem of epistemology that is extra-Biblical, not doctrinal, not binding.



All the truths of Scripture are binding. And if Scripture touches on epistemology, which it most certainly does, then it is hardly "extra-biblical."


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> I wanted to be able to show that I have understood the basic bones of contention for each party by restating their positions back to them in my own words. ...



So what is the Scripturalist position? In your own words that is. In the remander of your post, I think you forgot to give it.


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> ...
> If we take a different subject for just a moment, an easier one, maybe I can make my point a bit simpler. We know that there are three millennial views that are acceptable in Reformed circles: A-, Pre-, and Post-. We also know that the Church does not decide which one is right. If there were enough Biblical indication to pin it down to one, then the Church would, of course. But there is not enough, and that's why the Church Okays the three views.
> ...



OK. I understand your position is the Scripturalism and it's opponents view are not explicitly answered by Scripture (ironic that), so we should not impose our views on others or anathematize anyone accordingly. OK. That's your position regarding this whole thing. I disagree, but you haven't really said (in your own words) what the Scripturalist position actually is. 



JohnV said:


> ...
> Another thing to look at is that at the heart of this discussion is the subject of truth. Anyone who is talking about truth, who knows something about truth, ought to display a humility before the seat of truth.


I understand what your trying to say here, but the kind of fallacy you are making is similar to the one you just argued against. You said that basically, just because someone with position or title takes a position, or just because a position is more popular, that does not make the position correct. Well that is true when it comes to the personalities of the people who hold a position. Luther was arrogant an rude (to say the least). Jesus would have been kicked off the board for calling people names. Paul was no wimp either when he expressed the wish that his opponents would go ahead and cut off the rest of their privates. So please don't make rudeness or lack of humility a "marker" or "indicator" that a position is false or you will have to toss out your Bible. There is not necessary (that is logical) connection between truth and attitude. 



JohnV said:


> ...So my next question is this: have we heard the other side's arguments for what is really being said, even if it may not be being said very well? Are we facing, and willing to face, the things that are in the arguments? Can we hear it? Are we open to what the other is saying?



Good question. I'm sure that opponents to Scripturalism have not really understood it, and I know for a fact that I have not understood many of the arguments of the opponents of Scripturalism. I have found them very confusing at times and have sought clarification. 

Perhaps you can help by giving the argument for Scripturalism in your own words. I think you might speak in categories anti-Scripturalist can understand. Maybe you can translate between both parties.


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> ... Yet all the same, the question remains whether you have seriously attempted to hear the objections. If I understand everyone correctly, your summary of their objections does not fit what they were objecting to. Your summary is more of a caricature (vb) of the objections than a serious attempt to understand them. We could ask in return what you are afraid of that you have to do that instead of trying to honestly represent our own views back to us, and then answering them for what they really are.



It's difficult not to caricaturize some of the objections. And I've tried to avoid doing this. I think the thread on Clarkians and induction and empirical analysis is a good example of a clearly articulated objection to Scripturalism. This kind of clarity is normally lacking. 

There is also the problem that when Scripturalist attempt to answer the objections, we are accused of not listening. 




JohnV said:


> ... This is the honesty and humility that I am trying to get at. It has nothing to do with the subject of epistemology, yet it has everything to do with it as much as it has everything to do with every subject. It is an objective indicator of whether or not what you're saying has any objective meat to it, of whether it is trustworthy. If I can't trust you to understand what I am asking in my questions, if you're just going to pidgeon-hole everything that doesn't agree with your theorem, how can I trust you that you're giving me an honest and truthful, a trustworthy account of how we know?
> 
> Even lacking a serious counter theorem to yours, where is the integrity and humility in your theorem that makes it a trustworthy thing to believe? Clark aside, where is it in your accounting of it?


 Your feeling of trust is not an objective objection. It's not an argument per say but a subjective reaction to the Scripturalist arguments. And the lack of a "serious counter theorem" is sufficient reason for a Clarkian to distrust your distrust. 



JohnV said:


> .
> I'm not saying that the Scripturalists on this Board are the only ones lacking integrity and honesty....


 Nice. Now you go from a subjective sense of distrust to an outright accusation of dishonestly. Did you really want to say that?



JohnV said:


> ... while you and Anthony are doing so from a position of advancing something additional to the confessional basis.


 Let's not make this assumption. This is your opinion and God bless opinions, but as of yet, no one has advanced an argument to support you contention that Scripturalism is anything but confessional. We have REPEATEDLY shown that Scripturalism is based on the Westminster Confession of Faith. 



JohnV said:


> This does not excuse the erroneous arguments, but these erroneous arguments do not undermine the trustworthiness of the standards themselves.


 Which is why I'm a Scripturalist, because it does uphold the standards. 



JohnV said:


> ... For me, I have to see the ingredients and characteristics of truth and of people who have come into contact with truth before I can put my trust in them. .


 I went to a Mormon Church meeting where one lady made this same argument. She didn't sense the Spirit in some non-Mormon church. This kind of argument is why I reject mysticism and experientialism as lacking any integrity. I just don't trust this kind of argument. 

JohnV. I'd appreciate if you could put Scripturalism into your own words, so that I can try to see if you really understand it. I think we can get at the heart of the misunderstanding if you could do that. After all, how can we attempt to work out the root of our disagreement if you don't really understand my position.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> We have REPEATEDLY shown that Scripturalism is based on the Westminster Confession of Faith.



Is there a "light of nature" as the Confession teaches in numerous places? Are the books of the Bible the Word of God written, as the Confession teaches in chapter 1, sections 2 and 8, or is the Word of God written to be restricted to propositions contained in the Bible? Are there marks of Scripture whereby it is shown to be the Word of God, and this as something distinct from the testimony of the Spirit in the heart giving infallible persuasion thereof, as sect. 5 teaches? Is it acknowledged that the work of the Spirit is necessary for a "saving understanding" of the Scriptures, which clearly implies there might be a natural understanding of them, as sect. 6 teaches? May we know the effects of providence and especially the effects of His singular care and providence in preserving the writings of the Old and New Testament, as section 8 teaches?


