# Poll - How Do We Know?



## Magma2

Epistemology is concerned with the study and science of knowledge. For many the problem of epistemology can be summed up as; unless you can explain how you know something you can't really say you know anything at all.

Since the time of Plato those who have studied epistemology have defined knowledge as justified true belief. Or, to put it another way -- true opinion with an account of its truth. 

Which of the following provides man with justified true belief (knowledge):

1) The Bible - God's revelation to man
2) Science - the scientific method
3) Experience - "seeing is believing"
4) Reason - the application of the laws of logic 
5) All of the above
6) None of the above
7) Other - I'll explain below
8) I don't know


----------



## Herald

Science is disputed, experience is subjective and reason is tainted by the fall. Jesus said:

[bible]John 17:17[/bible]


----------



## Davidius

I answered "I don't know" because I'm a fairly new student of philosophy and often find myself overwhelmed while reading through some of the conversations on the board. I'd like to learn more, though. 



BaptistInCrisis said:


> Science is disputed, experience is subjective and reason is tainted by the fall. Jesus said:
> 
> [bible]John 17:17[/bible]



This is one thing that I found myself thinking, too, but I was have also been thinking about how we use our mental faculties and sensory receptors (seeing, hearing) to receive information from the scriptures. If reason is tainted and therefore unreliable, how do we account for our belief that reading the bible results in true knowledge?


----------



## etexas

I voted for "all of the above" I will not go into my reasons now but I would like to add, the Holy Bible is the lens by which you must view and measure the others. Grace and Peace


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This is one thing that I found myself thinking, too, but I was have also been thinking about how we use our mental faculties and sensory receptors (seeing, hearing) to receive information from the scriptures. If reason is tainted and therefore unreliable, how do account for our belief that reading the bible results in true knowledge?



Good question. 

I would say this is because the "sensory receptors" do no receive "information", but images and sensations. The mind itself must recognize these images and replace them with the ideas and concepts they represent. In other words, you can't read a sentence if you don't know what the words mean a priori. Reading is an example knowledge of the necessity a a priori knowledge. 

So you are not getting any information via the sensory receptors, only images that you mind must already know how to translate. This is completely different from the idea of empiricism - which says that the information is produced from sensations and images themselves (by so mysterious process). Empiricism is the idea that we can know by sensory perception alone - or that the root or basis of knowledge is sensations and images. 

If sensation has a "role" in obtaining knowledge is debatable. If there is a role, it is not one of producing knowledge a posteriori (deriving knowledge from experience). New knowledge must be based on a priori knowledge (knowledge already known) such as the case of reading or hearing language. 

There are those who believe language itself is a product of evolution - with origins in primitive grunts and groans. These sounds developed over time into language as we know it. This model is the one which allows for empirical knowledge - as language itself would have to be a product of experience: the "yow" in response to seeing the saber-toothed cat evolved into the word "cat" or "watch out!". This model might save the empirical model of knowledge. 

But to answer your question more directly ("If reason is tainted and therefore unreliable, how do account for our belief that reading the bible results in true knowledge?") We depending on the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Civbert

I follow Jesus said:


> I voted for "all of the above" I will not go into my reasons now but I would like to add, the Holy Bible is the lens by which you must view and measure the others. Grace and Peace



I'll be interested in your response. 

If one says that the Bible has the final say on what is truth, then it seems to me that none of the others are sufficient in themselves to produce knowledge (they . In other words, you can speculate about what is true or false using empirical and rational methods, but the Bible is the final authority and therefore the only foundation for truth given to man. 

I'd say it is reasonable to _believe_ things based on things other than Scripture, I just would not call it "knowing" or real knowledge.


----------



## etexas

Civbert said:


> I'll be interested in your response.
> 
> If one says that the Bible has the final say on what is truth, then it seems to me that none of the others are sufficient in themselves to produce knowledge (they . In other words, you can speculate about what is true or false using empirical and rational methods, but the Bible is the final authority and therefore the only foundation for truth given to man.
> 
> I'd say it is reasonable to _believe_ things based on things other than Scripture, I just would not call it "knowing" or real knowledge.


Chuckle! You actually answered it yourself. For me the Bible is the ultimate revelation, we must interpret natural revelation through it. Never the other way around. Grace and Peace.


----------



## Herald

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I answered "I don't know" because I'm a fairly new student of philosophy and often find myself overwhelmed while reading through some of the conversations on the board. I'd like to learn more, though.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one thing that I found myself thinking, too, but I was have also been thinking about how we use our mental faculties and sensory receptors (seeing, hearing) to receive information from the scriptures. If reason is tainted and therefore unreliable, how do we account for our belief that reading the bible results in true knowledge?



David, do not discount the very real ministry of the Holy Spirit. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creautre.


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David, do not discount the very real ministry of the Holy Spirit. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creautre.



I'm not trying to discount anything; I'd just like to make sense of what everyone is saying. We use our reasoning faculties to understand what is taught in the bible. I was wondering how this fits in with our testimony that reasoning is tainted and therefore not wholly reliable. The answer I got from both you and Anthony had to do with the Holy Spirit. However, we wouldn't be able to give that answer if we hadn't first used our faulty reason to understand what the bible says about the Holy Spirit. Does this make any sense?


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'm not trying to discount anything; I'd just like to make sense of what everyone is saying. We use our reasoning faculties to understand what is taught in the bible. I was wondering how this fits in with our testimony that reasoning is tainted and therefore not wholly reliable. The answer I got from both you and Anthony had to do with the Holy Spirit. However, we wouldn't be able to give that answer if we hadn't first used our faulty reason to understand what the bible says about the Holy Spirit. Does this make any sense?



I think the argument that "reasoning" itself is tainted by sin is self-defeating. I think you see the problem with this line of reasoning, it makes knowing impossible. 

Some arguments are correct, and some are fallacious. I believe the problem is with the presuppositions people hold, not reasoning itself. Even with perfectly valid argumentation, people may draw false conclusions if their premises are false. This is why I think empiricism or rationalism or any other epistemology that does not make Scripture it's foundation is inherently flawed. They start with false premises. Empiricism because it teaches that one can convert true knowledge from sensations alone, and rationalism because it believes knowledge can be produced from empty forms without any founding axioms. 

On the other hand, if one has the correct presuppositions, and they use valid arguments, their conclusions will necessarily be true. So the problem is not with "reasoning" or logic itself.


----------



## Herald

Tainted does not mean useless. Left to our own devices our reason would be biased by sin. Consider the following texts:

[bible]1 Corinthians 2:14[/bible]

[bible]Ephesians 2:1-2[/bible]

The natural (unsaved) man is not able to understand the things of the Spirit of God. Paul does not say the natural man cannot understand from a worldly perspective. He cannot understand from a heavenly perspective. In Ephesians we find that the natural mans spiritual condition is described as dead. Again, this does not mean the natural man is not able to use reason. It is just that his reason is tainted by sin. The Holy Spirit is able to quicken the mind to the things of God. Once this is done then reason can be a good teacher.


----------



## JohnV

Sean:

Going by previous conversations about this subject, I think that these options suffer from a lack of qualifications. What you might mean by the first one, and each of them after that, could be a lot different than what I would mean by it. In that respect, this question gets us no further down the road of understanding. 

In simple terms, my epistemology subjects my theory of knowledge. I'm not looking for consistency in my own theory, but trying to conform my theory to consistency, trying to become consistent. I am trying my best to be Scriptural, and therefore that obviates temporal Scripturalism. I can't understand all things, but I can try to bring all things that I can perceive into conformity to the unity of truth. In the end I will only be able to say that I understood poorly. But I hope to be able to say that I understood to the best of my ability, poor as it was. 

In the end, the question will be whether I knew my Lord. Did I hear His voice speaking to me whenever truth was spoken? Did I hear His voice when I was not able to discern truth, and all I could do was obey? Did I converse with Him in my prayers, when I read His Word, submitted to the preaching of His Word? How well I personally know my Lord will be more a determining factor than my theory of knowledge. It will also be more of a determining factor in coming to understand than any other thing, even more than the Word of God all by itself. 

The Word of God, the Scriptures, the Bible, cannot be separated from the Spirit, and the Spirit cannot be separated from Christ. The Bible is not merely an epistemological reference point. Without the Spirit illumination, many will read the Bible and not understand. Their epistemology is not helped at all by appealing to it. 

I know because God knows me; it is not the case that God knows me because I know Him. Applied directly to His revelation of Himself, I know what God is saying of Himself through creation and the Word because He has made Himself known to me. Not just about Himself, but Himself too, through the creation and through the Word. 

No theory of epistemology can separate me from the love of God through Christ Jesus my Lord.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnV said:


> Sean:
> 
> Going by previous conversations about this subject, I think that these options suffer from a lack of qualifications. What you might mean by the first one, and each of them after that, could be a lot different than what I would mean by it. In that respect, this question gets us no further down the road of understanding.





I wanted to answer the question too but, while I believe revelation comes from the Word, I also think mankind learns from the things created due to a capacity given him in creation. Most of the options are methods of informing and not the "...why I know...."

I believe Adam knew God innately in the Garden but Adam was not immediately given the names of animals. Rather, God brought the animals to him so he could name them. I don't believe the names that were given the animals were random syllables nor do I believe that the capacities to see, hear, smell, touch, taste, and reason given to Adam were useless in that process.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> I believe Adam knew God innately in the Garden but Adam was not immediately given the names of animals. Rather, God brought the animals to him so he could name them. I don't believe the names that were given the animals were random syllables nor do I believe that the capacities to see, hear, smell, touch, taste, and reason given to Adam were useless in that process.



That's a very interesting point. I have no idea if the names he gave them were random syllables or not. But God did have Adam assign symbols to the different animals. This actually is relevant to how definitions work - they a tautologies. He could have said "that's a _dog_", or "that's a _koobler_", and it would not have mattered. The definition gives meaning to the word. And this demonstrates that we are allowed to define new terms to help us communicate. Adam didn't deduce the names of the animals - he made them up.


----------



## Herald

Civbert said:


> That's a very interesting point. I have no idea if the names he gave them were random syllables or not. But God did have Adam assign symbols to the different animals. This actually is relevant to how definitions work - they a tautologies. He could have said "that's a _dog_", or "that's a _koobler_", and it would not have mattered. The definition gives meaning to the word. And this demonstrates that we are allowed to define new terms to help us communicate. Adam didn't deduce the names of the animals - he made them up.



Anthony - Adam also had direct communion with God. The fall had not yet taken place. Did God speak to Adam verbally? In the Spirit (to Adam's spirit)? Had God created a language for Adam? When Adam named the animals was his ability to do so innate or did God provoke his mind? I've heard it taught that Adam's intellectual and mental faculties were much higher than ours because they were not tainted by the physical effects of sin. It's an interesting argument, one that I have not entertained for some time.


----------



## Civbert

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Anthony - Adam also had direct communion with God. The fall had not yet taken place. Did God speak to Adam verbally? In the Spirit (to Adam's spirit)? Had God created a language for Adam? When Adam named the animals was his ability to do so innate or did God provoke his mind? I've heard it taught that Adam's intellectual and mental faculties were much higher than ours because they were not tainted by the physical effects of sin. It's an interesting argument, one that I have not entertained for some time.



I don't see any reason to assume Adam did not speak to God the way Moses did - verbally. It seems that Adam knew language immediately from God. Adam did not have to learn language from his mother. 

[bible] Genesis 2:19 [/bible]

Adam's ability to name the animals would have been innate - just like his ability to speak was innate. And by implication, the capacity to make up new terms is also an innate ability. Beyond that, I'm not confident that more can be said. 

It is very interesting.

P.S. for some reason I can't get Gen 2:19 to display in this post. 
P.P.S. Now it works!


----------



## Tom Roach

For anyone who didn't answer "The Bible - God's revelation to man", shame on you! Don't you know that from God springs forth every bit of knowledge?

I always get annoyed when I see Greek quotes because I know none of that would be any good if it wasn't for God letting it happen. Pastor Brian Schwertley said that sola scriptura is the foundation for how we must approach Bible study, and I agree with him. He also said the Bible is the text book for counseling. If not based on scripture, it's no good unless it is coincidentally in agreement with God's word. Psychology and philosophy distract us from the truth.

Satan wants us to believe that we need extra-Biblical advice. He wants us to think, "Hey, maybe there's a chance someone else has the answer I'm looking for because I can't find it in that Bible thing."


----------



## Tom Roach

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This is one thing that I found myself thinking, too, but I was have also been thinking about how we use our mental faculties and sensory receptors (seeing, hearing) to receive information from the scriptures. If reason is tainted and therefore unreliable, how do we account for our belief that reading the bible results in true knowledge?



Faith in the living word of God.


----------



## Tom Roach

JohnV said:


> I know because God knows me; it is not the case that God knows me because I know Him. Applied directly to His revelation of Himself, I know what God is saying of Himself through creation and the Word because He has made Himself known to me. Not just about Himself, but Himself too, through the creation and through the Word.
> 
> No theory of epistemology can separate me from the love of God through Christ Jesus my Lord.



YES! Great point, John! I am happy you brought up that we cannot know God without God first revealing Himself to us. I want to add that for us to know God would mean we obey Him completely. If we obey Him only when it is convenient for us, we do not know Him and we do not love Him. Thanks for pointing out that we have no reaching-out power to understand God. He drives us to read and hear His word. Through His word and His Son comes all truth and understanding. This is only a mystery to the unrighteous believer.


----------



## Magma2

JohnV said:


> Going by previous conversations about this subject, I think that these options suffer from a lack of qualifications. What you might mean by the first one, and each of them after that, could be a lot different than what I would mean by it. In that respect, this question gets us no further down the road of understanding.



I'm not going to get into this debate now since I want to see how the poll turns out first, but I think my opening remarks frame the question well enough. Besides, I'm not interested here in furthering understanding, just getting a head count. I think I clearly defined how I was using the term knowledge and if someone doesn't understand that, perhaps they or you could ask for clarification.  

If you'd like to make a more nuanced response or simply qualify your answer, #7 has you covered.  



> The Bible is not merely an epistemological reference point. Without the Spirit illumination, many will read the Bible and not understand. Their epistemology is not helped at all by appealing to it.



All this is irrelevant to the poll question. I assume everyone answering it is a Christian. The question has to do with what you think qualifies as knowledge in the sense of being a justified true belief. That's all. 



> No theory of epistemology can separate me from the love of God through Christ Jesus my Lord.



Again, while I'm glad, it is besides the point of the poll.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Adam didn't deduce the names of the animals - he made them up.


I don't believe he made them up. Note how he names his wife both Woman and Eve (two names) - the names reflect her nature. That's the way names are given throughout the Scripture.


----------



## Tom Roach

SemperFideles said:


> I don't believe he made them up. Note how he names his wife both Woman and Eve (two names) - the names reflect her nature. That's the way names are given throughout the Scripture.




Genesis 2:21-24
and

Genesis 3:20
_How beautiful are these passages?_


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> I don't believe he made them up. Note how he names his wife both Woman and Eve (two names) - the names reflect her nature. That's the way names are given throughout the Scripture.



Either he knew the name of the animals or he made them up. Since God told him to name the animals, he made them up.

He came up with a new term - the name Eve. Prior to Adam naming the woman Eve, there was nothing named Eve. Nor was there a word for what she was. He decided that he would call her "woman" because she came from man. He made a new term based on her origin in him. And for all the animal names he created new terms (names). He didn't ask God "what's the name of this animal so that I can give this animal to correct name. Adam did the naming, even if he used a combination of other terms in doing so. And he could have used anything he wanted and the name would have been right because he was doing what God told him to do - naming the animals.


----------



## Tom Roach

The "Experience - 'seeing is believing' " is difficult for men to understand. You know how often the one of weak faith demands a sign from God? The "show me a sign so I will understand, God" idea? (Yes, these are professing Christians). Abraham and David were two of the best examples of men who showed complete faith and trust in God's promises to them. That is, we too know God's promises to us, and some of us may sometimes tend to doubt them coming true (that is, doubt God's promises coming to be).

We also have the whole truth in scripture--LESSONS FOR LIFE. So, we can only acquire true knowledge by having knowledge of the complete word--the way to attain wisdom. We are held accountable by God to study, know, and sometimes teach his word.

I know so little right now. Every day I learn so much more through the word and this process will not stop. I cringe when I hear people say "believing is seeing" because it shows me they just aren't confident God will give them knowledge through their faith. I'm not saying to not study academics! I am stressing that we study the scriptures primarily and then we can understand the math, economics, biology, etc. so much better. And yes, there is a lot of worldly knowledge that contradicts the truth, but that too is written.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Either he knew the name of the animals or he made them up. Since God told him to name the animals, he made them up.
> 
> He came up with a new term - the name Eve. Prior to Adam naming the woman Eve, there was nothing named Eve. Nor was there a word for what she was. He decided that he would call her "woman" because she came from man. He made a new term based on her origin in him. And for all the animal names he created new terms (names). He didn't ask God "what's the name of this animal so that I can give this animal to correct name. Adam did the naming, even if he used a combination of other terms in doing so. And he could have used anything he wanted and the name would have been right because he was doing what God told him to do - naming the animals.



I suppose it's possible that the terms were new but I'm not sure. It seems that Adam was born with a capacity to communicate. He certainly wasn't making up new words that God hadn't conceived of. It's speculation of course.

My point is that Adam was brought the animals and he "experienced" them before he named them. Just as Adam's wife was given names that accorded with her nature, Adam named the animals. It's not as if God said, "Name this..." and Adam uttered "Dog" as some phonetic sound because he was running out of new words. What I'm arguing is that Adam named it Dog because Dog represented the nature of the animal that Adam _observed_. The name is immaterial, the fact that Adam _mediately_ named the animals by having them brought to him is key.


----------



## MW

It seems a simple statement to say "the Bible." But the Bible tells us to honour father and mother. How do I know who my father and mother is? The Bible does not tell me such particulars, yet it is clear as day that I must know such particulars if I am going to conscientiously obey the Bible.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> It seems a simple statement to say "the Bible." But the Bible tells us to honour father and mother. How do I know who my father and mother is? The Bible does not tell me such particulars, yet it is clear as day that I must know such particulars if I am going to conscientiously obey the Bible.



Not at all. You are obligated to honor the people you believe are your parents. 

To prove this - suppose one is adopted but was never told. He would assume that his parents were truly his parents. He doesn't know they are his parents even though he has the same level of evidence you or I have. But one can not know a false proposition. Yet even though he doesn't know who his parents are, despite being certain, it would be a sin if he dishonored those who he believed are his parents. 

And I do know who my parents when I use the term know colloquially. But we are not talking about beliefs that we are sure about; that level of justification allows for people to have contradictory knowledge.


----------



## MW

It is a pitiful condition to not be able to know if you have kept God's commandments; 1 John 2:3, "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."


----------



## Tom Roach

To know God is to obey God is to love God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Not at all. You are obligated to honor the people you believe are your parents.



 I know you're being serious, but my initial reaction was to laugh out loud when I read this.


----------



## bookslover

Magma2 said:


> Which of the following provides man with justified true belief (knowledge):
> 
> 1) The Bible - God's revelation to man
> 2) Science - the scientific method
> 3) Experience - "seeing is believing"
> 4) Reason - the application of the laws of logic
> 5) All of the above
> 6) None of the above
> 7) Other - I'll explain below
> 8) I don't know



I voted for #5 because:

1) God's written revelation tells us all we need to know about God, man, and salvation; and, where it touches on such things, the Bible give us accurate information on what we would call scientific questions.

2) The scientific method, when properly practised, agrees with what the Scriptures teach (especially general revelation) because science explores God's creation.

3) Experience, when not twisted by drugs or mental illness or sin, is what we call our encounter with God's world as it objectively exists outside us. Experience can validate and confirm what we have already found in the Word.

4) God is a God of reason and orderly intellection (see Psalm 119, _passim_), a God of "order, not of confusion" who wants things done (especially in our worship of Him) "decently and in order," which implies a prior commitment to thinking things through.

Just some rough thoughts, but when science, experience, and the intellectual life are all plugged into the Scriptures, and informed by them, they are all legitimate ways we know.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> It is a pitiful condition to not be able to know if you have kept God's commandments; "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."



And when the bible uses the term "know" it usually means "certain" or "to be sure". This is not "knowledge" which by definition can never be false. 

Consider this: do you think one can know with epistemic certainty that we have kept his commandments? Can we know with epistemic certainty that we are saved? Because if you "know" at that level, then you can just kick back an not bother with all these "good works" because you "know" you are saved and nothing can change that. 

Now, please tell me if it is not a sin to dishonor those who you assume are your parents. Really. You said on had to have real knowledge of who your parents are in order to obey Gods commandment to honor your mother and father. DO you still hold that positions?

Rev. Winzer - we are in a "pitiful condition" because we can_ not _"know" we have kept God's commands. We know that we have not - because Scripture tells us this. And we don't "know" who the elect are, not even if we are elect. Not with any epistemic justification. We may have "assurance" of our salvation based on the evidences of fruit of the Spirit (as the WCF confirms). But our good works do not guarantee we are saved. 

If we claim we can have knowledge based on experience - then we can "know" all sorts of contradictory things. Person 1 could know "A" and person 2 could know "not-A" based on their individual (subjective) experiences. But this is a contradiction with leads to irrationalism. I don't think you intend to go there, but that is where the insistence that experience justifies claims to knowledge leads. 

Knowledge is truth for all times, places, and people. It is not "private" such that two people can know contradictory propositions. One can not know a falsehood - no matter how much he believes it. If it's false, it's not knowledge. Experience may always lead to false beliefs.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Anthony,

Are you saying we cannot know "with epistemic certainty" that we are saved? I'm not sure I read you right.

For Scripture does say, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life....And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 5:13, 20

Would you clarify for me, please? Thanks.

Steve


----------



## Civbert

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Anthony,
> 
> Are you saying we cannot know "with eptistemic certainty" that we are saved? I'm not sure I read you right.
> 
> For Scripture does say, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life....And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 5:13, 20
> 
> Would you clarify for me, please? Thanks.
> 
> Steve


[bible]1 John 5:13-14[/bible]
I think here Scripture is speaking about the _assurance _of salvation. This is not absolute knowledge (which can not be false by definition). 
[bible]1 John 5:20[/bible] 1 John is a bit difficult to understand. Reading through the whole chapter it seems to say that if anyone keeps sinning, they "we know" they are not saved. 
[bible]1 John 5:18[/bible]
If we take "know" to mean epistemically justified true belief - then we are all lost - for not one of us is perfectly free from sin - even after regeneration. So I would not say that "know" in 1 John is being used as an epistemic standard of knowledge. It uses know to mean sure or confident, the same way I am sure that next time I eat a lemon, it's going to taste sour. I don't really know/JTB, I know/confident/sure.

So no, I do not think we can know (epistemically) that we are saved. We have assurance by examining our fruits that we are saved. We can have confidence in our salvation. But we can not give an infallible argument from a priori truths that we are unquestionable saved. That knowledge is not available to us. We do not know who the elect are.


----------



## Answerman

Anthony, how do you understand Romans 8:16? "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,"

It would seem that God gives His children a supernatural way of knowing we are one of His children.


----------



## Civbert

Answerman said:


> Anthony, how do you understand Romans 8:16? "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,"
> 
> It would seem that God gives His children a supernatural way of knowing we are one of His children.



I think this is true. However, this is like the knowledge of God all men are born with, or the knowledge instilled in John the Baptist while still in his mother's womb. It is not knowledge that we can justify. We can not verify this from any epistemic axioms we hold. So in trying to be aware of what we can justify as true, this does not qualify. This is assurance/knowledge, not justified true belief knowledge. 

If we take this kind of knowledge as equal to justified true belief, then we are going to have to open up the Scriptures to new revelations. How can will tell Joe Layman that "while I'm sure you believe that God has let you know that we should only serve domestic wine during communion, but this is not knowledge because I can not verify this against the Word". How can we say the Pope does not speak with divine authority?

So while I think God can, and does give us some truths apart from Scripture, these "personal" truths do not fit into a biblical epistemology. We must make the Scriptures the foundation of justified knowledge.


----------



## jenney

I picked "all of the above" but that isn't the same as putting them on equal footing. I believe in degrees of certainty and "working" knowledge.

My experience, the scientific method and logic may pencil in a "fact" or "truth", but then God's Word either confirms or disproves it. They can be wrong. But it sounded like if an idea is, in fact, wrong, then by definition, it was never "known". Is that what you mean?

For what it's worth, I am aware that even God's Word, though it can't be wrong, can be misread, misunderstood, misapplied or misused. But I don't determine its truth from the other methods listed. Rather, I determine theirs from it.

If the poll question meant know in the sense of "absolutely true" then I would have said the Bible.

I'm sorry if I messed up the poll because I was using a different definition of "know". All the propositional stuff is out of my realm of, er, knowledge.


----------



## Civbert

jenney said:


> If the poll question meant know in the sense of "absolutely true" then I would have said the Bible.
> 
> I'm sorry if I messed up the poll because I was using a different definition of "know". All the propositional stuff is out of my realm of, er, knowledge.


Sean didn't give a definition of "know" so you can't mess up the poll by using the wrong definition. 

I've argued for a different definition of knowledge - but you have demonstrated how important it is to define you terms and use them consistently. You basically made the logical choice based on the definition you gave. 

I was thinking of saying "don't worry, this isn't a scientific survey" just because how ironic that sounds coming from me (since I don't believe science can not produce knowledge).

P.S. Oops. Sean did define knowledge as justified true belief - my mistake.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> And when the bible uses the term "know" it usually means "certain" or "to be sure". This is not "knowledge" which by definition can never be false.



So we have at least established that you are not using the Bible to define knowledge.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> So we have at least established that you are not using the Bible to define knowledge.



See my post regarding definitions. 

Also I said "usually", I could have said "often" or "frequently". The word "know" has several meaning as used in Scripture - as I'm sure you are aware. However, my definition of knowledge is completely warranted by Scripture.

I have heard some people define their terms just as the bible uses them. But then whenever they use the term "know" they mean "assured", "justified true belief", and "intimate sexual relations" all at the same time. I find that a bit confusing.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Also I said "usually", I could have said "often" or "frequently". The word "know" has several meaning as used in Scripture - as I'm sure you are aware. However, my definition of knowledge is completely warranted by Scripture.



Part of the truth is not the truth. You are making an exclusive claim in your definition of knowledge, and it excludes the Scripture's own use of the word "to know." Hence it is unwarranted by Scripture. You might think you are warranted to ignore part of the Scriptural testimony because of a presupposition you have derived from an extra-biblical source; but then you are only proving the point that all knowledge does not come from the Scriptures.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Part of the truth is not the truth. You are making an exclusive claim in your definition of knowledge, and it excludes the Scripture's own use of the word "to know."


 This is just false. Presuming Scripture as the axiom of knowledge, preserves the knowledge of Scripture and makes it available to man univocally. It allow man to know God by His Word, and know His commands, and know the Gospel.

You still haven't read what I wrote on definitions - or you don't understand it. I don't mind being challenged or corrected, but please try to understand what I'm saying. I did NOT make an exclusive claim in my definition of knowledge - that's not the nature of definitions. Know can be used in several way just as I said repeatedly. See my response to Jenny. You're exaggerating the situation and not dealing with the majority of my arguments. I am defending my definition of knowledge and how knowledge should be founded on Scripture since that is the source of knowledge revealed to us by God - the "whole counsel of God" as the WCF says. You seem to believe that we can reliable find knowledge outside of God's revelation via "experience". However, I'm not sure because you have made your position clear to me. 

I've defended my position. You may defend yours. But please don't misrepresent mine.


----------



## MW

Civbert, once again you are becoming offended at the mere thought of your system being challenged as unscriptural.

You cannot show from Scripture why those other Scriptural references to knowing must be placed on a subordinate level to your strict Clarkian definition of knowledge. The Scriptures themselves do not make the philosophical distinctions you are making. So where are you getting the distinctions from?

Herein lies the problem -- you claim Scripture alone provides knowledge, but Scripture presupposes people know things not revealed in the Scriptures, e.g., 1 Thess. 5:12, "know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you." The Bible provides the major; providence provides the minor; and the conclusion is as infallible as if it were revealed in Scripture.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Civbert, once again you are becoming offended at the mere thought of your system being challenged as unscriptural.


 Of course, if justified true belief is unscriptural we can know nothing. 



armourbearer said:


> You cannot show from Scripture why those other Scriptural references to knowing must be placed on a subordinate level to your strict Clarkian definition of knowledge.


 Now that's interesting. Are you saying that empiricism and rationalism are equivalent to God's revelation for justifying knowledge? If science says man evolved from apes, the it must be equally true with God created man. 

I'm not putting other Scriptural references subordinate to one another. I'm saying that all things are subordinate to Scripture. But we also don't force definitions onto examples that don't work with the context and intended meaning of the author. Especially when that leads to contradictions! And we don't' try to make out terms agree with the whole of Scripture because that would lead to ambiguities that destroy meaning. 

When a term is used in any text, we are obligated to understand how it is being used in that context. We don't say "well Webster defines X as Y, therefore what you mean is Y". 



armourbearer said:


> The Scriptures themselves do not make the philosophical distinctions you are making. So where are you getting the distinctions from?


 From Scripture. Different cases of terms have different meanings in Scripture. Scripture also doesn't artificially divided faith into a "tri-part" definition that came from a Latin definition. Yet many demand faith as a three part definition without any warrant. And they apply this to Scripture. And that's important because I'm not forcing my definition onto Scripture. 

And I'm not apply a philosophical distinction on anything. I'm saying a word can have different meanings. This is not philosophy, it's common sense.



armourbearer said:


> Herein lies the problem -- you claim Scripture alone provides knowledge, but Scripture presupposes people know things not revealed in the Scriptures, e.g., 1 Thess. 5:12, "know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you."



Let's see. [bible]1 Thess. 5:12[/bible]

Now we see that the meaning is not "justified true belief" or even "sure of" but "respect". Again you are forcing your "experience" or extra-biblical sources for knowledge onto Scripture. It doesn't fit. 




armourbearer said:


> The Bible provides the major; providence provides the minor; and the conclusion is as infallible as if it were revealed in Scripture.


 What does that mean - "providence provides the minor". Providence is "the care and superintendence which God exercises over his creatures" according to Webster. But when I search the Bible, I only find one reference in Acts 24:12. So we don't have enough information to give a "biblical" definition. Yet there it is, in the Bible. How do we know what it means if the Bible doesn't define it. Hold on! The Bible doesn't even come with a glossary or dictionary! I guess we can't know what the Bible says because it doesn't include definitions - and we know that all definitions are false if they are not found in the Bible, right? 

The definition of knowledge as justified true belief is completely consistent with the philosophical system found in Scripture. And what we want is a Christian philosophy - a view of knowledge which is consistent with and supportive of the revelation given to us by God. Making Scripture the axiom of knowledge does this. The Word does not as justified true belief by any means other than Scripture itself. Attempts to force Scripture to support empiricism or to make "experience" a necessary precondition of "justified true belief" has failed every time. The idea that man can justify true belief apart from the Scriptures destroys the idea that we can actually have knowledge. Experience and empiricism lead to contradictions (when two propositions are a contradiction, then if one is true, the other is necessarily false). But God knows all things, and nothing He knows is false. Any epistemology that leads to contradictions is fallacious and un-scriptural.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Of course, if justified true belief is unscriptural we can know nothing.



That is exactly where your rejection of inductivism leads.



Civbert said:


> Now that's interesting. Are you saying that empiricism and rationalism are equivalent to God's revelation for justifying knowledge? If science says man evolved from apes, the it must be equally true with God created man.



Evolutionary theory is built on imagination, not sensory perception. There are NO examples of an ape becoming a man. Hence there is no particular from which the general idea can be concluded.



Civbert said:


> When a term is used in any text, we are obligated to understand how it is being used in that context. We don't say "well Webster defines X as Y, therefore what you mean is Y".



You use the word "understand" in relation to something that Scripture itself does not tell us. Scripture does not tell us how it is using the terms you are differentiating, and yet you distinguish them nonetheless. Hence you are using knowledge from outside Scripture to arrive at your understanding of Scripture.



Civbert said:


> And I'm not apply a philosophical distinction on anything. I'm saying a word can have different meanings. This is not philosophy, it's common sense.



So you are using common sense to arrive at your understanding of what Scripture teaches, and from there you come to the conclusion that all knowledge comes from Scripture. Self-defeating! You use common sense realism to espouse idealist scripturalism so you can cast down common sense realism.



Civbert said:


> What does that mean - "providence provides the minor". Providence is "the care and superintendence which God exercises over his creatures" according to Webster. But when I search the Bible, I only find one reference in Acts 24:12. So we don't have enough information to give a "biblical" definition. Yet there it is, in the Bible. How do we know what it means if the Bible doesn't define it. Hold on! The Bible doesn't even come with a glossary or dictionary! I guess we can't know what the Bible says because it doesn't include definitions - and we know that all definitions are false if they are not found in the Bible, right?



You are arguing ad absurdum against your own epistemology. I accept logical classifications and extra-biblical definitions because my scriptural philosophy permits it. I can provide an account of knowledge on the basis of realism which does not tie me to the words of Scripture. Yours does not. The last question of the above paragraph is something you are obliged to answer.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> That is exactly where your rejection of inductivism leads.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionary theory is built on imagination, not sensory perception. There are NO examples of an ape becoming a man. Hence there is no particular from which the general idea can be concluded.



Evolutionary theory is provable using the "inductivism" you insist keeping. It is based on the "scientific" theory of induction. It takes empirical based "facts" and uses them to answer the question of the origin of man. Unless one presupposes Scripture there is no answer against it. 



armourbearer said:


> You use the word "understand" in relation to something that Scripture itself does not tell us. Scripture does not tell us how it is using the terms you are differentiating, and yet you distinguish them nonetheless. Hence you are using knowledge from outside Scripture to arrive at your understanding of Scripture.


 I'm trying to show you that the definitions of words are not "knowledge". You don't deduce definitions. You don't "know" the definitions of words, you define words in relationship to what you know a priori. 



armourbearer said:


> So you are using common sense to arrive at your understanding of what Scripture teaches, and from there you come to the conclusion that all knowledge comes from Scripture. Self-defeating! You use common sense realism to espouse idealist scripturalism so you can cast down common sense realism.


 Sorry - common sense was a poor choice. I should say simply say it's logical. 




armourbearer said:


> You are arguing ad absurdum against your own epistemology.





armourbearer said:


> I accept logical classifications and extra-biblical definitions because my scriptural philosophy permits it.


So does Scripturalism. That's what you are missing. 



armourbearer said:


> I can provide an account of knowledge on the basis of realism which does not tie me to the words of Scripture. Yours does not.


 Wrong.



armourbearer said:


> The last question of the above paragraph is something you are obliged to answer.


 I think I already answered it. Scripturalism does not require that I deduce definitions from Scripture. What is required is that the implications of my definitions not contradict Scripture. 

Neither idealism nor realism is supported by Scripture. And this is the second time you've mis-characterized Scripturalism as idealism.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Evolutionary theory is provable using the "inductivism" you insist keeping. It is based on the "scientific" theory of induction. It takes empirical based "facts" and uses them to answer the question of the origin of man. Unless one presupposes Scripture there is no answer against it.



The answer against it is the one I already provided -- that there is no evidence that monkeys turn into men. Lacking evidence it remains an unproven hypothesis. This suffices to show it is not "fact."



Civbert said:


> I'm trying to show you that the definitions of words are not "knowledge". You don't deduce definitions. You don't "know" the definitions of words, you define words in relationship to what you know a priori.



Let's see if we can work out this little merry-go-round defence of Scripturalism. (1.) You affirm all knowledge comes from Scripture. (2.) You discount what Scripture says about finding knowledge outside of Scripture and call the use of the word "know" something different from knowledge as defined in point 1. (3.) These other definitions of the word "know" are so defined because they differ from what you know a priori, which is, that all knowledge comes from Scripture. Quite clearly Scripture teaches whatever you know a priori, so that you are not actually learning anything from Scripture, but simply reading into Scripture what you already know.



Civbert said:


> Sorry - common sense was a poor choice. I should say simply say it's logical.



So now it is not common sense which leads you to make classifications of the biblical use of the word "know," but it is logic. But the merry go round keeps spinning, because the laws of logic are not taught in Scripture either.



Civbert said:


> I think I already answered it. Scripturalism does not require that I deduce definitions from Scripture. What is required is that the implications of my definitions not contradict Scripture.



Now what do we have? I can come up with any idea and call it knowledge because it does not *contradict* Scripture. Everybody knows there is no warrant in a non-contradiction of exclusive authority.



Civbert said:


> Neither idealism nor realism is supported by Scripture. And this is the second time you've mis-characterized Scripturalism as idealism.



As long as knowledge is limited to a priori ideas it is idealism, and I can safely continue to call it such. The irony is, you will never "know" if I am right or not, because Scripture nowhere describes idealism.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> The answer against it is the one I already provided -- that there is no evidence that monkeys turn into men. Lacking evidence it remains an unproven hypothesis. This suffices to show it is not "fact."


 Not according to "science" and inductivism. There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution.



armourbearer said:


> (1.) You affirm all knowledge comes from Scripture.


Knowledge comes from God. Scripture is God's Word. Technically, we justify knowledge by demonstrating it is Scripture or deducible therefrom. Otherwise we are left with speculation and opinion. Or one might call it "practical knowledge" or "working knowledge" as long as one is clear it is not "justified true belief". But absolute knowledge is revealed in Scripture or must be deducible from Scripture. That is Scripturalism.



armourbearer said:


> (2.) You discount what Scripture says about finding knowledge outside of Scripture and call the use of the word "know" something different from knowledge as defined in point 1.


Scripture does NOT say we can find "justified true belief" outside of God Word. These assertions aren't arguments. And definitions are not deduced. You define terms based on a priori knowledge. Scripturalism uses the concept of truth that Scripture uses simply by being propositional.



armourbearer said:


> (3.) These other definitions of the word "know" are so defined because they differ from what you know a priori, which is, that all knowledge comes from Scripture.


 Now you are simply being argumentative. Definitions are not knowledge - they conform to knowledge. 



armourbearer said:


> Quite clearly Scripture teaches whatever you know a priori, so that you are not actually learning anything from Scripture, but simply reading into Scripture what you already know.


Again you are confusing definitions with knowledge. 



armourbearer said:


> So now it is not common sense which leads you to make classifications of the biblical use of the word "know," but it is logic. But the merry go round keeps spinning, because the laws of logic are not taught in Scripture either.