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Is there a "light of nature" as the Confession teaches in numerous places?


 Sure. Be specific. 



armourbearer said:


> Are the books of the Bible the Word of God written, as the Confession teaches in chapter 1, sections 2 and 8, or is the Word of God written to be restricted to propositions contained in the Bible?


 _Knowledge_ is restricted to propositions. For instance Rom 3:27 " Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 

One does not know "Where is boasting then?", but one does know "It is excluded.". And one can not say "By what law?" or "Of works?" is true. A question can not be true. But "No, but by the law of faith." has propositional meaning. Statements can be true or false, but questions are neither. 



armourbearer said:


> Are there marks of Scripture whereby it is shown to be the Word of God, and this as something distinct from the testimony of the Spirit in the heart giving infallible persuasion thereof, as sect. 5 teaches?


 Are the marks of Scripture ... what? 



armourbearer said:


> Is it acknowledged that the work of the Spirit is necessary for a "saving understanding" of the Scriptures, which clearly implies there might be a natural understanding of them, as sect. 6 teaches?


 Either it's natural understanding, or it's the understanding by the work of the Spirit. It can't be both. But Scripturalism acknowledges the necessity of the Spirit in understanding AND believing. 



armourbearer said:


> May we know the effects of providence and especially the effects of His singular care and providence in preserving the writings of the Old and New Testament, as section 8 teaches?


 What do you mean by "know the effects of". We know that Scripture is preserved by God's will.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Is there a "light of nature" as the Confession teaches in numerous places?



The light of nature as it is used in WCF1:1 for example provides no support whatsoever for your natural theology and sensate epistemology. Man after all is also one of those works of creation mentioned in that section. Consequently the proof text are the law written on the hearts of men per Rom. 2 which alternatively accuses and defends the consciences of men without the written Law. Romans 1 is also cited and there we find men possess innate ideas concerning God's INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES which all men rather than assent to hold in unrighteousness. Unless I'm mistaken, I would think even you are unable to see the invisible through the eyes in your head. In addition the light of nature is not a means to knowledge even of God as the Confession clearly states; "yet they are not sufficient *to give that knowledge of God* and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation . . . ." A sense of divinity is not to be confused with knowledge. Calvin made no such confusion, why do you? Further, this section of the Confession pretty much kills the use of Rom. 1 to support the idea that men know God through observing nature. So you're clearly mistaken in trying to impose your natural theology on the Confession. 

Further, the Confession's use of "light of nature" say per 1:6 has to do what is sometimes called common sense along with custom and Christian prudence in ordering "some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church . . . ." To advance the phrase "light of nature" as a basis by which men might arrive at the knowledge of truth is to stretch the Confession beyond all measure. 

Sorry Rev. Winzer you will need to try harder.


----------



## MW

So Scripturalism does not uphold the proper distinction between natural and spiritual (or saving) knowledge as taught by the Confession. Likewise Scripturalism denies the books of the Bible are the Word of God written, contrary to the Confession. Therefore, Scripturalism is unconfessional.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> So Scripturalism does not uphold the proper distinction between natural and spiritual (or saving) knowledge as taught by the Confession. Likewise Scripturalism denies the books of the Bible are the Word of God written, contrary to the Confession. Therefore, Scripturalism is unconfessional.



JohnV,

You are correct - the anti-Scripturalist do not hear the arguments of the Scripturalists. 



Rev Winzer,

Assertions aside, could you explain what "natural knowledge" is and how you obtain such? And where do you get the nonsense about Scripturalism denying the books of the Bible??? Have you read anything Clark wrote? When asked the definition of Christianity - Clark says he means the WCF. His epistemology is based in the WCF. If anything is confessional, it's Scripturalism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnV said:


> So if this rule of humility applies to millennial views, how much more does it apply to matters not directly doctrinal. The authority of theorems concerning the latter are scholastic, not ecclesiastical; and are therefore not binding upon anyone. The scholastic realm has no binding power upon the Church. Only ecclesiastical authority has that power. Yet even scholars who do work in the areas concerning Biblical truth should be demonstrating that same character of truth in their knowledge in as far as they have grasped it.



That is paragraph is not understood (in fact parsed and somewhat ridiculed) is extremely revealing to me.

From WCF, XXXI


> II. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially *to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience*; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.



Let me say this very plainly: this board is about *Confessional* Reformed theology (that's actually redundant because there's no such thing as being Reformed and not being Confessional). I've seen multiple places where Scripturalism is preferred to the Confessional documents and an appeal to Scripture is made as if the Confession is competing with the Scirptures and so, after all, "...my Scripturalist reading trumps your quoting of the Confession on this point...."

But that is, in fact, the very point of the above excerpt from the WCF and is completely consistent with the Reformed tradition of *Sola*-Scriptura which places the testimony of the Church above the opinions of men on the teaching of Scripture.

Thus, what John has said above is so important to Reformed Confessionalism that those who want to represent themselves as Confessional should be fervently attempting to demonstrate themselves to be rather than parsing and ridiculing the notion.

You see, it's not about you covincing yourself through logical propositions that your position is Scriptural (or even convincing me). It's about you convincing _the Church_. Only they have the authority to settle a controversy of the faith over the proper epistemological method is or whether I ought to be using the word knowledge merely as justified true belief.

Until that happens, a Scripturalist is just another man with an opinion about the Scriptures with no Ecclesiastical authoriy.

Now, let me be extremely clear here. If you don't like being Confessional on matters of controversy then you can discuss those particulars on another board. Full stop.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Assertions aside, could you explain what "natural knowledge" is and how you obtain such? And where do you get the nonsense about Scripturalism denying the books of the Bible??? Have you read anything Clark wrote? When asked the definition of Christianity - Clark says he means the WCF. His epistemology is based in the WCF. If anything is confessional, it's Scripturalism.