Here again you are wrong. You are also being insulting. I suppose this happens when rational arguments fail. 

The laws of logic are present in Scripture implicitly. Jesus used logic. Paul used logical arguments. Language itself fails if the law of contradiction does not apply. Scripture is a most clear example of the laws of logic we have. 

I think once again we are at the end of the line. You _seem_ to have asserted knowledge apart from revelation despite a lack of biblical warrant. You have denied the WCF which says the Scripture is the whole of God's council (and nothing may be added). You seem to deny logic (which really is self defeating). I don't see what's left. Denying Scripture? I think that's been accomplished by implication. If you are not denying these things, then you should be a Scripturalists because that's essential the what it says. But somehow you've gotten these irrational (or at least incoherent) ideas about "justified true belief" requiring experience or the idea the non-propositional knowledge is actually cogent. 

I'm sure that part of the problem is how I am explaining things. My arguments are not as clear as possible. Probably they have gotten worse because I'm trying to hard to explain what are simply ideas. But it's clear that you're not following my arguments. Again you keep drawing conclusion and making assertions that don't follow from what I am saying. I don't understand why, and I don't want to speculate. I hope you will take some time and consider my arguments more carefully. Better yet, read what Clark wrote. He was much better at demonstrating his position from the Word. Maybe it won't make a difference - but it seems like you're working with a different set of categories and definitions. I don't think you see the inherent flaws in subjugating dogmatic revelation to subjective experience. And you keep conflating definitions and knowledge. You're not a Van Tilian so I can not identify the source of the misunderstanding - and you've avoided answering my questions so I have any explanations of your ideas. I don't see how we are going to come to an understanding this way. You clearly don't understand my position and I admittedly don't understand yours.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> The answer against it is the one I already provided -- that there is no evidence that monkeys turn into men. Lacking evidence it remains an unproven hypothesis. This suffices to show it is not "fact."


 Not according to "science" and inductivism. There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution.



armourbearer said:


> (1.) You affirm all knowledge comes from Scripture.


Knowledge comes from God. Scripture is God's Word. Technically, we justify knowledge by demonstrating it is Scripture or deducible therefrom. Otherwise we are left with speculation and opinion. Or one might call it "practical knowledge" or "working knowledge" as long as one is clear it is not "justified true belief". But absolute knowledge is revealed in Scripture or must be deducible from Scripture. That is Scripturalism.



armourbearer said:


> (2.) You discount what Scripture says about finding knowledge outside of Scripture and call the use of the word "know" something different from knowledge as defined in point 1.


Scripture does NOT say we can find "justified true belief" outside of God's Word. These assertions aren't arguments. And definitions are not deduced. You define terms based on a priori knowledge. Scripturalism uses the concept of truth that Scripture uses simply by being propositional.



armourbearer said:


> (3.) These other definitions of the word "know" are so defined because they differ from what you know a priori, which is, that all knowledge comes from Scripture.


 Now you are simply being argumentative. Definitions are not knowledge - they conform to knowledge. 



armourbearer said:


> Quite clearly Scripture teaches whatever you know a priori, so that you are not actually learning anything from Scripture, but simply reading into Scripture what you already know.


Again you are confusing definitions with knowledge. 



armourbearer said:


> So now it is not common sense which leads you to make classifications of the biblical use of the word "know," but it is logic. But the merry go round keeps spinning, because the laws of logic are not taught in Scripture either.


Here again you are wrong. You are also being insulting. I suppose this happens when rational arguments fail. 

The laws of logic are present in Scripture implicitly. Jesus used logic. Paul used logical arguments. Language itself fails if the law of contradiction does not apply. Scripture is a most clear example of the laws of logic we have. 

I think once again we are at the end of the line. You _seem_ to have asserted knowledge apart from revelation despite a lack of biblical warrant. You have denied the WCF which says the Scripture is the whole of God's council (and nothing may be added). You seem to deny logic (which really is self defeating). I don't see what's left. Denying Scripture? I think that's been accomplished by implication. If you are not denying these things, then you should be a Scripturalists because that's essential the what it says. But somehow you've gotten these irrational (or at least incoherent) ideas about "justified true belief" requiring experience or the idea the non-propositional knowledge is actually cogent. 

I'm sure that part of the problem is how I am explaining things. My arguments are not as clear as possible. Probably they have gotten worse because I'm trying to hard to explain what are simply ideas. But it's clear that you're not following my arguments. Again you keep drawing conclusion and making assertions that don't follow from what I am saying. I don't understand why, and I don't want to speculate. I hope you will take some time and consider my arguments more carefully. Better yet, read what Clark wrote. He was much better at demonstrating his position from the Word. Maybe it won't make a difference - but it seems like you're working with a different set of categories and definitions. I don't think you see the inherent flaws in subjugating dogmatic revelation to subjective experience. And you keep conflating definitions and knowledge. You're not a Van Tilian so I can not identify the source of the misunderstanding - and you've avoided answering my questions so I have any explanations of your ideas. I don't see how we are going to come to an understanding this way. You clearly don't understand my position and I admittedly don't understand yours.


----------



## Civbert

Rich,

If this were a regular thread I'd say it's come to it's end - allowing for Rev. Winzer to respond. But I think you should keep it open so others can add comments and participate in the poll. 

I find the results interesting. And the comment have also been helpful in understand why some chose one answer over another. Many who choose "all the above" had fair reasons for doing so. 

I also appreciate a lot of the questions I've been asked, but I don't want to leave the impression that I am the most knowledgeable person on Scripturalism. I've had my debates with other Scripturalists and even Sean and I disagree on some details. The authority on Scripturalism is Gordon Clark. 

I'm happy to answer more questions but I hope more people will post their opinions. I've already posted more than my share and I don't want to intimidate anyone from posting their views - especially those contrary to mine. I'm going to try to limit my contributions and let others talk.

...

For a change.

...

Really.

....

Go ahead everyone.

...

Don't mind me.

...



peep.


----------



## MW

Civbert, once again a thread comes to a close with your position relying on mere assertion and an inability to demonstrate the basic element needed to support an epistemic claim -- consistency. You use knowledge outside of Scripture -- or what you allege is "implicit" in Scripture -- to justify your belief that all knowledge comes from Scripture. Unless you can show from Scripture that Scripture uses the word to know in different senses, then your interpretation of Scripture is inductive (as indeed all interpretation must be), and therefore illegitimate according to your own criterion for testing truth claims. The Scriptures nowhere teach the laws of logic, which you require for elementary classification; these likewise must be presupposed according to your prior epistemic commitment. All in all you have gone along way towards showing that knowledge comes from "all of the above." I rest.


----------



## Civbert

The thread's not closed - just the Rev Winzer/Anthony exchange. 

I hope I have not discourage participation. And there's no law that says one has to read the whole thread in order to post an opinion on the poll question. I'd really like to hear more from others.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Civbert, once again a thread comes to a close with your position relying on mere assertion and an inability to demonstrate the basic element needed to support an epistemic claim -- consistency.



I've been following some of this and while I said I would wait to comment until my poll was closed, I thought I'd add my own  in response to Rev. Winzer's silly diatribe. Winzer's contention is that the Scriptures nowhere employ the word "know" or "knowledge" in the sense of knowledge being a justified true belief. His refrain is starting to remind me of the parrot squawks of the Arminian who can't help but get all in a flutter every time they see the word "all" or "world" in Scripture never considering the context or the sense in which these words are used from verse to verse. 

Contrary to the jerking knee of Rev. Winzer, Scripture uses the word “to know” in a number of different senses, which is why clearly defining what you mean and not equivocating on the definition is essential in order for the conversation to advance. Scripture tells us; “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib." Is this knowledge in the sense of justified true belief? I admit that it does sound like knowledge as some here define it, but no bother. Of course “Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain.” Again, while certainly carnal, hardly a matter for epistemology. Of course the analogy Scripture draws between the intimacy between husband and wife and Christ and His church is an important theological truth not gained by sensation, no matter how pleasurable. 

That is why, unless you define your terms in light of Scripture, you are no different then the Arminian who scream “God desires all to be saved and all men are free to come to Him if they only will” – bondage of the will be damned.

Some following the likes of Aquinas contend that Romans 1 gives warrant for extra-biblical knowledge and that all men Know God (capital K - as if the word "know" and its cognates are never used in a colloquial sense). Of course 1 Cor 1:21a tells us; "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God . . . ." Perhaps Rev. Winzer would feel better in that Van Tilian neither world where such glaring contradictions produce a sense of awe and mystery, but for those of us interested in the truth we recognize that one cannot both KNOW God and not KNOW God in the same sense! 

Of course, as previously cited, Calvin said; “I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, or what is by diligence acquired, but that which is delivered to us by the Law and the Prophets.” Was he too without biblical warrant for so narrowly restricting knowledge? I hardly think so. 

Some verses which immediately come to mind:

Isa 8:20; To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Gordon Clark could not have said it better.

John 8:31; Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Notice again; "if you abide in My word . . . you shall know the truth" and this was spoken to believers. A clearer statement of what is entailed in a justified true belief can hardly be found anywhere.

Luke tells us that he wrote his gospel so that we "might know the exact truth about the things [we] have been taught." Written like that other good Scripturalist the Apostle Peter who said that the Scriptures are prophesy "made more sure" and that they are a light shining in a "dark place" and not the bright place Rev. Winzer seems to inhabit. Perhaps Rev. Winzer has never seriously studied the history of philosophy and just doesn't grasp how completely dark this world really is?

Contrary to Winzer's epistemological smorgasbord where new truths can be discovered under every rock and through every feeling and intution, John 14:17 tells us that the world does not receive the Spirit of truth. Not only that, it cannot receive Him. Further, John tells us elsewhere that the Spirit will lead us into ALL truth and not just some truth as Rev. Winzer contends.

Of course, for those who might be tempted to suggest Christian science and empiricism are somehow sanctified and has been magically transformed into means by which knowledge might be acquired, they must first demonstrate that the Spirit speaks apart from the revealed Word even though John tells us that "he shall not speak of himself; but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." Of course, they can always refer to Is 8:20 above as the appropriate bridle before they go off on that wild goose chase. However, if they want to chase their tails, who am I to stop them.

Perhaps after wandering in the dark for awhile they might remember John's words: "They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." Sounds an awful lot like Isiah quoted above doesn't it?  

John also tell us in his second letter that his love is for "all who know the truth, for the sake of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever." Yet, Rev. Winzer says the truth that can be known is not in any sense limited to Scripture and he assures us that the Scriptures do not have a monopoly on truth. Like that character from the old X-Files show Rev. Winzer asserts "the truth is out there." Funny, just like that character in that show, Rev. Winzer never seems to demonstrate how we might find the truth "out there" and apart from Scripture. To him and those like him I will say; "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."


----------



## Civbert

Thanks for the Scriptural proofs for Scripturalism - that's what was missing from my arguments.


----------



## JohnV

I've tended to use two methods in trying to get to know things with certainty. It is usually the negative aspects that is of the most benefit. Positive elements of knowledge require putting them into the right order, and that's always really tricky. But negative elements tell me by themselves where their order of error is. 

One of the things that tells me of error, (the negative aspect of knowledge: not that I know this or that _is_ true, but that I know this or that _is not_ true) is the attitude, both of that which is asserted and of he who asserts it. Because I can know God through His Word (as apposed [not opposed, but apposed] to knowing the Bible through the Incarnate Word, both of which are epistemic necessities) I know that speaking truth is speaking about or for God. One cannot speak truth and do so unkindly, unlovingly, unthinkingly, unaffectedly, selfishly, unmercifully, etc. You cannot speak for God with an ungodly approach; nor can you speak about God in an ungodly way. If there is also rancour in the speaking of it, then it cannot be true no matter how true it might seem to be in fact. 

All arguments have some truth in them, otherwise they would not deceive. Deceit takes the truth and bends it to suit its own purposes. If I detect that characteristic of deceit, whether it is by lack of graciousness, of mercy, of self-examination, or of humility, then I am very wary of deceit itself. My best response is to reject it altogether. The truth, the very same truth, will still be presented to me by other and better sources, but this particular source is no longer trustworthy, even if it seems to speak some things truly. 

I've tuned in from time to time in this thread. It doesn't go anywhere. The Scripturalism presented here is a circular semantic trap and nothing more. That has become evident. To get caught in its trapping argumentations is a springboard only into more traps. The trick is not to get caught in the semantic tail-chasing yourself. 

I think it is enough that people are scared away from the topics of Scripturalism by the way it has been presented. I don't think anyone becomes convinced by the arguments; they just get scared off by the way it comes across. There's nothing basically compelling about the arguments themselves either, it seems to me. All I ever see is a going around in circles; and, epistemically speaking, I'm left standing exactly where I started off. All that is offered, as far as I can see, is a semantic solution at best. 

What bothers me the most, though, is that there seems to be an inherent confession of not being able to know God personally, as if God is only some reference point. It talks about God as if He is distant, personally unconnected. 

E.g.: How do I know that I know? I know the Word. How do I know the Word? Because I read the Word. How do I know what I read? Because I know the written Word. Now do I know the written Word? Because it is in the Book. What book? The Bible. 

And it just keeps on going around, without an element of personal contact with God through the Spirit. You could say that it sounds clinical, not personal. But the Word of God without God's personal presence is not the Word of God, even if its the Bible. There are countless people who use the Bible to justify themselves and their views, and may even brazenly quote it arightly, but they're still not standing on the Word of God. You can't divide the Word of God from the person of God without losing the Bible as the Word of God. It's just not possible. So its the disconnectedness that bothers me the most. 

This is my submission. I'm not going to pursue this, though. I see no need. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I'm not going to be won over to a position that requires a chip on the shoulder.


----------



## Hungus

I had to go with Other. Simply put, we can learn some things from all of the above, however only option 1 - Scripture can be judged to be "True" everything else is either factual, within realms of observation, or intuitive ,in the philosophical sense. Plus we must be able to communicate and understand before we can learn from scripture.


----------



## Magma2

Hungus said:


> I had to go with Other. Simply put, we can learn some things from all of the above, however only option 1 - Scripture can be judged to be "True" everything else is either factual, within realms of observation, or intuitive ,in the philosophical sense. Plus we must be able to communicate and understand before we can learn from scripture.



Thanks for your response Robert. Just wondering, did you by chance read the opening post where I framed the poll question? Seeing that you're "pre-professional philosophy," if you didn't read it would it have changed how you answered the poll? I guess the other question is, what is a fact? Is it true or something else entirely?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnV said:


> I've tended to use two methods in trying to get to know things with certainty. It is usually the negative aspects that is of the most benefit. Positive elements of knowledge require putting them into the right order, and that's always really tricky. But negative elements tell me by themselves where their order of error is.
> 
> One of the things that tells me of error, (the negative aspect of knowledge: not that I know this or that _is_ true, but that I know this or that _is not_ true) is the attitude, both of that which is asserted and of he who asserts it. Because I can know God through His Word (as apposed [not opposed, but apposed] to knowing the Bible through the Incarnate Word, both of which are epistemic necessities) I know that speaking truth is speaking about or for God. One cannot speak truth and do so unkindly, unlovingly, unthinkingly, unaffectedly, selfishly, unmercifully, etc. You cannot speak for God with an ungodly approach; nor can you speak about God in an ungodly way. If there is also rancour in the speaking of it, then it cannot be true no matter how true it might seem to be in fact.
> 
> All arguments have some truth in them, otherwise they would not deceive. Deceit takes the truth and bends it to suit its own purposes. If I detect that characteristic of deceit, whether it is by lack of graciousness, of mercy, of self-examination, or of humility, then I am very wary of deceit itself. My best response is to reject it altogether. The truth, the very same truth, will still be presented to me by other and better sources, but this particular source is no longer trustworthy, even if it seems to speak some things truly.
> 
> I've tuned in from time to time in this thread. It doesn't go anywhere. The Scripturalism presented here is a circular semantic trap and nothing more. That has become evident. To get caught in its trapping argumentations is a springboard only into more traps. The trick is not to get caught in the semantic tail-chasing yourself.
> 
> I think it is enough that people are scared away from the topics of Scripturalism by the way it has been presented. I don't think anyone becomes convinced by the arguments; they just get scared off by the way it comes across. There's nothing basically compelling about the arguments themselves either, it seems to me. All I ever see is a going around in circles; and, epistemically speaking, I'm left standing exactly where I started off. All that is offered, as far as I can see, is a semantic solution at best.
> 
> What bothers me the most, though, is that there seems to be an inherent confession of not being able to know God personally, as if God is only some reference point. It talks about God as if He is distant, personally unconnected.
> 
> E.g.: How do I know that I know? I know the Word. How do I know the Word? Because I read the Word. How do I know what I read? Because I know the written Word. Now do I know the written Word? Because it is in the Book. What book? The Bible.
> 
> And it just keeps on going around, without an element of personal contact with God through the Spirit. You could say that it sounds clinical, not personal. But the Word of God without God's personal presence is not the Word of God, even if its the Bible. There are countless people who use the Bible to justify themselves and their views, and may even brazenly quote it arightly, but they're still not standing on the Word of God. You can't divide the Word of God from the person of God without losing the Bible as the Word of God. It's just not possible. So its the disconnectedness that bothers me the most.
> 
> This is my submission. I'm not going to pursue this, though. I see no need. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I'm not going to be won over to a position that requires a chip on the shoulder.


Good summation John. I know it bothers some that this kind of stuff is pointed out but it really is the main problem. Perhaps there are winsome Clarkian apologists out there but I just haven't seen the philosophy presented in a way that is resonant with the Word. I will grant that Anthony has been generally patient (and Sean more so lately than usual with ocassional lapses but I've been kind of ornery lately myself) but even with that patience it is a presentation of the Word as a Clinican would. 

One thing this has done for me lately is caused me to reflect on the good gifts that God has given me in creation and through His Word. Concurrent with these discussions, I've been listening to a History of Western Philosophy for the past several weeks as I have time in the car. I've listened to others previously (including one by Robbins) but this one is more thoroughgoing.

It dawned on me that perhaps what I sense is that this is all ultimately a way of arguing in standard philsophical categories for things that don't belong there. By philosophical categories, I mean the categories that Western Philosophy has historically used. Thus, the gifts God gives us to observe the world around us (our senses) and things that He expects us to learn from and give _Him_ glory for are categorized as empericism. Now, knowing a bit about Hume, I can flatly deny I'm doing anything of the sort in an autonomous way but for those who either believe you learn everything from your senses or nothing at all I'm either one or I'm the other.

I honestly think that's where the disconnect in much of this discussion is. It's why I was having trouble in the AT/ET thread connecting with Rev. Winzer for a bit because I was trying to reconcile an apologetic method (Van Til presuppositionalism and his discussion of qualitative/quantitative knowledge) with AT/ET theology. I realized that the idea being conveyed in ET revelation was a notion that didn't fit that mode of thinking precisely.

Thus my continued difficulty in saying "How I know" in a way that is philosophically acceptable. On a very basic level, I know I'm a creature of God who bears his image and a capacity to know and reason. I also know from His Word that I can learn from my environment and subdue it and am commanded to do so. I give Glory to God for all of it. The condemnation of Romans 1 is not that men presume to know things about the world around them but that they don't give glory to God because they suppress the innate knowledge they have of their Creator and then refuse to give glory to God for the things around them.

If that is not philosophically precise enough for some people then I'm not really too concerned. I am neither a man that lives by my senses nor a man that trusts his own heart and reason. I am a man transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit, who knows His Shepherd's voice, reads the Word to be guided into all Truth, and is fascinated by and learns from his environment and gives constant glory to the God who created it and expects me to be a steward of it.


----------



## MW

Magma2's response to my participation in this thread shows that he hasn't really been following what I have been saying. My quibble is not over Civbert's different senses of the word "to know." I grant that words are used in different ways. But I can do this consistently because my realist epistemology allows me to accept the inductive method of Bible study. Civbert's does not; and yet he instinctively uses the inductive method in order to classify different uses of the word "to know." Now Magma2 has done the same thing. He is using something (call it knowledge, opinion, logic, common sense, or whatever else one pleases) to arrive at different ideas of the word "to know." He cannot give an account of that something, hence all that is built upon it is mere opinion, according to the idealist claim. So until some account is given as to how one arrives at the different senses of the word "to know," their defence is nothing more than opinion, and worthless.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Magma2's response to my participation in this thread shows that he hasn't really been following what I have been saying. My quibble is not over Civbert's different senses of the word "to know." I grant that words are used in different ways. But I can do this consistently because my realist epistemology allows me to accept the inductive method of Bible study. Civbert's does not; and yet he instinctively uses the inductive method in order to classify different uses of the word "to know." Now Magma2 has done the same thing. He is using something (call it knowledge, opinion, logic, common sense, or whatever else one pleases) to arrive at different ideas of the word "to know." He cannot give an account of that something, hence all that is built upon it is mere opinion, according to the idealist claim. So until some account is given as to how one arrives at the different senses of the word "to know," their defence is nothing more than opinion, and worthless.



Why don't you demonstrate where I've used inductions apart from Scripture to arrive at knowledge as justified true belief above? You make all sorts of wild assertions, yet never seem able to back them up. This all is starting to remind me of the last time I tangled with you on Richard Bacon's list. There you were insistent that for Clark science is cognitive in spite of Clark's repeated contention throughout his "Phil of Science and Belief in God" and elsewhere that science is -- and must be -- always false. I'm honestly starting to think you just don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Magma2's response to my participation in this thread shows that he hasn't really been following what I have been saying.


 He's not the only one. I admit I'm having trouble understanding you. 



armourbearer said:


> My quibble is not over Civbert's different senses of the word "to know." I grant that words are used in different ways. But I can do this consistently because my realist epistemology allows me to accept the inductive method of Bible study. Civbert's does not;


 Again you misunderstand Scripturalism. It does not preclude what you call "inductive arguments". It does imply that any claims to draw infallible universals from particulars is a fallacy. I've shown why many times and this has been ignored. 



armourbearer said:


> .... their defense is nothing more than opinion, and worthless.


 By that statement, you have discounted almost everything you have posted here. If opinions are worthless, then should stop waisting time posting. Your actions however contradict your assertion. 

Try to look past the connotations and understand the denotation of "opinion". The difference between opinion and knowledge has nothing to do with worth. It's a technical difference. An opinion is simply a belief that (even if strongly supported) can not be justified infallibly from a priori knowledge. 

But opinions are extremely useful, and you could not function without them. In my opinion, if opinions are worthless, then we might as will shut down the board and burn all of our commentaries and stop driving our cars, etc, etc. 

Maybe if you tried a little harder to understand my views instead of trying to tell me what my view are, then we could talk to each other. Ask some questions and don't be so quick to dismiss what you don't understand. Maybe use fewer labels and give more explanations. Try answering my questions so I can better understand you views. Offer some alternatives if you think they are better. Let me know when you are interested.


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> Thus my continued difficulty in saying "How I know" in a way that is philosophically acceptable. . . . If that is not philosophically precise enough for some people then I'm not really too concerned.



Then why is there this underlying hostility by you and others toward those of us who continue to try to overcome some of these difficulties and try to be philosophically precise? After all, if you're going to do philosophy or engage in apologetics I would think some degree of precision is necessary, don't you think? Aren't we supposed to answer our critics when they ask us how do we know? Isn't it reasonable to assume that if the Scriptures are true they would also provide answers to even these basic philosophic questions?


----------



## MW

Sean, as I said earlier to Civbert, Scripture itself does not draw these distinctions between the meaning of the word "to know." Where are the distinctions coming from, if not from Scripture? From your own instinctive commitment to realism and the inductive method. And that is all that is needed to show the nullity of a priori scripturalism. Everything you know from Scripture is the result of generalising particulars -- the inductive method. In the example before us, you have taken individual uses of the word "to know" and classified them according to your own perception as to how they are functioning within context. You have then attributed general ideas to these various classifications -- inductions.

It is a shame that you are still making the same fundamental errors you were committing on the Westminster Forum all those years ago. I really do hope you will one day wake up and smell the roses. I guess that is why I bother wasting my time on these little interactions, because I care for you as a brother in Christ and only want the best for you.


----------



## Civbert

To help better illustrate how I think epistemologies work between knowledge and opinion, I'm going to do some illustrating. 

After I finish some work - in the next few days. I think it will help dispose of some misconceptions and maybe some angst when we say X is an opinion and Y is knowledge. Some people have the impression that if something is an opinion, it is useless. I hope to show that this is not only false, but misses the point entirely. 

A picture may be worth a mere thousand words, but a a good diagram is priceless.   

Then later we can look as some different presuppositions I think JohnV is working with how by a minor shift we'll see that there is nothing impersonal about Scripturalism verse any alternative. It is necessarily AND essentially personal.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> Then why is there this underlying hostility by you and others toward those of us who continue to try to overcome some of these difficulties and try to be philosophically precise? After all, if you're going to do philosophy or engage in apologetics I would think some degree of precision is necessary, don't you think? Aren't we supposed to answer our critics when they ask us how do we know? Isn't it reasonable to assume that if the Scriptures are true they would also provide answers to even these basic philosophic questions?


I answer because I can answer without being pigeon holed. I'm hostile to:

- things that I perceive are hostile toward the things in the Scirpture
- those who are hostile toward me (admittedly sinfully at times)
- those who are not hostile toward me (sinfully)

If you want me to give an account for why I'm hostile beyond those reasons above then I cannot give a philsophically precise answer.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> A picture may be worth a mere thousand words, but a a good diagram is priceless.



I look forward to seeing you convey knowledge by means of a diagram.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally Sean, I'm still not convinced that philosophical precision is the way to convince others. My problem right now is reconciling whether that is what aplogetics (defending the faith) is all about. 

I learn a lot by arguing. Since this is a forum you have to tolerate that in the philosophically ignorant.

Or you can browbeat them and make it seem like your view is only held by obnoxious people.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> I look forward to seeing you convey knowledge by means of a diagram.



_Opinions_ my friend. This will be well founded, undeniable, pratically perfect in every way ... opinion. 

As an engineer, opinions are my bread and butter.

Knowledge is my salvation.


----------



## Magma2

Civbert said:


> He's not the only one. I admit I'm having trouble understanding you.



It's always possible that he doesn't understand either. He said; "Unless you can show from Scripture that Scripture uses the word to know in different senses, then your interpretation of Scripture is inductive . . . .' He also accused you of "not using the Bible to define knowledge." Well, I demonstrate that Scripture uses the word to know in different senses and from Scripture and that it also defines knowledge in the sense of JTB. So what does Winzer say; "I grant that words are used in different ways." Then he goes on about the inductive method of bible study as if induction in the case of the _closed_ universe of biblical propositions and commands has anything to do with induction in the sense of trying to infer universals from particulars. At least we can say Winzer is consistent in that he consistently confuses apples and oranges. 

in my opinion that Rev. Winzer just doesn't get it. Closed induction are possible in Scripture and are valid. I'm confident neither you, John Robbins, Gordon Clark or myself would ever say otherwise. There is nothing in Scripturalist epistemology that precludes inductive bible study and examining every use of any word in Scripture. OTOH, per the methods of science and observation closed inductions are impossible outside of omniscience. Consequently, neither the methods of science or observation are cognitive.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> As an engineer, opinions are my bread and butter.



Well, that's where you and I differ (I think you know I have two Engineering degrees myself.)

You may be content to speak that way but if I ask you:

"Will this bridge collapse if I drive a car over it."

and you answer:

"It is my opinion that it will not."

Then, if I was in charge of your work, you would not be put in front of the paying customers.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> in my opinion that Rev. Winzer just doesn't get it. Closed induction are possible in Scripture and are valid. I'm confident neither you, John Robbins, Gordon Clark or myself would ever say otherwise. There is nothing in Scripturalist epistemology that precludes inductive bible study and examining every use of any word in Scripture. OTOH, per the methods of science and observation closed inductions are impossible outside of omniscience. Consequently, neither the methods of science or observation are cognitive.



Read up a little in the field of hermeneutics, Sean, and you will discover there is no such thing as "closed induction." You are bringing your pre-conceived notions to Scripture, so the way you understand the Word will be as wide as your confessional stance. Which is why I keep calling you back to confessionalism, but you think your private interpretations are better. If you had ears to hear you would hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. Which is as much to say that all knowledge is built on relation and prior commitment, not on rational deduction as you so vainly imagine.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Sean, as I said earlier to Civbert, Scripture itself does not draw these distinctions between the meaning of the word "to know."



And that's why you're wrong. If Romans 1 asserts that the world knows God and 1 Cor. asserts that the world does not know God we can conclude that the word "know" is being used in two different sense (that is, unless you're a Van Tilian, then you bow your head and praise the mystery of the holy paradox  ).



> Where are the distinctions coming from, if not from Scripture?



Indeed they are! If Jesus tells believers that if they abide in His word they will know the truth then this is a distinction that Scripture draws. If the Scriptures tell us that in Christ are hid ALL the treasures of wisdom and KNOWLEDGE, then this too is a distinction Scripture makes and we can infer from this, or at least we should, that wisdom and knowledge cannot be found elsewhere. Now, if you claim to know Christ apart from Scripture, perhaps through observation or intuitions or through inductions from observations or sensation or whatever, then the onus is on YOU to demonstrate your claim. But as far as your objection is concern, it has been met.



> From your own instinctive commitment to realism and the inductive method. And that is all that is needed to show the nullity of a priori scripturalism. Everything you know from Scripture is the result of generalising particulars -- the inductive method. In the example before us, you have taken individual uses of the word "to know" and classified them according to your own perception as to how they are functioning within context. You have then attributed general ideas to these various classifications -- inductions.



Refraining from saying what I actually think (I don't want to be chastised for my tone again), this is just silly. Closed inductions from Scripture can be valid. That doesn't mean that other inductions made from observations like the sun rises are similarly valid. Your argument is a non sequitur. Like I said you consistently confuse apples and oranges and then place your confusion in a nice little basket in front of Scripturalism's door. Reminds me of a Halloween trick I once heard, but I think there were matches involved.  



> It is a shame that you are still making the same fundamental errors you were committing on the Westminster Forum all those years ago.



I would be more happy if anyone is interested to read Clark's book on science for themselves and then read your comments. I confess, it was embarrassing especially given dogged persistence even AFTER I provided multiple citations from Clark demonstrating your error. When you're wrong you're wrong. I admit it would be nice if you would at least admit it from time to time.  

But, hey, even Richard Bacon thought that Clark was advancing the traditional three fold view of faith in his book _Faith and Saving Faith._ Doesn't mean I still don't love Richard either.

Peace.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> And that's why you're wrong. If Romans 1 asserts that the world knows God and 1 Cor. asserts that the world does not know God we can conclude that the word "know" is being used in two different sense (that is, unless you're a Van Tilian, then you bow your head and praise the mystery of the holy paradox  ).



More inductive reasoning. Where do you derive the law of non-contradiction in order to know the word is being used in two different senses? After that, why should one use of the word "to know" be placed below the other use of the word "to know" in your order of classification? And after tracing back your thought to its foundations it will be seen that you are doing nothing more than reading your a priori scripturalism into the scriptures in order to arrive at your a priori scripturalism from scripture -- eisegesis.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Board,

I have been waiting to respond, but rather than providing an answer, I am going to attempt to give Gordon Clark’s answer with some comment. All quotations will be taken from his _An Introduction to Christian Philosophy_ copyright 1968. 

*The Axiom of Revelation*

The beginning of the book argues a couple of very key points: *(1)* Knowledge requires some type of _a priori_ equipment, *(2)* the ideal of discovering unbiased truth (presuppositional-less truth) is ill-founded, and *(3)* all secular philosophies who use presuppositions “have not selected those which can solve their problems.” In short, Clark made a point that secular philosophies have up to this point failed. He then begins with this…



> Now, a third…hypothesis for consideration may be proposed. It is that revelation should be accepted as our axiom, seeing that other presuppositions have failed…We must ask, Does revelation make knowledge possible?



He makes the point that the nature of axioms is such that “they are never deduced from more original principle.” As such, Clark argues that the way to judge the correctness of a system’s axioms is to look at the results of the system that is produced by such axioms. I did an article on my blog that dealt with this titled The Nature of Argumentation. My article at the very least agrees with Dr. Clark. (I would like to note that I wrote this article without knowledge of Dr. Clark’s position. In this sense, it is independent support for Dr. Clark’s view of how one justifies the axioms of a system.) 

The next point Dr. Clark makes is that it is impossible to know God apart from revelation. As such, he concludes that if revelation is not accepted as an axiom, then there is no knowledge of God at all. By this he is not referring to natural revelation which he sees as nothing more than “taking the world as an axiom…returning us top empiricism, beset as it is with all the difficulties listed…” This leaves, according to Dr. Clark, verbal communication as the form of revelation he is referring to. He says…



> In this case knowledge does not come by analysis of things in nature, but through words which God spoke to men.



At this point, one should realize that Clark is only defining what he means when he says that we are to take revelation as an axiom for our system. He specifically is defining the Scriptures as the axiom. He clarifies what this means by saying…



> The first principle (Scripture is the Word of God) gives us all teaching of Scripture.



At this point, Clark is arguing that if we take the Bible as the Word of God, then we are able to take all of the teaching of Scripture as theorems of our system so to speak, and from this we can find a system where knowledge is made intelligible – accounted for – or possible, if you will. At this point, many of the objections I have read in this thread have to do with the idea that somehow this is not enough. That there is more needed to provide for an accounting of knowledge. For instance, “…how from the Bible can one get the rest of history, all of science, and even logic and mathematics?” Here is how Dr. Clark addresses this objection in at least two forms…

*1.* All philosophies admit to there being spheres of ignorance. So, even if the Christian system leaves gaps in our desired knowledge is not a pertinent objection. The fact that Christianity can provide some knowledge is far and above any other system. The truth is that the “extent of this knowledge remains to be examined."

*2.* The intelligibility of the Scriptures presupposes logic. Scripture without logic would have no meaning. First off, logic is part of God’s nature. It is “God thinking.” Van Tillians would say that logic is a reflection of the way God thinks. There is no temporal or logical priority concerning logic to God. They are intricately tied together. In some sense, one could say as Dr. Clark did, “Logic is God.” 



> Scripture is the mind of God. What is said in Scripture is God’s thought…As might be expected, if God has spoken, he has spoken logically. The Scripture therefore…does exhibit logical organization...this exhibition of the logic embedded in Scripture explains why Scripture rather than the law of contradiction is selected as the axiom.



It should be noted here that Dr. Clark does not take God as his axiom, just like he does not take logic as the axiom. He sees God, Scripture and logic as intricately tied together, and that logic is part of God’s nature. Yet, he takes Scripture to be the axiom. He says in relation to man…

“The Scripture teaches that God created man in his own image.” He argues that this image “consists chiefly in knowledge, rationality, or logic” – that “knowledge and rationality are the basic constituents of God’s image in man.” He argues that “It is essential therefore to insist that there is an area of coincidence between God’s mind and our mind.” This is no small statement and is a major part of the Clark/Van Til debate.

I suppose that Dr. Clark’s argument regarding logic is that because man is made in the image of God he already comes to the table with “_a priori_ or innate equipment.” This doctrine is one of the theorems (so to speak) derived from the teaching of Scripture. Being a theorem of the system, it then provides an accounting for rationality within the system making knowledge possible.

I will stop at this point, and await comment.

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## MW

"In this case knowledge does not come by analysis of things in nature, but through words which God spoke to men."

He has tried to escape the inevitability of "analysis." In order to make his adversative a genuine contrast, he should have said, "In this case knowledge does not come by analysis of things in nature, but BY ANALYSIS OF THINGS IN SCRIPTURE." He has set up a false dichotomy. He still cannot account for the fact that Scripture itself must be analysed in order to arrive at a correct understanding of its contents. When that is understood, and that empirical method is needed in order to accomplish this, one will see there can really be no honest objection to doing the same thing in relation to nature.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> More inductive reasoning. Where do you derive the law of non-contradiction in order to know the word is being used in two different senses?



Where do I derive the law of non-contradiction? From the Scriptures of course. 

First, see Brian's post above up.

Second, this is an argument proposed by George Macleod on the Scripturalist list some time ago. I consider George a brilliant logician and a very consistent Scripturalist. I think he out did himself with this one  :



> That lc and lem are deliverances of scripture comes from 1 John 2:21:
> 
> No falsehood (pseudos) is of the truth.
> 
> That as it stands is a pretty good declaration of the law of contradiction. It says that there is no proposition (x) that is both a falsehood and of the truth (ie a member of the class of true propositions).
> 
> Note that this is a universal negative. That is, it applies to every member of the class, which in this case is propositions. Now, that it applies to all propositions not just those in scripture should be obvious from the fact that there are no falsehoods in scripture.
> 
> Let Tx stand for 'x is of the truth', and Fx stand for x is a falsehood.
> 
> Then we can put it into symbolic logic as:
> 
> ~3x(Fx & Tx) ---(1)
> 
> where '~' means 'not' and '3x' means 'there exists an x'
> 
> By de Morgans laws this is equivalent to:
> 
> ~3x~(~Fx + ~Tx) ---(2)
> 
> Now in scripture there are (as far as I can see) only two types of proposition spoken of: true ones and false ones. (If you disagree then please show where scripture indicates differently.) Also as far as I can see these two are in contradiction to one another (see the references Sean gave the other day). Again if you disagree then please show the error from scripture. If this is the case
> 
> That being the case (2) can be rewritten as:
> 
> ~3x~(Tx + Fx)
> 
> Then by quantifier conversion this becomes:
> 
> (x)(Tx + Fx)
> 
> (where '(x)' means 'for all x')
> 
> Restating this in longhand it becomes:
> 
> For every proposition, x, it is the case that either x is of the truth or x is a falsehood.
> 
> And that is the law of the excluded middle.
> 
> [I used predicate logic first because it is easier to see what is going on and since when talking about contradictions predicate logic and aristotilian logic give the same results.]
> 
> For completeness, I shall do the same with Aristotilian logic:
> 
> No falsehood is of the truth can be written formally as:
> 
> E(F,T)
> 
> which by conversion can also be written as:
> 
> E(T,F)
> 
> As I said that is as good a statement as any of lc.
> 
> Then by obversion this becomes:
> 
> A(T,F')
> 
> and since T is equivalent to F' (as stated previously) we get
> 
> A(T, T) ---(3)
> 
> which is the law of identity.
> 
> Now recall from Clark's "Logic" that the universal affirmative can be written in symbolic terms as:
> 
> A(a, b) = (a < b)[(b < a) + (a < b')'(b' < a)']
> 
> So substituting from (3) into this gives:
> 
> (T < T)[(T < T) + (T < T')'(T' < T)]
> 
> Expanding gives:
> 
> (T < T)(T < T) + (T < T)(T < T')'(T' < T)
> 
> I am not going to go through this step by step (you can check it for yourself) but it should be pretty obvious that the left hand side of this disjunction reduces to 'T" and the right hand side reduces to 'F'
> 
> So we have:
> 
> T + F
> 
> Which is the law of the excluded middle, and states that every proposition is either of the truth or is a falsehood.
> 
> As a final note. This should be taken as a demonstration that lc and lem are deliverances of scripture. Since one has to assume them in order to proceed it constitutes proof only in the sense of implicit self reference along the lines of 2 Tim 3:16 or God swearing by himself.