First, the viability of the Confession's teaching on the light of nature is not the point. It is the fact that the Confession teaches it and Scripturalism denies it.

Second, I haven't said anything in relation to Clark, but only in relation to statements made by Civbert on one of the roots this thread, namely, "Scripture is not the words and sentences written in the NKJV or the Greek or whatever language. Scripture is the propositional truths that God has revealed to us through verbal revelation." This denies the verbal inspiration of the autographs, whereas the Confession expressly teaches that the Bible itself is given by immediate inspiration, WCF 1:2, 8. I refuse to ignore this as if it is just a trifle. First, it is fundamental to a proper understanding of Scripture. Second, it shows the Scripturalist's non-commitment to historic orthodoxy, and the tendency of this system to re-mould the Chritian faith in the image of its own peculiar philosophy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> It's difficult not to caricaturize some of the objections. And I've tried to avoid doing this. I think the thread on Clarkians and induction and empirical analysis is a good example of a clearly articulated objection to Scripturalism. This kind of clarity is normally lacking.



Well, when you get to the end of that thread then I suppose we'll all understand you. 

Is your discussion with Brian Bosse really an example of perspicuity?



> Colossians 2:8
> Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.



You see, you believe _we_ have the responsibility to understand you. Wrong. You have the responsibility to be clear to the Church and those who do not understand you. We are commanded by the Word of God to beware of philosophy and the traditions of men. It is the responsibility of those that are bringing those categories into discussions to show the average person how they _clarify_ things and do not cause them to be confused.

If you cannot do this then it is your failure and not ours. Note, I am not saying that Scripturalism is vain philosophy but I will presume it is until I'm convinced otherwise because it borrows so much from philosophical terminology and precision not insisted upon in the Word of God itself. I've yet to have it adequately explained where I can understand the point or how it fits with the Scripture that I know based on the testimony of the Church and the Spirit working through the Word.

I've never met a man that I could not explain the Westminster Confession of Faith to. It, like the Scriptures, lends itself to teaching to the common man.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> First, the viability of the Confession's teaching on the light of nature is not the point. It is the fact that the Confession teaches it and Scripturalism denies it.



"Point of fact"?!? You've said it teaches "the light of nature" but as far as I can tell, only Sean has explained what the "light of nature" means. You've merely asserted the WCF teaches it and Scripturalism doesn't. 



armourbearer said:


> Second, I haven't said anything in relation to Clark, but only in relation to statements made by Civbert on one of the roots this thread, namely, "Scripture is not the words and sentences written in the NKJV or the Greek or whatever language. Scripture is the propositional truths that God has revealed to us through verbal revelation."


If you take things out of context, they can mean anything you want. As you should know if you truly consider the context of the quote you snipped, the subject matter is the teaching of Clark. I ask again, have you read Clark? I beginning to think it wouldn't make any difference, but Sean and I both agree that Clark was much better at explaining these issues - and I think we agree that there's a chance you might better understand it if you actually read Clark. But if you have read Clark, then I stand corrected. 




armourbearer said:


> This denies the verbal inspiration of the autographs, whereas the Confession expressly teaches that the Bible itself is given by immediate inspiration, WCF 1:2, 8.


 No it does not. You've snapped at a single point, and ignored the context of my comment. You think you've got something, but you really don't understand what I was saying. So you've taken it out of context in order to use it for you own intention to try to undermine what is really reformed confession epistemology. 

JohnV, Here's are some marks of anti-Scripturalism for you. Notice how the anti-Scripturalist tends to clip quotes out of context, and ignores direct questions, and does not interact with content of posts directly. Where as the Scripturalist will actually respond to the directly to immediate post of the anti-Scripturalist, the anti-Scripturalist will completely ignore the words of the Scripturalist, and post a serious of assertions and mis-characterizations. I see no attempt to actually understand Scripturalism here, only the desire to win at all costs. I see these as the marks of anti-Scripturalism.



armourbearer said:


> I refuse to ignore this as if it is just a trifle. First, it is fundamental to a proper understanding of Scripture. Second, it shows the Scripturalists non-commitment to historic orthodoxy, and the tendency of this system to re-mould the Chritian faith in the image of its own peculiar philosophy.


 I think you have this backward. Your commitment to empiricism despite all the evidence and arguments rejecting it, is what is unorthodox and unreformed. You've fallen for unbiblical theories of knowledge and have molded you reading of Scripture and the WCF accordingly. 

You refuse the most basic of Christian and reformed doctrine, that the Bible alone is the Word of God. You refuse the WCF's explicit propositions which say that the Scriptures contain the whole council of God. That's Scripturalism, plain and simple. No matter how you want to spin things, your ignoring the plain simple truth of God's Word - and cast your lot on experience and sensation. If this is not true, then explain how you are not an empiricist. Explain how you deduce a proposition from an experience. Explain how you can know what is not intelligible. Explain how knowledge is not justified true belief. I have asked again and again for you explanation of these things, and you have continues to duck and weave and sidestep every request for clarification and explanation. I see no reason to "trust" any assertion you make if you refuse to give any real arguments or explanations.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> Well, when you get to the end of that thread then I suppose we'll all understand you.
> 
> Is your discussion with Brian Bosse really an example of perspicuity?



If you over your head, so be it. 




SemperFideles said:


> You see, you believe _we_ have the responsibility to understand you.


 You do if you are going to argue against my views. I've been more than willing to answer your questions to the best of my ability. But if you still don't understand, then so be it. 



SemperFideles said:


> Wrong. You have the responsibility to be clear to the Church and those who do not understand you.



What is this, the Inquisition? When have I not tried answered you questions? We had a good thing going Rich. If you're going to spin this as my failure simply because you still don't get it, then I've waisted my time. 



SemperFideles said:


> We are commanded by the Word of God to beware of philosophy and the traditions of men.


 It doesn't say to be ignorant of the philosophies and traditions of men. 



SemperFideles said:


> It is the responsibility of those that are bringing those categories into discussions to show the average person how they _clarify_ things and do not cause them to be confused.


 I think the average person can understand them, if they make some effort. It's not that hard. But it does take some work. 



SemperFideles said:


> If you cannot do this then it is your failure and not ours.


Yeah. That's right. If you don't get it, it's my fault for answering you questions and trying to explain things. Nice. 



SemperFideles said:


> I've never met a man that I could not explain the Westminster Confession of Faith to. It, like the Scriptures, lends itself to teaching to the common man.


 That's good. You should be a Scripturalist then, since it's simply the application of the teaching of the WCF to answer the basic questions of philosophy. The basic questions of philosophy have been asked (and answers have been attempted) for thousands of years. How do we know? Why? What do we know? What is the meaning of life? What is the relationship of man to God? The Scriptures answer these philosophical questions. But you need to engage the questions, and understand them, before you can understand how the Scriptures answers them. Scripturalism does this. It shows the absurdities of the vain philosophies of man. It doesn't ignore them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> If you over your head, so be it.
> 
> You do if you are going to argue against my views. I've been more than willing to answer your questions to the best of my ability. But if you still don't understand, then so be it.


And so your philosophy is still presumed vain. Precisely. So be it.



> What is this, the Inquisition? When have I not tried answered you questions? We had a good thing going Rich. If you're going to spin this as my failure simply because you still don't get it, then I've waisted my time.


I'm not spinning anything Anthony but when you and Sean start digging in and saying: "You're all a bunch of knuckleheads and if you really got it then you'd be like us..." then you need to understand where the standard really lies.

You use extremely precise philosophical language and are insistent upon it. I think you honestly believe that such precise philosophical training is necessary for men to study the Word. It is not.



> It doesn't say to be ignorant of the philosophies and traditions of men.


No. It says to be beware of them. Your philosophical views still elude me after much effort. You say it is my fault. 



> I think the average person can understand them, if they make some effort. It's not that hard. But it does take some work.


Assuming they should make the effort. This could be said about a variety of cults as well Anthony. Teachers of the Word owe it to the ignorant to bring concepts to them that can be understood. Not all need to remain simplistic and naive but that's a far cry from an insistence on understanding the rules of logic and epistemic categories. I've studied math and logic and am pretty good at it but I knew a lot of really smart people that do not have a natural knack for it. It isn't a mistake that most Clarkians are men and more than a few are Engineers.



> Yeah. That's right. If you don't get it, it's my fault for answering you questions and trying to explain things. Nice.


With all criticism you have two choices: learn from it or recoil from it. You seem to have made your choice. I've been repeatedly called names on this thread and put up with insinuations that I'm dense or an empericist or Thomistic. Get some backbone. If you think you have good news to spread about your epistemology then learn how to make it more explainable but don't keep whining that it's everybody else's fault because your numbers are small.

This has begun and will continue to be a dialogue about why I don't trust your system. Don't be shocked that your sacred cow keeps getting gored until you figure out a way to show us otherwise. As we interact with you two, you become increasingly agitated and don't even take heed to the fact that you are mischaracterizing your opponents with labels.


----------



## crhoades

It is the opinion of this Moderator that all engaged in this dialog would be better off spending the rest of the Lord's Day in prayer and meditation on His Word - something everyone here should agree with. Everyone can still try to make their point in a more edifying and Christ glorifying way. 

I enjoy debates here on the PB as it sharpens my thinking. I _do not_ enjoy debates when they reach levels of accusations and shrillness from all sides. Is it possible that discussing apologetics/epistemology is fine as far as it goes but if it's the main focus or one where all of one's time is spent could lead to an over intellectualized faith and unbalanced? Same thing goes for ethics, church history, etc. Maybe we should venture into other forums for a bit.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> "Point of fact"?!? You've said it teaches "the light of nature" but as far as I can tell, only Sean has explained what the "light of nature" means. You've merely asserted the WCF teaches it and Scripturalism doesn't.



"Light of nature" is knowledge attained by natural means, as is clear from the phrase itself and the usus loquendi of the 17th century.



Civbert said:


> If you take things out of context, they can mean anything you want. As you should know if you truly consider the context of the quote you snipped, the subject matter is the teaching of Clark. I ask again, have you read Clark? I beginning to think it wouldn't make any difference, but Sean and I both agree that Clark was much better at explaining these issues - and I think we agree that there's a chance you might better understand it if you actually read Clark. But if you have read Clark, then I stand corrected.



Yes, I've read Clark, and consider him useful. Regrettably, he also felt liberty to remould Christian theology into the image of his philosophical commitments, as is clear by studying his views on the person of Christ and the nature of faith. Nevertheless this thread is not about Clark, but Scripturalism -- a theory that really emerges only after Clark's Wheaton lectures. I have directed my statements to those who claim to be representing Scripturalism, and regardless of how incompetent they are to represent Clark, they should be accountable and responsible for representing themselves.



Civbert said:


> No it does not. You've snapped at a single point, and ignored the context of my comment. You think you've got something, but you really don't understand what I was saying. So you've taken it out of context in order to use it for you own intention to try to undermine what is really reformed confession epistemology.



I understand it only too well, I regret to say. Your Scripturalism was called to account for itself on the basis of a fundamental teaching of the reformed faith, and you responded by undermining that teaching. Scripturalism is inconsistent with the verbal, plenary authority of the Bible as a written revelation of God. You place no significance in the words as words given by God. Try as you might to put a good spin on your statement, it is unorthodox, and would be condemned as such by any conservative theologian.



Civbert said:


> I think you have this backward. Your commitment to empiricism despite all the evidence and arguments rejecting it, is what is unorthodox and unreformed. You've fallen for unbiblical theories of knowledge and have molded you reading of Scripture and the WCF accordingly.