Hope that helps.


----------



## MW

Now Sean, your problem is that the other uses of the word "know" are not considered by yourself as falsehood. So why do you conclude that the word "to know" is being used in different senses?


----------



## Bladestunner316

I said the Bible God's revelation to man.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Anthony,

You have said (in post 34),

So no, I do not think we can know (epistemically) that we are saved. We have assurance by examining our fruits that we are saved. We can have confidence in our salvation. But we can not give an infallible argument from a priori truths that we are unquestionable saved. That knowledge is not available to us. We do not know who the elect are.​
Can I know that I am “in Christ”? And that He is in me? John 15:4-7 not only asserts it, but commands it. I am in Him by His own initiation and activity to the end (already realized, albeit not in its final phase) that I am one of His sheep, who shall never perish (John 10:27, 28). I know _I_ am elect, as I am united to the Elector by virtue of His word and His Spirit.

You also said (post 32),

Consider this: do you think one can know with epistemic certainty that we have kept his commandments? Can we know with epistemic certainty that we are saved? Because if you "know" at that level, then you can just kick back an not bother with all these "good works" because you "know" you are saved and nothing can change that.​
I would say Yes, I know this (with absolute certainty), although I do not keep them _perfectly_, for it is within the pale of His commandments to repent, confess and seek His restorative grace when I do fail. Thus keeping “short accounts” with Him is to keep His commandments. “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father…”

I am concerned when you say,

Because if you "know" at that level, then you can just kick back and not bother with all these "good works" because you "know" you are saved and nothing can change that.​
For knowing “at that level” does not cause one to “just kick back and not bother” but to the contrary, fills one with a joyous energy born of love and gratitude for the “epistemic certainty” of being irrevocably in His love and care. What I hear from you is an _earning_ born of _un_certainty.

According to the Scripture I can (and must) “know that (I) know him” and “know that (I) am in him” (1 John 2:3, 5), and this beyond mere assurance (as you are using the word), which subjective sense may wax and wane, to an epistemic awareness of His life as my life (Col 3:3, 4; Gal 2:20), which union shall never be severed.

This is knowledge given by Him that I might have absolute certainty (John 6:37-40; Rom 8:35-39; Jude 24) of His love’s keeping power. I am in union with Him as never wife was to a husband.

You may still opine this is just “assurance,” but if you do, I might think you are measuring me by the measure you know, which is limited by your experience of epistemic certainty, which appears to be only in regard to intellectual matters and not spiritual. When I say “spiritual” I mean having to do with Christ Himself and not only rational categories concerning, Scripture, knowledge, epistemology, God, etc.

When I hear so many words and in them an apparent absence of the joyous union of the heart at vital rest in God, the words “vain philosophy” come to mind.

For in we who know God in Christ with the epistemic certainty which is the heritage of the saints, words are vessels (1 Pet 4:11) of the gospel of His glorious grace, “wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph 1:6). If I do not hear this love song in a professing Christian’s words, I take a longer look to see what is really in the spirit of such a one.

Steve


----------



## Civbert

Steve,

I didn't make myself clear about what I mean by "epistemic certainty". By this I mean the kind of certainty demonstrated by 2 + 2 = 4. Epistemic certainty is produced when given the truth of the premises, the conclusion must be true - not very probably or 99% true but as true as 2 + 2 = 4. Anything less is not epistemic certainity. And to achieve this level of certainity, one must be able to deduce the conclusion in question "by good and necessary consequences" from true premises. 

You have spoken of "knowing" you are saved at a level I would describe as "beyond reasonable doubt". This is not to know in an infallible sense, but a strong assurance. It is also an assurance that the WCF tells us may wax and wane. That is, it is possible to doubt we are saved. And why is simple, we still sin. And a single sin is enough to condemn us. And we also know that in the end, many will say "Lord, Lord!" and wonder why they were not saved. These will have died with the full expectation that they were saved. But they were wrong. And it's possible, the tiniest bit possible, that we are wrong when we say "I know I am saved" if this is a claim for having an infallible justified true belief. 



> When I hear so many words and in them an apparent absence of the joyous union of the heart at vital rest in God, the words “vain philosophy” come to mind.


 You read words and say they are joyous or maybe sad? This is like looking at a painting and saying it speaks to you. It's irrational. I could fill my writing with words designed to evoke an emotional response - to manipulate people into a sense of happiness or joy - but this is misleading and distracts from truth. It is a kind of irrational thinking that leads one to erroneous conclusion when one judges ideas based on how they make you feel. 

Our modern culture has had their thinking polluted by irrationalism. There is an anti-intellectualism that says that we must balance our intellect with our emotions - the heart vs, head dichotomy. "Feel the force Luke, free your mind and let your heart tell you what to do". This is the way many Christians are speaking and thinking. I think they've been seduced by the "dark side".


----------



## Civbert

Jerusalem Blade said:


> You may still opine this is just “assurance,” but if you do, I might think you are measuring me by the measure you know, which is limited by your experience of epistemic certainty, which appears to be only in regard to intellectual matters and not spiritual. When I say “spiritual” I mean having to do with Christ Himself and not only rational categories concerning, Scripture, knowledge, epistemology, God, etc



I think you are rejecting spiritual matters when you reject "rational categories concerning, Scripture, knowledge, epistemology, God, etc". You seem to have fallen for the idea that there is a separation between the intellect and the spiritual. This is the kind of mysticism and anti-intellectualism that I think has lead people to rationalizing a God of contradictions and paradox. 

Epistemic certainity is (by definition) limited to rational categories and spiritual knowledge - which is nothing more than the propositions given to us in Scripture, not some sort of mystical otherness that is beyond reason and based on subjective experience. 

Assurance/know is what we have when we are assured of our standing before God as one of the elect. It is not infallible knowledge, but a sense of being right with God by faith. It does wax and wane when one sins and is driven to his knees before a gracious and loving God.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Anthony,

Is not “epistemic certainty” that which Christ has in Himself, and is thus in His word? And are there not “rational categories” which purport to be about spiritual matters and are yet but products of human reasoning, devoid of Christ’s Spirit? 

I do hold to an integration of the mind and the spirit, and I appreciate what you say about “the kind of mysticism and anti-intellectualism that…has lead people to rationalizing a God of contradictions and paradox,” the attempted defense of the “well-meant offer” a good example of that.

But it seems the Clarkians I have observed and interacted with here have a different spirit and a different mind, which puts them in conflict with other Christians. There are many believers I differ with on many points, and yet we have fellowship in Christ, for we have the same Spirit, and, regarding essentials, the same mind. I do not have this sense with you Clarkians. Yet I do not say you are not believers; whence this constant discord?

----------

I take shelter in – I _live_ in – *Christ’s* statements of epistemic certainty; by virtue of being in Him, I live in and partake of the truth of His Word, making it mine, according to His will.

I find myself asking, Does this Clarkian system of thought conduce to availing oneself of the friendship of Christ – intimacy, secret [counsel] -KJV; Psalm 25:14; Strong’s #5475 – and the consequent love toward brethren? From what I have seen here I cannot answer that in the affirmative.

There is a one-upmanship I perceive in the strivings of “Scripturalism” which seeks the ascendancy through knowledge – constant assertions designed to demonstrate the superiority of this philosophical system. This is not the Spirit of Christ, but of man. *He* is our ascendancy, and that ascendancy is manifest in a “lowliness of mind” (Phil 2:3) bearing the fruit of the Spirit per Galatians 5:22, 23.

Although initially predisposed to favor Clark, I recoil from the contentiousness I have witnessed (whether it be ego-driven or idea-driven) purporting to be of God, but, in light of Scripture, clearly not.

Steve


----------



## Magma2

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Although initially predisposed to favor Clark, I recoil from the contentiousness I have witnessed (whether it be ego-driven or idea-driven) purporting to be of God, but, in light of Scripture, clearly not.



I will agree Scripturalism is an attack on some very basic assumptions (presuppositions) that people hold dearly and, frankly, take for granted, like sensations are a means to knowledge. However, I take exception to your remarks here Steve. There has been considerable "contentiousness" on both sides of the debate. While as sinners sometimes things are taken too far and I know I've been guilty of that at times, on the plus side for iron to actually sharpen iron some friction *must* occur or nothing gets sharpened. 

Ironically, and as I see it, the central objection to Scripturalism (and not "Clarkianism") is that it restricts that which can be known to Scripture and all those things necessarily deducible from Scripture. Wow, how contentious. We can't let Christians restrict knowledge to just the Scriptures and their necessary inferences, what then will become of our opinions? 

Scripturalism is simply the application in epistemology of Isa 8:20; "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Paul said that in Christ are hid ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge and that in Scripture we have the mind of Christ. Why would this be contentious?

Could it be that the basic premises of Scripturalism expose unbelief?

From our previous encounter over the question of the magistrate and marijuana, it seems to me that contentiousness means any disagreement with you. 

What I find contentious is for men to raise their own opinions and beliefs to the level of God's Word to which all men must bend. Frankly, I think Scripturalism provides the epistemic foundation by which men can freely resist, reject and expose such ecclesiastic authoritarianism. It's very liberating.


----------



## Civbert

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Anthony,
> 
> Is not “epistemic certainty” that which Christ has in Himself, and is thus in His word?...


 I don' think one may divide Christ from the Word. However, I don't see the relevance. Epistemic certainity has to do with how we justify a particular proposition is knowledge.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> ... And are there not “rational categories” which purport to be about spiritual matters and are yet but products of human reasoning, devoid of Christ’s Spirit?


 I'm not sure what you mean here when you say "devoid of the spirit of Christ". The categories of Scripture/revelation are are spiritual matters. These are not "products of human reason" but are God's revelation. When we meditate on the Word, we are considering spiritual matters. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I do hold to an integration of the mind and the spirit, and I appreciate what you say about “the kind of mysticism and anti-intellectualism that…has lead people to rationalizing a God of contradictions and paradox,” the attempted defense of the “well-meant offer” a good example of that.
> 
> But it seems the Clarkians I have observed and interacted with here have a different spirit and a different mind, which puts them in conflict with other Christians. There are many believers I differ with on many points, and yet we have fellowship in Christ, for we have the same Spirit, and, regarding essentials, the same mind. I do not have this sense with you Clarkians. Yet I do not say you are not believers; whence this constant discord?



I think it's because Clark challenges the current status quo. He has upset contemporary church men by showing how many have been seduced by a subtle irrationalism. He did not accept some popular presuppositions like "the Scriptures are inherently paradoxical". He challenged those who held a Thomistic Philosophy. He saw the way theologians in academia have given ground to worldly and romanish philosophies so that we no longer think in terms of what Christ did for us on the cross and now focus on Christ living in our hearts. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I take shelter in – I _live_ in – *Christ’s* statements of epistemic certainty; by virtue of being in Him, I live in and partake of the truth of His Word, making it mine, according to His will.


 Case in point. You seem to have a rather mystical view of your relationship with Christ. We are internalizing God - as if we are becoming mini-Jesuses. And this mystical element is irrelevant to epistemic certainity. 

"Union with Christ" now means some sort of mystical experiences beyond words. No one explains it because it's not a "rational" concept. In fact, reason is rejected as to "impersonal" and cold. This is the anti-intellectualism I see. Now granted, I've seen some back peddle and try to have it both ways, keep the mysticism and keep the reason, but I don't see it working in most cases. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I find myself asking, Does this Clarkian system of thought conduce to availing oneself of the friendship of Christ – intimacy, secret [counsel] -KJV; Psalm 25:14; Strong’s #5475 – and the consequent love toward brethren? From what I have seen here I cannot answer that in the affirmative.


 When you challenge someones base assumptions, and question their "orthodoxy", they get upset. That's understandable. When some of the irrationalism of Van Til is pointed out, then there is a hostile response. 

We need to look beyond the personalities and consider the truth. For instance, Sean often comes across as harsh and insensitive (especially to those who disagree with him). But when people object to him, very frequently ignore the vast majority of his arguments. And I think the reason why is that they don't_ have _an answer to them. Of course, this makes them more irritated and hostile. 

However, both Sean and Rev Winzer are usually careful to criticize peoples views, and not the people themselves (not that this makes you "feel" better. But one should not take it personal. And Christ was not always that careful to avoid name calling. 

But we are all adults here and we can rule over our emotions and not let our emotions rule over us. We must look at the arguments and ignore the tone and personalities. We are only interested in the truth. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> There is a one-upmanship I perceive in the strivings of “Scripturalism” which seeks the ascendancy through knowledge – constant assertions designed to demonstrate the superiority of this philosophical system.


 Oneupmanship can not be done with one man. It takes two. I do find the "assertions" a waist of time. "My position is the reformed one", "your position amounts to (whatever)-ism. "Your taking on the history of orthodox theology". Yadda yadda. Let's have some real arguments around here. Assertions are not arguments. (ironic that ) 

However, if one can demonstrate the superiority of the Christian philosophical system like Clark did, I say hoorah! 




Jerusalem Blade said:


> This is not the Spirit of Christ, but of man. *He* is our ascendancy, and that ascendancy is manifest in a “lowliness of mind” (Phil 2:3) bearing the fruit of the Spirit per Galatians 5:22, 23.


 Maybe not. But this is a heated argument at times and maybe that's because the issues are important, and the misunderstanding are practically purposeful. Strawman arguments are sent out like toy soldiers, and hot air assertions are sent off like cannon balls. 

I would agree with you that we need to always show the love of Christ to our brothers. But Paul has shown us that this does not always mean being nice and tender. Sometimes this means being harsh and challenging. It's always nice when we can dialog, and that's usually more productive. But at some point you need to make it clear where you are in opposition and why.

I personally have tried to avoid sarcasm as the worst kind of arguing. But I appreciate a health debate - not assuming every one I've had has been healthy. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Although initially predisposed to favor Clark, I recoil from the contentiousness I have witnessed (whether it be ego-driven or idea-driven) purporting to be of God, but, in light of Scripture, clearly not.
> 
> Steve


 God worked with Luther, did he not? And Paul was no pansy himself. And Jesus called people vipers and lawyers and employed ad hominem arguments. So don't assume to much based on your emotional reactions to things. The tone of a text can be as much (if not more) a product of the reader as the sender when the text challenges believers to think past pious sounding phrases. Use your God given ability to think rationally and less emotionally. It will make it easier to dialog and understand people. The hardest part though will be letting your mind be changed at time. I know it's a painful process for me. 


P.S. 

Here's a tip to debaters - read your text out-loud using a nasty and sarcastic tone and see how it sounds. Is it easy to read with that tone? If so, it quite possible your opponent is going to read into your text that tone. It's difficult to write passionately and sound like your not being a meanie. But keep that in mind when you post.


----------



## Magma2

> Strawman arguments are sent out like toy soldiers, and hot air assertions are sent off like cannon balls.



I really enjoyed this one. Great line.  

I hope you don't mind, but I might steal it.


----------



## Civbert

Magma2 said:


> I really enjoyed this one. Great line.
> 
> I hope you don't mind, but I might steal it.



Sure! Occasionally I can get creative.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade 

I take shelter in – I _live_ in – *Christ’s* statements of epistemic certainty; by virtue of being in Him, I live in and partake of the truth of His Word, making it mine, according to His will.​
Anthony:

Case in point. You seem to have a rather mystical view of your relationship with Christ. We are internalizing God - as if we are becoming mini-Jesuses. And this mystical element is irrelevant to epistemic certainity.​
-------

Anthony, this is _Jesus'_ language, as per John 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." And Paul's in Galatians 2:20, Colossians 3:1-4, and elsewhere. It is the language of union, not "mysticism."

Of course the Lord is in Heaven now, yet there _is_ an "internalizing" of sorts by the very nature of union with Him. _He_ is the one who initiated this concept you disparagingly term "mystical": "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him." (John 14:23)

Paul likens it to the marriage union between husband and wife, and neither of these unions can be _completely_ explained to the rational mind.

You say,

"Union with Christ" now means some sort of mystical experiences beyond words. No one explains it because it's not a "rational" concept.​
I have often explained this "rationally" when preaching on this topic or these verses, but when talking with mature believers it is not usually necessary. How would you talk about union with Christ, then?

Steve


----------



## Magma2

Jerusalem Blade said:


> How would you talk about union with Christ, then?



In addition to Anthony, perhaps you'd be interested in John Robbins' and Gordon Clark's take on the subject:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=198


----------



## Civbert

Steve, 

I appreciate your answer because more often people just leave it with "union" and avoid an explanation. To them, union is mystical and experiential. By providing an explanation you are showing the "union" means more then something inexplicable. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade
> 
> I take shelter in – I _live_ in – *Christ’s* statements of epistemic certainty; by virtue of being in Him, I live in and partake of the truth of His Word, making it mine, according to His will.​
> Anthony:
> 
> Case in point. You seem to have a rather mystical view of your relationship with Christ. We are internalizing God - as if we are becoming mini-Jesuses. And this mystical element is irrelevant to epistemic certainity.​
> -------
> 
> Anthony, this is _Jesus'_ language, as per John 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." And Paul's in Galatians 2:20, Colossians 3:1-4, and elsewhere. It is the language of union, not "mysticism."
> 
> Of course the Lord is in Heaven now, yet there _is_ an "internalizing" of sorts by the very nature of union with Him. _He_ is the one who initiated this concept you disparagingly term "mystical": "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him." (John 14:23)



But Jesus also spoke in parables. But if we did not have Paul and the other apostles we would not understand some things Jesus said. We use all of the Bible to understand God's revelation. So where some text is not clear, we use others to explain it. 

What I worry about with terms like "union" is that people will think we mean mystical ideas - we are a "Star Wars" generation. When people hear "union" without explanation they will think "be one with the Force, Luke." And frankly, I think some theologians do mean "union" in that sense (existential?). 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Paul likens it to the marriage union between husband and wife, and neither of these unions can be _completely_ explained to the rational mind.



I don't know about that. I think all that is important - all that we need to know - can be explained rationally. Paul goes through a lot of trouble to explain and give example of family roles and our position in the church. He doesn't simply say "we are the body of Christ" without explaining the metaphor has to do with how we are play important roles and depend on each other. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> You say,
> 
> "Union with Christ" now means some sort of mystical experiences beyond words. No one explains it because it's not a "rational" concept.​
> I have often explained this "rationally" when preaching on this topic or these verses, but when talking with mature believers it is not usually necessary. How would you talk about union with Christ, then?
> 
> Steve



But I do think it's necessary, for the reasons I gave. There are to many "Star Wars" Christians who don't think critically because they have not had terms like "union" explained to them in rational terms. So they see little difference between some of the pagan and mystical concepts presented by society as "reasonable options" and the kind of religious language used in many pulpits. Protestant churches, especially reformed, have usually been the exception. But movements like the FV (Federal Vision) and others are showing how the rational orthodox thinking has been corrupted by secular philosophical concepts. (I wonder if existentialism is a factor?)