I have no commitment to empiricism. My methodology would be accounted rationalist, as would the methodology of the Westminster divines and the Puritans in general.



Civbert said:


> You refuse the most basic of Christian and reformed doctrine, that the Bible alone is the Word of God. You refuse the WCF's explicit propositions which say that the Scriptures contain the whole council of God. That's Scripturalism, plain and simple. No matter how you want to spin things, your ignoring the plain simple truth of God's Word - and cast your lot on experience and sensation. If this is not true, then explain how you are not an empiricist. Explain how you deduce a proposition from an experience. Explain how you can know what is not intelligible. Explain how knowledge is not justified true belief. I have asked again and again for you explanation of these things, and you have continues to duck and weave and sidestep every request for clarification and explanation. I see no reason to "trust" any assertion you make if you refuse to give any real arguments or explanations.



First, I am the one maintaining the Bible is the Word of God, whilst you confine that Word to its propositions. Second, the WCF's explicit statement relates to the whole counsel of God for all thigns necessary for God's glory, etc, thereby implying there is knowledge outside of the Scriptures for other purposes; and the end of the section explicitly makes this clear when it speaks about the light of nature and Christian prudence. Moreover, WCF 20:3 speaks of opinions and practices "contrary to the light of nature," which is something impossible on your theory. Again, WCF 21:1 says "the light of nature showeth there is a God." The Confession everywhere affirms that things can be known from sources other than Scripture; you deny this; therefore you deny the Confession's teaching, plain and simple. Third, again, I am not called upon to explain the viability of the Confession's teaching; it is a fact that this is what the Confession teaches and that you deny it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

crhoades said:


> It is the opinion of this Moderator that all engaged in this dialog would be better off spending the rest of the Lord's Day in prayer and meditation on His Word - something everyone here should agree with. Everyone can still try to make their point in a more edifying and Christ glorifying way.
> 
> I enjoy debates here on the PB as it sharpens my thinking. I _do not_ enjoy debates when they reach levels of accusations and shrillness from all sides. Is it possible that discussing apologetics/epistemology is fine as far as it goes but if it's the main focus or one where all of one's time is spent could lead to an over intellectualized faith and unbalanced? Same thing goes for ethics, church history, etc. Maybe we should venture into other forums for a bit.




Well, it's been Monday all day here Chris. 

I have a Confessional interest in this discussion Chris. I have been very open at the beginning of this OP about the reasons why.

I also intend to level set some of these discussions because I'm not in a minority over a weariness of these discussions and insistence over terminology that finds its way well beyond the borders of the Philosophy and Apologetics forums and causes unneeded rancor. I'm trying to get some men to give an account for this insistence and if it cannot be done then I'm going to make rules that restrict such fine discussions to the philosophy forum.


----------



## MW

crhoades said:


> It is the opinion of this Moderator that all engaged in this dialog would be better off spending the rest of the Lord's Day in prayer and meditation on His Word - something everyone here should agree with. Everyone can still try to make their point in a more edifying and Christ glorifying way.



Just a note -- it is not the Lord's Day in this time zone.


----------



## Civbert

crhoades said:


> It is the opinion of this Moderator that all engaged in this dialog would be better off spending the rest of the Lord's Day in prayer and meditation on His Word - something everyone here should agree with. Everyone can still try to make their point in a more edifying and Christ glorifying way.



I'll be back in 15 minutes.


----------



## crhoades

armourbearer said:


> Just a note -- it is not the Lord's Day in this time zone.


 
Please forgive the US centric bias of my post.


----------



## crhoades

Civbert said:


> I'll be back in 15 minutes.


 
 Yeah, yeah, yeah. Winzer is in Australia. Rich is in Japan. You're an Eastern time zone type of guy. This moderating thing is a losing battle. 

{Switching to a libertarian Moderating mindset. Just don't harm each other physically or destroy each other's private property}

Love one another as Christ has loved us. Not to much to ask for is it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Just a note -- it is not the Lord's Day in this time zone.



If Rev. Winzer is posting then it's not the Lord's Day.


----------



## Civbert

crhoades said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Winzer is in Australia. Rich is in Japan. You're an Eastern time zone type of guy. This moderating thing is a losing battle.
> 
> {Switching to a libertarian Moderating mindset. Just don't harm each other physically or destroy each other's private property}
> 
> Love one another as Christ has loved us. Not to much to ask for is it?



Well I'm going to love everyone by going to bed now. So I guess I won't be back in 15 mins after all. 

Good night to all.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

crhoades said:


> {Switching to a libertarian Moderating mindset. Just don't harm each other physically or destroy each other's private property}
> 
> Love one another as Christ has loved us. Not to much to ask for is it?


Not at all. A good point to always remember. 

For the record, I'm really not trying to be petty. I have real concerns that need to take all the members of the board into consideration, which is why I opened up that Moderator thread on my concerns.


----------



## crhoades

Civbert said:


> Well I'm going to love everyone by going to bed now. So I guess I won't be back in 15 mins after all.
> 
> Good night to all.


 
*Sleep (from Valley of Vision)*
​​BLESSED CREATOR,
Thou hast promised thy beloved sleep;
Give me restoring rest needful for tomorrow’s toil.
If dreams be mine, let them not be tinged with evil.
Let thy Spirit make my time of repose a blessed temple of his holy 
 presence.

May my frequent lying down make me familiar with death,
 the bed I approach remind me of the grave,
 the eyes I now close picture to me their final closing.
Keep me always ready, waiting for admittance to thy presence.
Weaken my attachment to earthly things.
May I hold life loosely in my hand,
 knowing that I receive it on condition of its surrender;
As pain and suffering betoken transitory health,
 may I not shrink from a death
 that introduces me to the freshness of eternal youth.
I retire this night in full assurance of one day awaking with thee.
All glory for this precious hope,
 for the gospel of grace,
 for thine unspeakable gift of Jesus,
 for the fellowship of the Trinity.
Withhold not thy mercies in the night season;
 thy hand never wearies,
 thy power needs no repose,
 thine eye never sleeps.