Anyhow, I think the meaning of "union" would be an excellent thread topic. The forensic aspects of our relationship to Christ. The meaning of "in Christ" as used through Scripture. I'd like to better understand what different people mean by "union with Christ". 

BTW - the term "union" is not found in the KJV or NKJV, and three times in the ESV and twice in the NASB. (Gotta love computers and e-Sword.)


----------



## Civbert

Magma2 said:


> In addition to Anthony, perhaps you'd be interested in John Robbins' and Gordon Clark's take on the subject:
> 
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=198



Of course!  Where do you think I got these ideas?  John Robbins has been an invaluable resource and teacher.


----------



## AV1611

Scripture, Reason and Nature.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Anthony,

I looked over Robbins’ essay, “In Christ”. Although he is well to the point as regards Gaffin’s assault on Biblical (& Reformed) doctrine, particularly Justification, as well as blurring the “order of salvation”, I find it a bit strained when explicating the uses of the term, _en Christou_. As though there were an aversion to anything that was not _exclusively_ rational.

Like the peace of God which passes all understanding (Phil 4:7), so the love of God passes our knowledge of it (Eph 3:19). Without doubt I can talk rationally about the union of a husband and wife, depicting the oneness of their flesh and the relations of their hearts as they abide in the Word of God, but I think it is beyond my ability – even as a poet – to put my finger on the quality of the affection they have for one another, and how this ineffable quality, which is, after all, _the spirit_ that quickens the flesh of their bond, as it were….how this intangible could be captured in language I do not know. Is this intangible invalid because it cannot be completely depicted by reason?

When Paul says, “…we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” what is he saying? And when, after saying in the next verse, of the husband and wife, “they two shall be one flesh”, he declares, “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph 5:30-32), what is he talking about?

We know that in the New Testament, “mysteries” are unpacked. How would you unpack that?

Or in Ephesians 1:4, when the apostle says, “he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”, it will not do to translate _en_ as “by” or “through” as Clark prefers in other places. We were chosen _in_ Christ. What does that mean? In Christ? Are we in some sense _in Him_? This pertains to something God has done, and not our experience. Can you do justice to the explication of this verse, this concept?

Steve


----------



## JohnV

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Anthony,
> 
> I looked over Robbins’ essay, “In Christ”. Although he is well to the point as regards Gaffin’s assault on Biblical (& Reformed) doctrine, particularly Justification, as well as blurring the “order of salvation”, I find it a bit strained when explicating the uses of the term, _en Christou_. As though there were an aversion to anything that was not starkly rational.



Steve:

Since you've read it, can you tell me what "starkly rational" means? Is it something like "brute facts"? Or is that another complexly fine technical term that you cannot know what it means unless you first imbibe the whole system?

By the way, your response is excellently done.


----------



## Larry Hughes

It depends on what you are asking "to know".

The bible is not exhaustive in all things but the revelation of Christ for salvation. The Bible for example doesn't teach me not to stick my finger in a power socket because >1 amp of electricity will kill me, there science and experience unfortunately are sources for knowledge. The Scriptures teach of Christ revealed but they don't mathematics nor how to read language itself.


----------



## JohnV

I think the question to ask is: what is the difference between knowing about Jesus and knowing Jesus? Can you say you love Jesus if you do not know Him? And can you say you know Him if you do not love Him? And is not spiritual contact with Jesus necessary to be able to say that you know and love Him? 

Not mystical contact, but spiritual contact. But if the two are the same thing, then is it not true that only knowing about Jesus is possible? Is that what makes a Christian a Christian, knowing about Jesus but not knowing Him personally? 

Historically Christians have always maintained a difference between the mystical and the spiritual. And the difference has centred on the verifiable content which contact with the Spirit maintains through the Word, and in line with the communal witness of the Church. Historically, there has been a clear delineation between the mystical and the spiritual. But what I get from this is that to claim to know Jesus and be loved by Him, and to love Him in return, is mysticism, eradicating the difference between the spiritual union and mysticism. 

What replaces it is the trust in the senses in reading the words on the page that make up the Bible, being mystically implanted into the belief system of the Clarkian. He has to believe his physical eyes, but that's because the Scripture is contained in the propositional communication between the words and the thought process behind the physical eyes. It's mystical all the same because it claims knowledge of God, but only to the end of knowing about God, about Christ; but there is no hope of knowing God and knowing Christ personally. That now is defined as mysticism, eradicating the spiritual union with Christ the person, and replacing it with a mystical union with the Scripture. One can love the Scripture, but loving Christ the person because of an actual relationship is not possible. 

At least, that's what I get out of this. 

So the question to ask, it seems to me, is:
Can one truly be loved by Christ, and love Him in return?


----------



## Magma2

Larry Hughes said:


> It depends on what you are asking "to know".
> 
> The bible is not exhaustive in all things but the revelation of Christ for salvation. The Bible for example doesn't teach me not to stick my finger in a power socket because >1 amp of electricity will kill me, there science and experience unfortunately are sources for knowledge. The Scriptures teach of Christ revealed but they don't mathematics nor how to read language itself.



Larry, I explained exactly what I meant by "to know" in my opening post. 

Hope that helps. Thanks.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

John V,

Yes, I knew when I wrote it that the phrase "starkly rational" was wanting, but I had to go. Re-thinking it a while now, I first opted for "merely rational" and then "strictly rational" but have settled for "_exclusively_ rational," and which I shall amend the post in question to. I realize I may have to qualify even that.

What I mean to say is, Of the mind -- the intellect alone -- apart from spiritual understanding, or "cold reason" unillumined by heart. There is a discernment which is of the mind alone, and a discernment which is of the mind illumined by the Spirit through the Word. This can, of course, be "gainsayed" by those to whom these terms have different meanings. So I will have to let the Scripture, and exposition thereof, do the clarifying.

This using of common signifiers (words) which refer to different things signified (meanings) engenders a sort of mini-insanity, or at the best, confusion. The Scripture is the standard of clarity, when wielded by the Spirit of Christ. In this I rest my trust.

Steve


----------



## JohnV

Jerusalem Blade said:


> John V,
> 
> Yes, I knew when I wrote it that the phrase "starkly rational" was wanting, but I had to go. Re-thinking it a while now, I first opted for "merely rational" and then "strictly rational" but have settled for "exclusively rational," and which I shall amend the post in question to. I realize I may have to qualify even that.
> 
> What I mean to say is, Of the mind -- the intellect alone -- apart from spiritual understanding, or "cold reason" unillumined by heart. There is a discernment which is of the mind alone, and a discernment which is of the mind illumined by the Spirit through the Word. This can, of course, be "gainsayed" by those to whom these terms have different meanings. So I will have to let the Scripture, and exposition thereof, do the clarifying.
> 
> This using of common signifiers (words) which refer to different things signified (meanings) engenders a sort of mini-insanity, or at the best, confusion. The Scripture is the standard of clarity, when wielded by the Spirit of Christ. In this I rest my trust.
> 
> Steve



Steve:

Thank you for clarifying. Well said.


----------



## Civbert

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Anthony,
> 
> I looked over Robbins’ essay, “In Christ”. Although he is well to the point as regards Gaffin’s assault on Biblical (& Reformed) doctrine, particularly Justification, as well as blurring the “order of salvation”, I find it a bit strained when explicating the uses of the term, _en Christou_. As though there were an aversion to anything that was not _exclusively_ rational.



I think an aversion to anything that is not exclusively rational is quite healthy. It means that one will not assert or assume that Scriptures are saying anything irrational or contradictory. We may not always understand every verse in the Bible, but we know that what God is revealing to us in the Word is going to be fully coherent and intelligible. God does not speak nonsense - He is not ineffable. Just saying "God is ineffable" is a contradiction.




Jerusalem Blade said:


> Like the peace of God which passes all understanding (Phil 4:7),


 God Spirit does give us a sense of peace. Although this sense is not intelligible, the idea that God gives us a sense of peace is fully intelligible. That's evident in the fact that I we read about it in Scripture and understand it.





> so the love of God passes our knowledge of it (Eph 3:19). Without doubt I can talk rationally about the union of a husband and wife, depicting the oneness of their flesh and the relations of their hearts as they abide in the Word of God, but I think it is beyond my ability – even as a poet – to put my finger on the quality of the affection they have for one another, and how this ineffable quality, which is, after all, _the spirit_ that quickens the flesh of their bond, as it were….how this intangible could be captured in language I do not know. Is this intangible invalid because it cannot be completely depicted by reason?


 We are talking about Christ's relationship to the Church. We are His bride is not a literal state. We can not attribute more to this relationship than is intended. And God certainly did not intend up to understand more than we can intelligibly understand. Analogy's have limits. Jesus is the good shepherd has limited application. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> When Paul says, “…we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” what is he saying?


 Flesh and bones are reinforcing each other, the way saying "spirit and soul" is a way of adding emphasis. It doesn't mean we have both souls and spirits. So "body, flesh, bones, is emphasizing his point.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> And when, after saying in the next verse, of the husband and wife, “they two shall be one flesh”, he declares, “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph 5:30-32), what is he talking about?



Maybe he's saying just what I said, we are not to make more of the analogy than what is clear. His is saying that we are not to make the relationship between Christ and the Bride identical in every way to the relationship between a husband and wife. 



We know that in the New Testament, “mysteries” are unpacked. How would you unpack that?

Or in Ephesians 1:4, when the apostle says, “he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”, it will not do to translate _en_ as “by” or “through” as Clark prefers in other places. We were chosen _in_ Christ. What does that mean? In Christ? Are we in some sense _in Him_? This pertains to something God has done, and not our experience. Can you do justice to the explication of this verse, this concept?

Steve[/QUOTE]

Sure it "will do". He has chosen us through/by Christ makes sense to me. We are elect to salvation before the world was created. Our salvation is only possible by Christ's death on the cross for our sins. This is exactly the kind of example I'm talking about. When the Bible uses the phrase "in Christ" it is not some sort of mystical "ineffable" state. The in implies causality in the Greek. The reason it seems to mystical is because the English modern "in" is more restricted in meaning than the Greek. But we can avoided these kinds of irrational mystical conclusions when we remember that God is not a god of mystery and secrets, by the God of revelation and knowledge - who speaks to us with intelligible ideas.


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> I think the question to ask is: what is the difference between knowing about Jesus and knowing Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good question, but the answer is easy. The difference in knowing about Jesus and knowing Jesus is belief. If you believe what Jesus says, you know him. Knowing about Jesus implies knowing some proposition about Jesus. It does not imply actually believing those propositions are true.
> 
> Many people know about Jesus. But only those who are regenerate believe those propositions - specifically those propositions given in Scripture - are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you say you love Jesus if you do not know Him?
> 
> 
> 
> If you love Jesus, you will obey him. If you know Jesus, you love Jesus, if you love Jesus you will obey Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> And can you say you know Him if you do not love Him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> And is not spiritual contact with Jesus necessary to be able to say that you know and love Him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe His Words, then you know him and love him. Belief in the Word is spiritual. If we believe the Scriptures, that is "spiritual contact". For only by the Holy Spirit can we believe the Scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Civbert

Only 76 votes but over 1000 views. Come on people, take a position! 

You can still vote " I don't know". That's not a trick choice.


----------



## Davidius

Civbert said:


> You can still vote " I don't know". That's not a trick choice.



I'm the one honest guy. 


But anyway, concerning "the scientific method" and "all of the above" (which would include the scientific method), what if I were to say that since there is no such thing as an exact measurement, science can therefore only provide beliefs but not true knowledge? What I mean is, if I were to ask you how long something is, you could never tell me _exactly_ how long it is because you'd only be able to tell me using the most accurate instrument currently available. You may be able to tell me a reasonable guess that's practically useful, but never an absolute length. 

Does this disprove science's ability to give true knowledge?


----------



## MW

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Does this disprove science's ability to give true knowledge?



Yes, and the Bible's ability to speak infallibly when it gives measurements.


----------



## Davidius

armourbearer said:


> Yes, and the Bible's ability to speak infallibly when it gives measurements.



I'm not sure where you're going with that. Do you mean that what I said proves too much? I assure you it's an honest question and I'm just trying to learn.


----------



## MW

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'm not sure where you're going with that. Do you mean that what I said proves too much? I assure you it's an honest question and I'm just trying to learn.



There's no doubting your integrity. I doubt the integrity of philosophical skepticism. The world moves, so there is no such thing as exact measurement; and yet the Bible provides us with exact measurements. Presupposing the infallibility of the Bible, we are bound to conclude an error must lie in the idea that there can be no such thing as exact measurement on the basis that the world is in constant motion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> There's no doubting your integrity. I doubt the integrity of philosophical skepticism. The world moves, so there is no such thing as exact measurement; and yet the Bible provides us with exact measurements. Presupposing the infallibility of the Bible, we are bound to conclude an error must lie in the idea that there can be no such thing as exact measurement on the basis that the world is in constant motion.



I was just thinking about this except along differing lines. False weights are condemned and God commands specific measurements (ephah's, talents, cubits, etc.) Philosophical skepticism undermines that man can even comprehend or obey basic measurements. Of course, it's quite like Adam blaming Eve for sinning. God's not fooled by our sophistries.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Dr. Robbins says, “There is a sense, actually two senses, in which the phrase ‘united to Christ’ may be accurately and Biblically used. Both senses are quite distasteful to proponents of Neo-medievalism. Believers are united to Christ intellectually and legally.” And he goes on in his article (linked above by Anthony) to elaborate on these.

I would like to posit a third sense, the ontological (which pertains to the nature or ground of being).

Apart from being “united” to Christ in a legal and intellectual sense, have we a relation to Him – and to the Father through Him – as regards our ontologic state, our state of being?

“…if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature” (new creation -NKJV) 2 Cor 5:17. We are considering the change of the nature of the very being of the Christian. We assert is that he (or she) has been _incorporated_ into Christ, given a new life-principle, and that _more_ than merely intellectually and legally, though not less than these.

When I spoke about the passage in Ephesians 5:30-32 above, Anthony, you replied,

We are talking about Christ's relationship to the Church. We are His bride is not a literal state. We can not attribute more to this relationship than is intended. And God certainly did not intend us to understand more than we can intelligibly understand. Analogy's have limits. Jesus is the good shepherd has limited application…​
If human marriage is an analogy – however limited – of the divine union, we are to expect an insight from it into the divine. It does seem clear that Paul is talking – as he does explicitly in the next line – of a “one flesh” / “one body” mutual cleaving, not as regards sexual union, but ontologic. In human marriage there is a change in the very beings of the two partners: the two are now one flesh. I take this bodily union of human marriage – including the sexual aspect – to be a primitive analogy of the _ontologic union_ of Christ and His bride, the church. I hesitate to say merely _spiritual union_, because Scripture makes it clear that there is a bodily union as well, albeit *not* sexual (human sexual union being but a faint analogy of the intimacy, pleasure, and joy involved in the divine union). The marriage motif of God as husband to His people is seen throughout Scripture, though I will focus on the NT here. In Matthew 22:1 we read, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son…” That Paul’s reference to marriage as a type of Christ’s union with His Church is not the minor factor you would make it is seen in those visions of the great consummation of things in Revelation; in 19:7 we read of “the marriage of the Lamb” and of “his wife”! And in verses 8 and 9 we read of the fine raiment his wife is clothed in, and of “the marriage supper”. That what is spoken of here is far more profound and glorious than a mere human marriage is beyond question. In Rev 21:2, 9 and 10 (etc) we have another vision of the Lamb’s wife, and I think it is clear that Scripture is indeed talking of an actual marriage, but one far beyond our ken in the implications of the glory and joy involved. Herein is the “love of Christ which passeth knowledge” seen, for the infinite One is joined to His finite bride, He being her joy for eternity.

When I spoke, indicating an aspect of our union with Christ, of Ephesians 5:30 “…we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones”, you said,

Flesh and bones are reinforcing each other, the way saying "spirit and soul" is a way of adding emphasis. It doesn't mean we have both souls and spirits. So "body, flesh, bones, is emphasizing his point…​
This seems sort of lame, given the wealth of supporting Scriptures to the contrary. I think it is clear the Word of God speaks of us as actually being the body of Christ. Romans 12:4, 5:

For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.​
1 Corinthians 12:12, 13, 27:

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body….Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.​
Ephesians 1:22, 23:

[Christ]…the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.​
There are many types by which we understand the nature of the union, vine and branches, God and temple, Lord and house, Father, Brother, children, brothers and sisters, but the most intimate is the marriage type.

Maybe he's saying just what I said, we are not to make more of the analogy than what is clear. His is saying that we are not to make the relationship between Christ and the Bride identical in every way to the relationship between a husband and wife…​
To the contrary, we are to make _far more_ of the analogy than what at first may appear to us, with our little minds and stunted reason. According as Scripture illumines the analogy we may see more. Did 7 years pass as a few days for Jacob, for the love he had to Rachel? A paltry figure of the love of Jesus for _His_ bride. Commenting on Ephesians 5:27, Wm. Hendriksen says, “is not this marvelous welcome which the bride will receive also _her_ supreme honor? Does it not indicate that she is and forever will remain the object of his everlasting delight? Cf. Zeph. 3:17.” (Comm. on Ephesians, p. 254) We are so slow-witted, so dull of understanding – _of apprehending!_ – the love our Savior and our God has for us. We judge His love through knowing how unloveable we truly are; but we err in this, for He loves the unlovely, and this love transforms us, as the kiss of the princess transformed the frog.

I repeat now, this third aspect of our union with Christ, the ontologic, is as important as the former two Dr. Robbins elucidated. We have been “translated (conveyed –NKJV)…into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col 1:13), and where is this kingdom into which we have been placed by the decree and the operation of God? It is “en Christou”. But how can we be “in” another?

The same God who created the physical heavens, earth, and all that in them is, created a _spiritual_ realm we could enter and live in; one may call it “the Kingdom of Christ,” or “in Christ”: He purposed to “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him” (Eph 1:10).

One might ask, What are the borders – the boundaries – of this Kingdom? It is clear it is His word. Notice how great emphasis Jesus puts on abiding in His word:

“Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them…If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you…If a man love me, he will keep my words…Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you…Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”​
When Jesus speaks like this He is saying that in Him – and in the words He speaks, for they are one – is the Kingdom and the life-giving Spirit of God.

I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. (John 17:6-8)​
In Hebrew usage, the “name” of God is not merely an appellation by which He is called – as it is among men – but refers to His nature, His character, His Person, indeed, His very presence. When we use His name, we are invoking Him Himself. Psalm 138:2 says, “…thou has magnified thy word above all thy name”, and Proverb 18:10: “The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.”

How can we run into the name of the LORD? When we are baptized according to Christ’s command we receive the sign of what the Spirit has already done for us, placing us “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt 28:19), and when Jesus prays in John 17:11, “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are” He is committing us into the keeping power of the omnipotent Sovereign, into whose name we have fled for refuge at His Son’s behest.

How do we enter “into Christ”? By taking Him at His word, as when He says, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest…and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Matt 11:28; John 6:37). It is more (but not less) than just taking us into His heart; it is taking us into His body – for it is written, “…we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones”.

I realize there is an aversion to the words “mystical” and mysticism” in Reformed circles, and no doubt that is well, seeing as our forebears escaped the delusional mysticisms of Rome, the effete imaginations that men could enter into God’s presence apart from a robust faith and according to His word. But what I see here, in some, is the calling “mystical” anything where the supernatural confounds the natural explanation of a thing. I do not say – please note, Anthony – it _cannot_ be explained, but rather it cannot be explained _naturally_. Doing a Google search of the words “mystical body Christ presbyterian” I saw in a number of Presbyterian churches (including the OPC and PCA – which I know are in Robbins’ doghouse!) the phrase, describing the Church, “the mystical body of Christ”.

To deny the concept of the mystical Body of Christ, _not because it cannot be rationally explained_ but because it offends ones’ intellectual paradigm, is an invalid denial. That the church is the bride of Christ cannot be denied, for the Scripture has spoken clearly. Human marriage is but a shadow to the glory of the marriage of the Son of God.

Paul uses the expression in Romans 6:3 (with a similar usage in Galatians 3:27), “baptized into Jesus Christ”. To dispense with the discussion of whether the baptism is of water or the Spirit, let me say it is of the Spirit and signified by water (I can let the water go if it gives anyone problems – for the sake of this discussion). I would agree with Robbins that the death of Christ is legally imputed to us, not experientially known to us, and yet…there is a command (Romans 6:11) to _reckon_ ourselves dead, not only to sin (the power and the guilt of it), but likewise to the law (the authority of it) in Romans 7:4 and Galatians 2:19. Apart from a spurious mystical “dying with Christ” there is an actual _spiritual_ phenomenon we undergo as we are placed “into Christ” by the Holy Spirit. This is certainly not irrational, though it is not “natural”. There is a distinct dying _of us_ in the death of Christ, and a distinct rising with Him in newness of life in the power of His resurrection, although now the latter is primarily spiritual for us, and not yet bodily in the full sense. This identification with Christ in His death and resurrection is not to be confused with the forensic declaration of God that we are justified by virtue of the substitionary atonement of Christ, which is apart from us and outside of us. All these aspects of our salvation need to be carefully delineated. The simplistic views I have been hearing in this discussion are truncated theologically.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.​
This has not been as ordered as well as I would like, but I can only rewrite it so many times! And I need to get onto other things. I hope I have made somewhat of a case for the 3rd category of what _en Christou_ means. This is nothing novel, but familiar to many, and clearly stated numerous times in Scripture. 

----------

*HIS BRIDE*
_a man…shall be joined to his wife,
and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak
concerning Christ and the church._
— Paul to the Ephesians​​She is the knock-out of the ages, His bride;
even the angels are astonished, wide-eyed
at a beauty beyond what they see in themselves
and seeing such mysteries desire to delve
into how it could be, this shining like deity
in one once consort with the dark prince, in infamy
before she was redeemed, and party to the deicide.

The price He paid to win her back was steep,
a horrid cost much wondered at in glory’s Keep,
but He got her, and led her through the wilderness
of hearts, through enemies and great distress;
He taught her to stay near to Him,
hold to His word and heart when the way grew dim,
to trust Him, her friend in trouble, her guard in sleep.

It is the story of God the Son’s bride;
she is many, male and female, for whom He died;
she is rugged soldier, little child, woman fair,
all one they are, all dependent on His care.
Safe now in the Kingdom, His glory their reward,
she shines full back the glory of her Lord,
He who ever lives, and for her was crucified.

Steve


----------



## Davidius

SemperFideles said:


> IFalse weights are condemned and God commands specific measurements (ephah's, talents, cubits, etc.)



Could you explain what you mean by "false weight"?


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'm the one honest guy.
> 
> 
> But anyway, concerning "the scientific method" and "all of the above" (which would include the scientific method), what if I were to say that since there is no such thing as an exact measurement, science can therefore only provide beliefs but not true knowledge? What I mean is, if I were to ask you how long something is, you could never tell me _exactly_ how long it is because you'd only be able to tell me using the most accurate instrument currently available. You may be able to tell me a reasonable guess that's practically useful, but never an absolute length.
> 
> Does this disprove science's ability to give true knowledge?



Good point and I think you are on the right track. 

The reason measurements are not exact is not due to movement. It's due to the limitations of physics. All measurements are approximate. 

It's known (within the system of science) that science does not give exact measurements. And the scientific method itself only produces possibilities - not absolute truths. I believe science may or may not produce true conclusions. It certainly produces very useful conclusions, so I do not discount science's abilities to be extremely useful for secular things. And it helps up obey the biblical mandate subdue the created world.

The bible does not give any absolute measurements of physical objects. For example, the Bible says the ratio of a circles circumference to it's radius it 3. Clearly not an exact measurement or even an attempt at much precision (a 5% error). I don't think Hebrew numbers included decimal point anyway. The Bible does affirm that counting and basic mathematics are valid and sound. But counting and measuring are two different processes.


----------



## Magma2

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'm the one honest guy.
> 
> 
> But anyway, concerning "the scientific method" and "all of the above" (which would include the scientific method), what if I were to say that since there is no such thing as an exact measurement, science can therefore only provide beliefs but not true knowledge? What I mean is, if I were to ask you how long something is, you could never tell me _exactly_ how long it is because you'd only be able to tell me using the most accurate instrument currently available. You may be able to tell me a reasonable guess that's practically useful, but never an absolute length.
> 
> Does this disprove science's ability to give true knowledge?



I think you answered your own question.  

Good post.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Yes, and the Bible's ability to speak infallibly when it gives measurements.




Reminds me of an old Bill Cosby bit about Noah and the Ark and Noah asks God: "What's a Cubit?"


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Could you explain what you mean by "false weight"?



[bible]Proverbs 11:1[/bible]

Say you're selling grain and the price is $3/lb and you use a scale to weigh it out. Some merchants will create weights that appear to be normal weights but they're really fake. It might be clay painted to look like metal so the person gives you $18 to buy 6 lbs of grain but you actually sold him 5.

There is certainly a sense in which all weights are only approximate but we're not condemned for having a weight in accordance with the U.S. standards and measures where a lb weight is to within a percentage of a gram. Nevertheless, when I measure out grain to sell to my neighbor, I *know* in my heart whether I am being honest in my sale to him or not.

The point is that mathematical or philosophical certainty is impossible for an exact measurement given gaussian distributions even for precise manufacturers but obedience to the command is not.


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> I was just thinking about this except along differing lines. False weights are condemned and God commands specific measurements (ephah's, talents, cubits, etc.) Philosophical skepticism undermines that man can even comprehend or obey basic measurements. Of course, it's quite like Adam blaming Eve for sinning. God's not fooled by our sophistries.



False weights has to do with the intent of those fixing the scales, not that an ephah, talent or cubit are somehow more exacting than a pound, dollar or centimeter. OK, the dollar excepted because fiat money and shell games like indexation, not to mention the government's ability to print money while outlawing private tender, all of which devalues the currency in the interest of government is theft. There's your false weights and measures.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> False weights has to do with the intent of those fixing the scales, not that an ephah, talent or cubit are somehow more exacting than a pound, dollar or centimeter. OK, the dollar excepted because fiat money and shell games like indexation, not to mention the government's ability to print money while outlawing private tender, all of which devalues the currency in the interest of government is theft. There's your false weights and measures.


But the point is that intent is only an opinion, is it not, because this relies on senses to determine whether what you're holding in your hand or measuring with has any real certainty. My problem with the conflation of language is that something that is mere "opinion" (I don't really *know* I'm cheating my neighbor because ephah relies on my senses) is something that God Himself calls abominable if we're not honest about.


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> [bible]Nevertheless, when I measure out grain to sell to my neighbor, I *know* in my heart whether I am being honest in my sale to him or not.



That's the key! It's the intent of the heart that makes the difference, not the epistemic value of a cubit. I'm also reminded here of Christian liberty (1 Cor. 8) and how we're to deal with weaker brothers who consider this or that sin. Even when we know something is not sinful, we're to take special care not to wound the conscience of a weaker brother. If we don't, then we're the one's guilty of sin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> That's the key! It's the intent of the heart that makes the difference, not the epistemic value of a cubit. I'm also reminded here of Christian liberty (1 Cor. 8) and how we're to deal with weaker brothers who consider this or that sin. Even when we know something is not sinful, we're to take special care not to wound the conscience of a weaker brother. If we don't, then we're the one's guilty of sin.


Sean,

I think you're missing my point.

If I cannot trust my senses for knowledge then I don't understand how I could know whether or not I'm being honest. I've been told, earlier in this thread, I can't even be certain who my parents are much less whether I'm measuring out 6 lbs of grain to my neighbor!


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> Sean,
> 
> I think you're missing my point.
> 
> If I cannot trust my senses for knowledge then I don't understand how I could know whether or not I'm being honest. I've been told, earlier in this thread, I can't even be certain who my parents are much less whether I'm measuring out 6 lbs of grain to my neighbor!



You don't need to have epistemic certainity in order to be sure you are cheating your neighbor. All you need to have is the belief that you are cheating - even though it doesn't rise to the level of epistemic justification or knowledge - and you can be know you have sinned.

Also, inability of sensation to produce knowledge does not apply here. It has nothing to do with the efficacy of understanding that when you use a false measure, you have sinned. You can use experience to produce reasonable beliefs about when you are sinning or not. But knowing you have sinned depend on having the knowledge of God's law. Without that un-experienced knowledge, you could not say you have sinned at all. 

Again, "know" in the epistemic sense and "know" in that assured sense are not the same thing. But if one simply believes they have cheated their neighbor, then they have sinned. (This assumes they a sure and did not correct the situation).


----------



## Davidius

Civbert said:


> You don't need to have epistemic certainity in order to be sure you are cheating your neighbor. All you need to have is the belief that you are cheating - even though it doesn't rise to the level of epistemic justification or knowledge - and you can be know you have sinned.
> 
> Also, inability of sensation to produce knowledge does not apply here. It has nothing to do with the efficacy of understanding that when you use a false measure, you have sinned. You can use experience to produce reasonable beliefs about when you are sinning or not. But knowing you have sinned depend on having the knowledge of God's law. Without that un-experienced knowledge, you could not say you have sinned at all.
> 
> Again, "know" in the epistemic sense and "know" in that assured sense are not the same thing. But if one simply believes they have cheated their neighbor, then they have sinned. (This assumes they a sure and did not correct the situation).



From my reading of the thread as a newbie to all this, it seems like a lot of the strong reactions against what you're saying stem from the idea that something has to be "knowledge" in the way that term is being used in order to be useful (or would "knowing" in the epistemic sense and "knowing" in the assured sense be better?). In other words, for some it seems like it has to be all or nothing. If something isn't "knowledge" but only "belief," then it's worthless. It would be helpful, for me at least, to have some clear definitions of knowledge and belief and some statements about why, for instance, what you're saying about not needing epistemic knowledge but only assured belief being a reasonable and acceptable way to view certain issues, particularly important ones like this one currently being discussed. Should I make my own thread about true knowledge and belief? Or perhaps there are already some which I can peruse.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> You don't need to have epistemic certainity in order to be sure you are cheating your neighbor. All you need to have is the belief that you are cheating - even though it doesn't rise to the level of epistemic justification or knowledge - and you can be know you have sinned.


Which is it? Does it rise to the level of knowledge so I can know whether I have sinned or not?



> Also, inability of sensation to produce knowledge does not apply here. It has nothing to do with the efficacy of understanding that when you use a false measure, you have sinned. You can use experience to produce reasonable beliefs about when you are sinning or not. But knowing you have sinned depend on having the knowledge of God's law. Without that un-experienced knowledge, you could not say you have sinned at all.


Granted that you cannot know you have sinned without God's Law but you cannot know you have a false measure if you have no experience of a true measure. One you say you have knowledge of, the other you state you have no knowledge of. I think you create problems for yourself when you insist on philosophical definitions of commonly used terms.



> Again, "know" in the epistemic sense and "know" in that assured sense are not the same thing. But if one simply believes they have cheated their neighbor, then they have sinned. (This assumes they a sure and did not correct the situation).



My question is whether they _know_ they have sinned or not. I believe they do. I want to know if your epistemology allows a man to know whether or not he has obeyed God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, it's 2250 here (approximately). I'm pretty tired so you guys have fun...


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> But the point is that intent is only an opinion, is it not, because this relies on senses to determine whether what you're holding in your hand or measuring with has any real certainty. My problem with the conflation of language is that something that is mere "opinion" (I don't really *know* I'm cheating my neighbor because ephah relies on my senses) is something that God Himself calls abominable if we're not honest about.



Well, it's the opinion of a weaker brother that eating meat offered to idols is sinful and to use our liberty in a way that might violate the conscious of a weaker brother is sin. It seems to me that Scripture takes opinions very seriously. 

An ephah is arbitrary measure or standard. Cheating requires the intent of the mind. If a particular scale is somehow off in either direction and we're unaware, then I hardly think we could be accused of cheating -- even cheating ourselves. Intentionally altering an arbitrary weight to take advantage of another is a different thing altogether. BTW I think there is a direct parallel here between an arbitrary measure and the meaning we assign to it and Moreland's discussion of propositions and linguistic tokens. 

I think part of the problem is that most seem to think opinions are somehow irrelevant. They're not. We're to bring all our thoughts into submission to Christ, even our opinions. Consider this from Dr. Robbins on science and medicine written after his recent serious battle with cancer:



> First, we know infallibly that the diagnoses stated in Scripture are true and accurate. Because Scripture is inerrant, we know that the man who was born blind (see John 9), for example, was in fact born blind. (The rulers of the synagogue tried to find out whether he was or not by questioning people, including his parents.) But there is no such knowledge in medical science. Patients sometimes lie; tests yield both false positives and false negatives; doctors jump to false conclusions; and patients are frequently misdiagnosed, sometimes for years. There is a very good reason that doctors speak of “second opinions”: All science, including medical science, deals only in opinions, not in knowledge, that is, not in proven truth. To suggest that the investigations of scientists can attain such knowledge demeans Scripture and propositional revelation. It also asserts a theory of knowledge that is itself false and logically indefensible. To understand science and its proper purpose, which is not cognition, one ought to study Gordon Clark’s book The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God. Scientists, including physicians, are always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. They are properly interested in what works, not what is true. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=229



While opinions may work and even work very well, it is still important to make epistemic distinctions between different noetic states such as knowledge, opinion and ignorance. That doesn't mean that opinions have no value as some seem to assume. I think a much more serious problem is that often we over value opinions and raise them to the level of revealed truths.


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> Sean,
> 
> I think you're missing my point.
> 
> If I cannot trust my senses for knowledge then I don't understand how I could know whether or not I'm being honest. I've been told, earlier in this thread, I can't even be certain who my parents are much less whether I'm measuring out 6 lbs of grain to my neighbor!




Here's a question. Suppose I intend to cheat someone by altering my little scale. I fiddle around with the thing and I'm happy that it will provide results that gives me an advantage over another. Unfortunately, what I don't realize is that my little scale was already unbalanced against me and my fiddling actually evened the scale, yet I think I'm cheating. 

Am I sinning?


----------



## Davidius

Magma2 said:


> I think part of the problem is that most seem to think opinions are somehow irrelevant. They're not. We're to bring all our thoughts into submission to Christ, even our opinions.
> 
> While opinions may work and even work very well, it is still important to make epistemic distinctions between different noetic states such as knowledge, opinion and ignorance. That doesn't mean that opinions have no value as some seem to assume. I think a much more serious problem is that often we over value opinions and raise them to the level of revealed truths.



This is _exactly_ what I was getting at in my most recent question/observation. Can you open up more on these ideas of opinions being relevant/having value and "epistemic distinctions between different noetic states such as knowledge, opinion and ignorance"?


----------



## Civbert

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> From my reading of the thread as a newbie to all this, it seems like a lot of the strong reactions against what you're saying stem from the idea that something has to be "knowledge" in the way that term is being used in order to be useful (or would "knowing" in the epistemic sense and "knowing" in the assured sense be better?). In other words, for some it seems like it has to be all or nothing. If something isn't "knowledge" but only "belief," then it's worthless.



Right!



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> It would be helpful, for me at least, to have some clear definitions of knowledge and belief and some statements about why, for instance, what you're saying about not needing epistemic knowledge but only assured belief being a reasonable and acceptable way to view certain issues, particularly important ones like this one currently being discussed.



Sure thing. I've defined knowledge and know in the different senses, but maybe I can help by approaching it from the angle you are suggesting. 




CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Should I make my own thread about true knowledge and belief? Or perhaps there are already some which I can peruse.


 It's been discussed, but some of the threads have gotten pretty long. A new thread might be in order. 

I'll be back to you on the "angle" and try to clarify that.


----------



## Magma2

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This is _exactly_ what I was getting at in my most recent question/observation. Can you open up more on these ideas of opinions being relevant/having value and "epistemic distinctions between different noetic states such as knowledge, opinion and ignorance"?



I don't know how you would like this opened up, but Karl Popper wrote: 

“We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses . . . In science there is no knowledge, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.”

It would seem to follow that the stock and trade of science are opinions. Popper called them "conjectures." Now, saying this, I don't think anyone would deny that science works and works very well. It makes computers and the internet so we can chat about knowledge and noetic states of mind, and it also makes nuclear bombs so we can turn entire cities into glass. However, science can never tell us for what purpose we ought to use our computers or glass making bombs. 

Similarly, I would think Christians would be interested in pursuing and defending truth and not opinions or "conjectures." I would also think Christians wouldn't want to confuse the two, but it seems they do. We're not pragmatists after all, or at least we shouldn't be. Furthermore, I think that to equate or confuse even the conjectures of science with truth is to devalue propositional revelation which claims to have a monopoly on truth and is "a lamp shining in a dark place." The God of Scripture after all is called "the Lord God of Truth" and we know, or at least we claim to know, that God's Word is true. 

I'm afraid that instead of knowledge being justified true opinion or belief, many now call that knowledge whatever passes through the sieve of epistemic "warrant." I think this is a serious defect in so-called "Reformed Epistemology" and is why I think these "epistemologists" have simply lowered the epistemic bar, and, in the process, have deprecated the uniqueness of God's propositional revelation. For example, on Plantinga and his book Warranted Christian Belief Wikipedia states: 

"Plantinga applies his theory of warrant to the question of whether or not specifically Christian theistic belief can enjoy warrant. He argues for a specific model of how, if Christianity it true, this is plausible. Notably, the book does not address whether or not Christianity is, in fact, true." 

While I'm in the process of reading WCB (and we're talking 600+ pages which evidently never even addresses whether or not Christianity is, in fact, true), I think if this is correct it is a serious defect in the entire RE enterprise and is disastrous for Christian apologetics in particular. While Plantinga and other RE proponents are hailed as innovators, I have to ask what ever happened to truth? Even in the introduction to WCB Plantinga states that he isn't interested in defending Christianity per se, but rather some sort of nondescript ecumenical or generic Christian theism. For what it's worth, and as an aside, I never understood the fascination in apologetics with defending theism since even Hell is filled with theists. Besides, if these men were truly Reformed they would understand that embracing theism isn't a first step in becoming a Christian or accepting Christ. Sometimes I think most of what passes for Christian philosophy and apologetics is really nothing more than various expressions of epistemic Pelagianism. 

Off soap box now.


----------



## Magma2

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This is _exactly_ what I was getting at in my most recent question/observation. Can you open up more on these ideas of opinions being relevant/having value and "epistemic distinctions between different noetic states such as knowledge, opinion and ignorance"?