Help me when I helpless lie,
 when my conscience accuses me of sin,
 when my mind is harassed by foreboding thoughts,
 when my eyes are held awake by personal anxieties.
Show thyself to me as the God of all grace, love, and power;
 thou hast a balm for every wound,
 a solace for all anguish,
 a remedy for every pain,
 a peace for all disquietude.
Permit me to commit myself to thee awake or asleep.


----------



## MW

crhoades said:


> Please forgive the US centric bias of my post.



We Aussies became accustomed to that in the second world war.


----------



## crhoades

armourbearer said:


> We Aussies became accustomed to that in the second world war.


Don't know my history well enough on that one, but I'm sure that it involves an apology on my part. 

I've enjoyed my dealings with BSEM over the years. (Bridgestone Earthmover Australia). Hopefully one of these days I might make it out that way. My arch-nemesis businesswise is also in Australia - Klinge. They make a very good tire tracking software that I compete with.


----------



## MW

I was just being silly; no apology needed. Let me know if you're ever heading in our direction. Blessings!


----------



## JohnV

SemperFideles said:


> Not at all. A good point to always remember.
> 
> For the record, I'm really not trying to be petty. I have real concerns that need to take all the members of the board into consideration, which is why I opened up that Moderator thread on my concerns.



I am finding it hard to say what I want to say. In some ways I see that Rich and Matthew have caught what I'm driving at. Scripturalism is only what this methodology is about. Scripturalism itself is the point of weakness, not the point of strength. The point of strength that is relied upon is the methodology which a thing apart from Scripturalism. 

If this is what the moderators are discussing in their own threads, then it is worthy of note that, if FV has been excluded as an acceptable version of the Confessions, then surely this particular version of Scripturalism ought to be excluded as well. 

I started this thread in order to make it clear that the Scripturalists defending their position were doing so unilaterally, on their own authority, and not on the authority of the Scriptures or the Confessional standards.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnV said:


> I am finding it hard to say what I want to say. In some ways I see that Rich and Matthew have caught what I'm driving at. Scripturalism is only what this methodology is about. Scripturalism itself is the point of weakness, not the point of strength. The point of strength that is relied upon is the methodology which a thing apart from Scripturalism.
> 
> If this is what the moderators are discussing in their own threads, then it is worthy of note that, if FV has been excluded as an acceptable version of the Confessions, then surely this particular version of Scripturalism ought to be excluded as well.
> 
> I started this thread in order to make it clear that the Scripturalists defending their position were doing so unilaterally, on their own authority, and not on the authority of the Scriptures or the Confessional standards.



Before gloves are taken off and a duel ensues, let's be careful. I know for a fact that both Sean and Anthony loathe the FV as un-Confessional and un-Scriptural and I don't feel comfortable as simply the Admin of a board making what is essentially an Ecclesiastical pronouncement. I also consider the FV to be re-defining key doctrines of the Confession while Scripturalism tends to be punctilious about matters indifferent that I imagine the Church will never definitively resolve.

I think what I'm trying to do is set up guidelines where it is appropriate to have these kinds of conversations. I don't think the discussion in philosophical or apologetic threads ought to be off limits but if somebody is in a theological forum and uses the word "know" or "knowledge" in a way that a Scripturalist takes issue with then the thread ought not be de-railed over semantics as happens far too often. That's where I'm trying to figure out where to go because many are tired of the rancor. One of the principles of liberty of conscience is that Christians ought not to be browbeat about adiophora. Until the Church decides that epistemic definitions are not adiophora then how a Christian uses the word know or knowledge is not a matter that his/her conscience ought to be pricked with.



I do agree with Chris that this thread is becoming far less than edifying. With God as my witness, I do not bear Sean or Anthony ill will. I wish sin were not in the world and did not cause us to be so divided here. I received an e-mail just the other day from a long time lurker about all these Scripturalist threads and how the Reformed seem to have it altogether but "...see how this divides...." That grieves me.

What I imagine is that if you and I were in a Church together and not talking about this debatable issue we would probably line up really closely on most issues. I know it makes you mad when I take on Scripturalism but I just don't see it. That said, just yesterday when I was teaching Sunday School I was talking about God being the fountainhead of knowledge and how liberals begin with themselves. One of the women piped in and said: "Yeah, liberals want religion to be rational...." I clarified and pointed out that our faith is rational and that when God says not to steal we know He means not to steal. Contrary, perhaps, to your perceptions, I'm not going out of my way to make things irrational and incoherent. 

We're on the same page theologically but I just can't get your epistemology because I believe it does not comport with the Scriptures. Since the Church has not decided to settle the matter of controversy I hope you can allow me the liberty to view matters otherwise. I'm allowing you such liberty but the only reason I beat you up is that you tend to go into so many threads outside of epistemic discussions and insist on your definitions and so I have to challenge you in this regard.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> So Scripturalism does not uphold the proper distinction between natural and spiritual (or saving) knowledge as taught by the Confession. Likewise Scripturalism denies the books of the Bible are the Word of God written, contrary to the Confession. Therefore, Scripturalism is unconfessional.



No, you're wrong Rev. Winzer. Clark's Scripturalism simply does not uphold your interpretation of "light of nature" as affirming anything like the Natural Theology and Empiricism you subscribe to. I view your interpretative slant both foreign to the WCF and Reformed tradition. Calvin for example said that men have a sense of the divine, but denied that men know God apart from the Scripture. Here are a few relevant quotes from the Institutes. 1:6-8:



> SCRIPTURE IS NEEDED AS GUIDE AND TEACHER FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD COME TO GOD THE CREATOR
> 
> 1. *GOD BESTOWS THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF HIMSELF UPON US ONLY IN THE SCRIPTURES*
> 
> . . . For, since the human mind because of its feebleness *can in no way attain to God unless it be aided and assisted by his Sacred Word,* all mortals at that time — except for the Jews — because they were seeking God without the Word, had of necessity to stagger about in vanity and error.
> 
> . . . Since for unbelieving men religion seems to *stand by opinion alone,* they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.
> 
> . . . *“The arm of God will not be revealed” to all [Isaiah 53:1 p.].* Whenever, then, the fewness of believers disturbs us, let the converse come to mind, that *only those to whom it is given can comprehend the mysteries of God* [cf. Matthew 13:11].



Ideas about God or even a sense of God is not what Calvin calls "actual knowledge" of God. For that the Scriptures are necessary and without substitute or addition. Neither Calvin nor the Confession contradicts Scripture which states that the world through its wisdom did not come to know God. Even Van Til called the kind of Natural Theology you advocate "anti-Christian," so you can't really place all of your disdain on Clark's Scripturalism alone. There are plenty of people who disagree with you.

The other use of "light of nature" have already been mentioned concerning things indifferent and to equate this with JTB is again to confuse apples with oranges. But I think it is clear that your epistemology is neither necessarily Reformed or even very coherent. 

As for the Scriptures being written, no one has denied anything of the sort. You should at least attempt to follow the arguments already presented. I will refer you to the citation provided by J.P. Moreland (not a Scripturalist) in one of these threads around here started by Rich. As I said to another of Clark's critics on another thread; For Clark, and hopefully for all Christians, belief in truth is not the result of analyzing marks on a page in a black book called the Bible, it is the gift of God. There is no empirical component to knowledge. Unfortunately, my hope sometimes appears to be wishful thinking at least when it comes to some.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> First, the viability of the Confession's teaching on the light of nature is not the point. It is the fact that the Confession teaches it and Scripturalism denies it.



Wrong again. The light of nature is not cognitive. People have opinions about things indifferent like when church should start, how long sermons should be, etc. and people are at liberty to decide such things for themselves. If you think the Confessional phrase "light of nature" refers to extra-biblical knowledge and some cognitive power of nature then you should prove it. 



> Second, I haven't said anything in relation to Clark, but only in relation to statements made by Civbert on one of the roots this thread, namely, "Scripture is not the words and sentences written in the NKJV or the Greek or whatever language. Scripture is the propositional truths that God has revealed to us through verbal revelation."



Yet, as Anthony has repeatedly stated, this IS Clark's position. Read Intro to Christian Phil and you will see his entire arguments against the idea that knowledge requires experience and that written sentences are the same as propositions. See J.P. Morland's discussion already provided and he's not a "Clarkian" by any stretch. Propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences and, as such, they are spiritually and not empirically discerned. Jesus said the very words he spoke "are spirit and they are life."


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> We're on the same page theologically but I just can't get your epistemology because I believe it does not comport with the Scriptures.



If the epistemology advanced does not comport with Scripture then you should be able to demonstrate this. That would be the brotherly thing to do, don't you think? 



> Since the Church has not decided to settle the matter of controversy I hope you can allow me the liberty to view matters otherwise.



I have never suggested that you can't beg the question or even beat us up with impunity.  I would prefer if you didn't do either, but, hey, I understand a lot of this is new to you.


----------



## Magma2

I would like my opponents to please define truth?

I'll get the ball rolling. I would define truth as whatever God thinks and for no other reason than He thinks it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> If the epistemology advanced does not comport with Scripture then you should be able to demonstrate this. That would be the brotherly thing to do, don't you think?



That's precisely what I've been trying to do.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Calvin for example said that men have a sense of the divine, but denied that men know God apart from the Scripture.



More Scripturalist conflations! I know that I have previously quoted Calvin's statement to the effect that men do but open their eyes and they see God -- natural theology. It is quite clear from the section quoted by Magma2 that Calvin is speaking about "saving" knowledge of God.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Wrong again. The light of nature is not cognitive. People have opinions about things indifferent like when church should start, how long sermons should be, etc. and people are at liberty to decide such things for themselves. If you think the Confessional phrase "light of nature" refers to extra-biblical knowledge and some cognitive power of nature then you should prove it.



I did. There are opinions and practices "contrary to the light of nature," 20:4. "The light of nature showeth there is a God," 21:1. Sins are aggravated when committed against the light of nature, LC 151. The mystical light of the Scripturalist cannot account for these propositions.



Magma2 said:


> Yet, as Anthony has repeatedly stated, this IS Clark's position.



It could have been the US President's position, but if his name is not brought into the discussion it is irrelevant.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> I would like my opponents to please define truth?
> 
> I'll get the ball rolling. I would define truth as whatever God thinks and for no other reason than He thinks it.



See the archetype/ectype thread. God does not think propositionally; as ALL reformed divines teach, God does not reason consequentially. The conceptualisation of truth is decreed by God so creatures might be blessed in Him.


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> That's precisely what I've been trying to do.



Then Rich where are the biblical passages complete with sound exegesis in support of your position and refuting mine?


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> See the archetype/ectype thread. God does not think propositionally; as ALL reformed divines teach, God does not reason consequentially. The conceptualisation of truth is decreed by God so creatures might be blessed in Him.




I asked for a definition not some nondescript reference to an old thread. I didn't ask whether God reasons consequentially or sequentially or whether creatures might bless Him, etc., etc.

If you can't answer the question, please don't respond with more irrelevancies. I asked for a simple definition. I take it that in your case it was asking too much.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> If you can't answer the question, please don't respond with more irrelevancies. I asked for a simple definition. I take it that in your case it was asking too much.



Actually you provided your own definition, and it is that to which I was responding. Your definition presupposes certain ideas which are not in accord with reformed thought. Truth cannot be whatever God thinks, because God does not think consequentially. Full stop. End of story.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> Then Rich where are the biblical passages complete with sound exegesis in support of your position and refuting mine?



As is not uncommon with the way Christians in the past have discussed things I have been referring to the sense of Scripture of some things as well as quoting the Confession and the Reformed tradition on certain principles.

Now, you may not like that according to your methodology but I agree with and submit to the Confession's teaching on these items and the Scriptures they draw from to support that position.

When I provide those critiques, however, they are excluded because, _a priori_, they don't fit a Scripturalist interpretation of the same material. In some cases, you've even accused the Confession of Thomistic corruption where it disagrees with you.

I don't honestly see how I can convince you. I'd have to argue for a passage using a Scripturalist epistemology to get you to agree with it but then you wouldn't be moved from your position.

Thus, I'm back where we started. I've argued my points and am content that the points have been made to the best of my ability relying not on my authority but upon the way Scripture uses words, what the Confession says about certain subjects, etc.

I believe I have Ecclesiastical warrant to confess alongside centuries of Presbyterians and am not dissuaded to change my mind on the basis of an epistemology that I see over-riding some fairly good portions of the Confession.

I'd actually like some WCF scholars to quote some primary sources about what "light of nature" means. I'll quote Calvin here about the two Kingdoms. What I ask of you, Sean, is to critique Calvin for me here and show me how *he* is all messed up in the way he talks about the innate *knowledge* that all men have:



> Institutes 2.2.13-15
> 
> *Yet its [man's natural reason] efforts do not always become so worthless as to have no effect, especially when it turns its attention to things below.* On contrary, it is intelligent enough to taste something of things above, although it is more careless about investigating these. Nor does it carry on this latter activity with equal skill. For when the mind is borne above the level of the present life, it is especially convinced of its own frailty. Therefore, to perceive more clearly how far the mind can proceed in any matter according to the degree of its ability, *we must here set forth a distinction. This, then, is the distinction: that there is one kind of understanding of earthly things; another of heavenly.* *I call “earthly things” those which do not pertain to God or his Kingdom, to true justice, or to the blessedness of the future life; but which have their significance and relationship with regard to the present life and are, in a sense, confined within its bounds. I call “heavenly things” the pure knowledge of God, the nature of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom.* The first class includes government, household management, all mechanical skills, and the liberal arts. In the second are the knowledge of God and of his will, and the rule by which we conform our lives to it.
> 
> Of the first class the following ought to be said: since man is by nature a social animal, he tends through natural instinct to foster and preserve society. Consequently, we observe that there exist in all men’s minds universal impressions of a certain civic fair dealing and order. Hence no man is to be found who does not understand that every sort of human organization must be regulated by laws, and who does not comprehend the principles of those laws. *Hence arises that unvarying consent of all nations and of individual mortals with regard to laws. For their seeds have, without teacher or lawgiver, been implanted in all men.*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Let me finish with the conclusion of Calvin's quote. It could well be aimed at the epistemology in dispute:


> Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. *If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God.* For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [1 Corinthians 2:14] calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> I did. There are opinions and practices "contrary to the light of nature," 20:4. "The light of nature showeth there is a God," 21:1.



Like defining something as basic as truth, I gather this discussion is once again beyond you. Seeing I've already disposed of earlier mentions of the "light of nature" per the Confession which in no way can be construed, even by you, to provide warrant for your Natural Theology, it doesn't follow that mentioning the same term in later chapters you've miraculously discovered a new and different use of the term. 

So what do we find in 20:4? Christians are not permitted to claim Christian liberty as a basis by which to oppose the use of lawful power which God ordained as such things are "contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity. . . ." Again, no assertion that the light of nature is any way cognitive or that the meaning intended is anything more than what we might call "common sense." Sorry Reverend, not surprisingly the Confession still does not provide you with any solace for your anti-Christian epistemology. 

Per the proof texts of 21:1 it is clear they have in mind innate ideas which is nothing more than Calvin's _sensus divinitas_ and the impress of conscious already covered above.



> Sins are aggravated when committed against the light of nature, LC 151.



Of course it's always sinful to go against conscience. What you need to do is demonstrate that conscience is a means of cognition. Of course you won't. This game is have me jump through hoops while you jerk your knee ever time you see "light of nature." I played this game with you and your concordance and the word "know" in Scripture. You just don't seem to see 1 Cor. 1:21 contradicts you and it would be against the light of nature for me to go against the known principles Christianity which are found in Scripture alone. 

I realize this is lost on you, but it is YOU who needs to demonstrate YOUR position. Not just cite a word here or a phrase there and sit back and just PRESUME your mere mention of a word supports your cause. 

For what it's worth I'm very thankful you didn't play this kind of pathetic game in your review of Murray and the WMO.


----------



## MW

Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, p. 73, shows what is meant by the light of nature and its functionality.



> The same object may be known by the light of Nature, and by the light of Faith. This may easily be understood: I may know there is a God by the light of Nature; and I may beleeve it, because the Scripture saith so: so Hebr. 11. I may by faith understand the Word was made, and by arguments know it was made; and this is called faith, by James. The divels beleeve, that is, they have an evident intuitive knowledge of God, and feel it by experience; not that they have faith, for that is a supernaturall gift wrought by God, and hath accompanying it pia affectio, to him that speaketh, as the first truth. Faith therefore, and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing different waies: faith doth, because of the testimony and divine revelation of God; the light of Nature doth, because of arguments in the thing it self by discourse. And faith is not a dianoeticall or discursive act of the understanding, but it's simple and apprehensive.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Actually you provided your own definition, and it is that to which I was responding. Your definition presupposes certain ideas which are not in accord with reformed thought. Truth cannot be whatever God thinks, because God does not think consequentially. Full stop. End of story.



More irrelevancies. Full stop. End of Story. 

Why don't you find a thread in which you have some competency to offer a worthwhile reply?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> More irrelevancies. Full stop. End of Story.
> 
> Why don't you find a thread in which you have some competency to offer a worthwhile reply?



And on that note, this thread is closed. Both sides have had their opportunity to show where their commitments lie. I'm through with this rancor.


----------