I guess the better response is the one Dr. Robbins already gave in his Introduction to Gordon Clark:



> There are three sorts of cognitive states: knowledge, opinion, and ignorance. Ignorance is simply the lack of ideas. Complete ignorance is the state of mind that empiricists say we are born with: We are all born with blank minds, tabula rasa, to use John Locke’s phrase. (Incidentally, a tabula rasa mind - a blank mind - is an impossibility. A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Empiricism rests on a contradiction.) At the other extreme from ignorance is knowledge. Knowledge is not simply possessing thoughts or ideas, as some think. Knowledge is possessing true ideas and knowing them to be true. Knowledge is, by definition, knowledge of the truth.



Now this next part in Dr. Robbins' comments is what I believe drives his critics and other critics of Scripturalism nuts:



> Now, most of what we colloquially call knowledge is actually opinion: We “know” that we are in Pennsylvania; we “know” that Clinton - either Bill or Hillary - is President of the United States, and so forth. Opinions can be true or false; we just don’t know which. History, except for revealed history, is opinion. Science is opinion. Archaeology is opinion. John Calvin said, “I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets.” Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth.
> 
> It may very well be that William Clinton is President of the United States, but I do not know how to prove it, nor, I suspect, do you. In truth, I do not know that he is President, I opine it. I can, however, prove that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That information is revealed to me, not by the dubious daily newspaper or the evening news, but by the infallible Word of God. The resurrection of Christ is deduced by good and necessary consequence from the axiom of revelation. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=192



I think the above is really what all the fuss and discussion is about. Why of course I know Billary was the President of the United States and Dick Cheney, I mean George Jr., is the president now. This isn't an opinion. I know it. See, Scripturalism is nuts!


----------



## Magma2

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." (For the complete discussion and to try and grasp his first point see http://trinityfoundation.org/ammo/clark_refutes.asp )


----------



## Davidius

Magma2 said:


> 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." (For the complete discussion and to try and grasp his first point see http://trinityfoundation.org/ammo/clark_refutes.asp )



Thanks for the article. I just got back from campus and haven't had time to read it but I'll try to get to it later and digest that as well as the other things you've said. This last post was particularly relevant because the objection is the exact same one which seems to naturally arise in my own mind as I consider Scripturalism.


----------



## Davidius

Magma2 said:


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



The link appears to be broken.


----------



## Magma2

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Thanks for the article. I just got back from campus and haven't had time to read it but I'll try to get to it later and digest that as well as the other things you've said. This last post was particularly relevant because the objection is the exact same one which seems to naturally arise in my own mind as I consider Scripturalism.




Once again proving great minds think alike.


----------



## Magma2

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> The link appears to be broken.



Sorry. Here's Mavrodes:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=2

And Clark's reply:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> Here's a question. Suppose I intend to cheat someone by altering my little scale. I fiddle around with the thing and I'm happy that it will provide results that gives me an advantage over another. Unfortunately, what I don't realize is that my little scale was already unbalanced against me and my fiddling actually evened the scale, yet I think I'm cheating.
> 
> Am I sinning?



Yes, because in my view of knowledge, I know that my fingers are real and the scale is real and that my sense of touch and sight leave me without excuse for what I'm doing. I do not merely have an opinion that a scale exists, an opinion that there is a 1 kg weight, or an opinion that my fingers are touching it.

My problem with the complete deprecation of all sense experience and calling it all opinion is that it casts everything into doubt if it's not philsophical certainty: both when I'm trying to be honest and when I'm cheating. Can I _know_ either?


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> My problem with the complete deprecation of all sense experience and calling it all opinion is that it casts everything into doubt if it's not philsophical certainty: both when I'm trying to be honest and when I'm cheating. Can I _know_ either?



 In traditional reformed ethics truth-speaking is not merely speaking according to fact, but speaking according to fact as we know it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> I think the above is really what all the fuss and discussion is about. Why of course I know Billary was the President of the United States and Dick Cheney, I mean George Jr., is the president now. This isn't an opinion. I know it. See, Scripturalism is nuts!



Well I'm happy to see you finally admit it. 

Seriously, I understand from Anthony and you that you want to use terms like _know_ in a philosophically certain way but I think that this insistence in most interactions does, in fact, make Clarkians appear silly to the outside world. I'm saying this not to be pejorative but to point out how it is received.

There is an acknowledgement from Clarkians that the word know (or what is translated as it) is used in a vast way throughout Scriptures. Yet when Christians want to speak as the Bible speaks about "knowing" something it _seems_ that Clarkians want to be the word police and say "that's just opinion". It's almost as if some would be willing to take an apostle or prophet himself to task for using a word in a way you don't like.

This also gets to the perspicuity of the Scirptures. I don't consider myself a genius but I'm no dope either. I can be pugnacious at times but I do try to understand where people are coming from.

Witness our interaction and how nuanced it becomes just so you can maintain that knowledge is one thing and opinion is everything else. "Well", you say, "we are responsible for some of our opinions...."

Which ones? Which opinions are abominable and which are adiophora. I like red, you like blue. I use false scales, you use true ones. Both are sets of opinions. This creates such a vast and confusing array of opinions that the word itself becomes stripped of any meaning. Why? Not because the Scirptures use opinion to refer to things but because a Clarkian does.

I don't get it. Why not focus on the principle that matters and guard things we are certain about? Why not distinguish that term? Instead you take over a word (that you claim is just a mere symbol devoid of meaning in itself) and die on a hill while everyone else is wondering: "Is this really all about words?"


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> My problem with the complete deprecation of all sense experience and calling it all opinion is that it casts everything into doubt if it's not philsophical certainty: both when I'm trying to be honest and when I'm cheating. Can I _know_ either?



Does it. What if for the sake of argument you did something you believed was cheating? Does it matter if you have absolute proof? If you believe you cheated someone, and you do not correct that situation, what does it matter?

You still make the same mistake in assuming that a claim that sense experience leads to opinion makes it worthless. This does not follow. 

Sean's example well demonstrated that one does not have to give a deductive proof of sinning in order to know one has sinned. The sin does not depend on your perception of "reality". It depends explicit on your intentions. If you intended to cheat, and believe you cheated, that is entirely sufficient for you to know you have sinned (given you believe God's Law). 

The cheater in Sean's example clearly had no epistemic certainity that he cheated. His senses fooled him. His experience made him think he had taken advantage of someone when in fact, his scales were fair. He did not know the truth based on experience. But he still sinned because he intended to cheat.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

See my comments above. They sum it up.

I've understood the difference between mathematical certainty and "usefulness" for some time. Engineers can usually discard variables that are an order of magnitude off and create a predictable model and workable device over a limited curve of response. All digital signal processing discards some information but is able to preserve enough to be intelligible (this also allows some cool things to be done digitally that would be expensive to build an analog circuit for).

The point, in the end, is that if you insist on philosophical certainty to call something knowledge then I think this is always going to be met with opposition not the least of reasons is that the Scriptures themselves do not limit that use. I also believe that this is precisely what Paul has in mind when he talks about "vain philosophies" where people start arguing about children being swapped at birth. It's reminiscent of Xeno arguing that motion doesn't exist.

The Scriptures assume a general reliability of our sense perceptions because God Himself created them for us to use to His glory. I agree with you that our senses can be fooled and we cannot rely on them fully but that is different than conflating all language so that I must change all Scriptural language from "know" to "opinion" because "know" is always epistemic certainty.

I refuse to ever change the natural way that I speak or interact or to re-word the words of Scripture themselves simply to fit a philosophical model. I also think this places an unnecessary point of offense between the words of the Scriptures and a man I am trying to teach. If evangelism requires that I must first give a lesson in philosophy so a man can understand epistemic certainty to distinguish between my novel use of "know" and "opinion" then something is very wrong.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> Well I'm happy to see you finally admit it.
> 
> Seriously, I understand from Anthony and you that you want to use terms like _know_ in a philosophically certain way but I think that this insistence in most interactions does, in fact, make Clarkians appear silly to the outside world. I'm saying this not to be pejorative but to point out how it is received.



Isn't that what Scripture tells us. We will appear foolish to the Greeks. 



SemperFideles said:


> There is an acknowledgement from Clarkians that the word know (or what is translated as it) is used in a vast way throughout Scriptures. Yet when Christians want to speak as the Bible speaks about "knowing" something it _seems_ that Clarkians want to be the word police and say "that's just opinion". It's almost as if some would be willing to take an apostle or prophet himself to task for using a word in a way you don't like.


No, we say you must understand words as they are intended by the authors. I love the way Scripture uses words, each and every time. But I don't insist that I must morph the definitions that Scripture uses into some ambiguous bloop and say this is what a word means. And it is wrong to impose a meaning onto a words in Scripture (or anywhere else) that is not intended by the writer. 




SemperFideles said:


> Witness our interaction and how nuanced it becomes just so you can maintain that knowledge is one thing and opinion is everything else. "Well", you say, "we are responsible for some of our opinions...."
> 
> Which ones?


 All of them. 



SemperFideles said:


> Why? Not because the Scirptures use opinion to refer to things but because a Clarkian does.


 Are you saying Vantilians have no opinions, or you don't. But Scripture is knowledge and so says Scripturalism.



SemperFideles said:


> I don't get it. Why not focus on the principle that matters and guard things we are certain about?


That is EXACTLY what Scripturalism does. It guards what we KNOW (the Scriptures and what is deducible therefrom) from those things which we arrive at independently of revelation. 




SemperFideles said:


> Why not distinguish that term? Instead you take over a word (that you claim is just a mere symbol devoid of meaning in itself) and die on a hill while everyone else is wondering: "Is this really all about words?"


 The devil's in the details, and so is God. 

A word without definition is meaningless. A word used ambiguously leads to confusion. A word used equivocally leads to error.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> The devil's in the details, and so is God.
> 
> A word without definition is meaningless. A word used ambiguously leads to confusion. A word used equivocally leads to error.





Magma2 said:


> I think you would agree that regardless of what meanings these types or tokens may convey, "a set of culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules," much less "a sense perceptible string of markings" can hardly, in and of themselves, be truths. They are arbitrary and change from culture to culture or even within a culture.



Which is it? If a word is a set of "culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules" then why do you use something that is arbitrary and insist on its use in a way that is not in accordance with the way the culture understands it so you can convey its meaning?


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> Anthony,
> ...The Scriptures assume a general reliability of our sense perceptions because God Himself created them for us to use to His glory. I agree with you that our senses can be fooled and we cannot rely on them fully but that is different than conflating all language so that I must change all Scriptural language from "know" to "opinion" because "know" is always epistemic certainty.


 "Know" is not always epistemic certainity. 



SemperFideles said:


> I refuse to ever change the natural way that I speak or interact or to re-word the words of Scripture themselves simply to fit a philosophical model.


 Good! Who says otherwise??




SemperFideles said:


> I also think this places an unnecessary point of offense between the words of the Scriptures and a man I am trying to teach.


 I disagree. Scripture is not ambiguous. Words in Scripture have specific univocal meanings. In the Greek there are several terms that are translated into the singe word "love". We know that to assume that each time the word loves is used in the Bible it has the same exact meaning is false. It is equally false to impose an alien definition on the word in any given case. And certainly the modern notion of love is a most alien of all.



SemperFideles said:


> If evangelism requires that I must first give a lesson in philosophy so a man can understand epistemic certainty to distinguish between my novel use of "know" and "opinion" then something is very wrong.


 Or not. Especially when you consider that many definitions of terms used in the Bible have meaning that a novel to Scripture. Consider the biblical meaning of the term "hope". It is not that vague wishful feeling that is most common, and yes natural, for today. We must explain this to a person new to the Bible so he doesn't get the wrong ideas. 

And there is nothing novel about using the term "know" as epistemic certainity - no more than using "know" to mean assured. It is unusual to use the term "know" to mean intimate relations with the opposite sex - but I'm not complaining. However, I also don't expect to get slapped if I say to someone I'd like to get to know you because I'm not using "know" with that particular yet completely biblical meaning. 

And then there's really crazy concepts like ectypal theology. How are you going to explain that? Or the creature/creator distinction. Or the Trinity. Or how Jesus can be both fully God and fully man? And shall we talk about "the one and the many"? These are not things we can brush aside. And these ideas are not things that jump out at us when we read the Bible. They are the product of considerable contemplation and attempts to answer philosophical question from a Christian worldview. And make no mistake, Christianity is a philosophical worldview. We are making claims about the meaning of reality when we claim to be a Christian, with all the epistemic, ontological, and metaphysical implications a worldview entails.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

I think you arguments are more pugnacious than meaningful. I'll let the reader resolve which comports to the Scriptural witness and whether or not your ideas are resonant with the Scriptural witness.

I've made my point.

Blessings,

Rich


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> Anthony,
> 
> I think you arguments are more pugnacious than meaningful. I'll let the reader resolve which comports to the Scriptural witness and whether or not your ideas are resonant with the Scriptural witness.
> 
> I've made my point.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rich


 
Pugnacious. I like that word.  I like "resonate" too. Is that similar to syncretism?


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> My problem with the complete deprecation of all sense experience and calling it all opinion is that it casts everything into doubt if it's not philsophical certainty: both when I'm trying to be honest and when I'm cheating. Can I _know_ either?



If you think one can arrive at true propositions from sense experience then that's where you should begin, but virtually no one does. You need to define what a sensation is? Then you need to show how sensations give rise to images and perceptions and from these on to abstract ideas. My problem is that those who assume sense experience can give rise to knowledge merely assert the very thing they need to demonstrate. They beg the question.

Also, to be clear, I haven't said anything about philosophic certainty at all. For what it's worth I don't even like the phrase. What I've said is that knowledge is true belief with an account of its truth. You act like this is some new and foreign discovery, some odd imposition on the Scriptures, yet even Greg Bahnsen held to the same definition:

“Beliefs that are arbitrarily adopted or based upon faulty grounds, even when they turn out to be true, do not qualify as instances of ‘knowledge’ . . . What is the additional ingredient, besides being correct, that a belief must have in order to count as knowledge? It must be substantiated, supported, or justified by evidence. Knowledge is true belief held on adequate grounds *rather than held fallaciously or haphazardly. To put it traditionally, knowledge is justified, true belief.”* [Van Til’s Apologetics, pg. 178]

Clark provides such an account starting from Scripture alone, whereas the empiricism which you desperately cling to rest on a fallacy (i.e., begging the question). It may rest on other fallacies or it might actually arrive at knowledge. Who knows, perhaps the great empiricists in history were all wrong and they didn't need Kant's a_priori after all? 

As for my cheater, Anthony is correct, you missed the point entirely. Well, not entirely, because you think he is sinning even for the wrong reason. You'll note that his sinning had nothing to do with any notions about fingers or scales being "real" or a sensitive touch or even that scales "exist." It was the cheater's opinion that he was cheating others. That was his intent. It was his intent, his thought, that was sinful. The fact is, he wasn't really cheating anyone at all.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Clark provides such an account starting from Scripture alone, whereas the empiricism which you desperately cling to rest on a fallacy (i.e., begging the question).



Rich has been resting his case on the Scriptural use of the word to know. It can't be question-begging to accept the authority of Scripture in a discussion which assumes the authority of Scripture.


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> Seriously, I understand from Anthony and you that you want to use terms like _know_ in a philosophically certain way but I think that this insistence in most interactions does, in fact, make Clarkians appear silly to the outside world. I'm saying this not to be pejorative but to point out how it is received.



Yet, what seems silly to you has been a central problem of philosophy since day one, or at least the first day when people started doing philosophy. Hey, that's why this thread is under "Philosophy." Besides, Christianity is silly to the outside world. So what? The point is that the outside world cannot account for any knowledge at all (even the inside world has problems with the idea that the Scripture alone provide both the content and the account of knowledge). 

Clark demonstrated how starting with revelation (i.e., the Scripture's alone) one can provide an account for knowledge. Now, it may not be enough knowledge as some here may want, but we should be grateful for whatever little or much the Lord provides. If knowledge can be found outside of Scripture as so many assert, then the onus ought to be on them to provide the account. Ridicule is no substitute for argument. 



> There is an acknowledgement from Clarkians that the word know (or what is translated as it) is used in a vast way throughout Scriptures. Yet when Christians want to speak as the Bible speaks about "knowing" something it _seems_ that Clarkians want to be the word police and say "that's just opinion". It's almost as if some would be willing to take an apostle or prophet himself to task for using a word in a way you don't like.



For what it's worth I think it's the other way around. Like I said to Manata, if I were to say on my honeymoon I knew my wife he'd probably ask me how did I know (and gentlemen never kiss and tell). 

I use the word "to know" in the colloquial sense all the time, but since I started a poll dealing with knowledge in the epistemic sense I should try not to equivocate along the way. I wish my opponents sometime would show similar disciple and restraint. 




> Witness our interaction and how nuanced it becomes just so you can maintain that knowledge is one thing and opinion is everything else. "Well", you say, "we are responsible for some of our opinions...."
> 
> Which ones? Which opinions are abominable and which are adiophora. I like red, you like blue. I use false scales, you use true ones. Both are sets of opinions. This creates such a vast and confusing array of opinions that the word itself becomes stripped of any meaning. Why? Not because the Scirptures use opinion to refer to things but because a Clarkian does.



The point was raise that unless we know this or that we can't even know that we're sinning or being obedient. This is false. Preferring red or blue are not sins, but if God said either or both were, then they would be. Sins are whatever God says they are simply because God is ex-lex. 



> I don't get it. Why not focus on the principle that matters and guard things we are certain about? Why not distinguish that term? Instead you take over a word (that you claim is just a mere symbol devoid of meaning in itself) and die on a hill while everyone else is wondering: "Is this really all about words?"



Like I said at the outset, many would argue that unless you can explain how you know something you can't really say you know anything at all. I guess I'm just one of those people.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Sean,

If you understood me then you would understand that I'm not *resting* on empericism but I'm just not denying my God created senses' ability to leave me without excuse at times for sins I commit. It's not all or nothing for me.

Nowhere have I argued that I can arrive at infallible certainty through my senses. I simply find it arbitrary to assign all knowledge derived from the world around us to the realm of opinion especially when God holds us accountable to the objects we perceive.

Ironically, you guys call words arbitrary but are the most insistent in the way that an arbitrary marker is utilized. You guys refuse to even acknowledge that words have meaning and distinguish between the awareness and the learning of a thing (and don't even know how we become aware of a thing or if we learn things apart from being aware of them) but then you are strangely insistent on defining knowledge as justified true belief.

You're honestly very hard to understand because you're insistent on the use of a word but then you deny that a word has any meaning.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> You're honestly very hard to understand because you're insistent on the use of a word but then you deny that a word has any meaning.



Yep. The pretty much sums up Scripturalism. We Clarkians deny words have any meaning. 

Oooookay then. I guess that wraps it up.

....

Pugnacious. I like that word.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Rich has been resting his case on the Scriptural use of the word to know. It can't be question-begging to accept the authority of Scripture in a discussion which assumes the authority of Scripture.



Jesus said if we abide in his words we will know the truth. He said nothing about if we trust our senses or believe what we see we will know the truth. He said nothing to support your many deeply held empirical beliefs. Further, Paul said we live by belief not by sight. I realize you don't accept that either and rather contend, without so much as a rational or even a biblical argument, that the "truth is out there" and not in any way limited to Scripture, but I see no reason to believe you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Yep. The pretty much sums up Scripturalism. We Clarkians deny words have any meaning.
> 
> Oooookay then. I guess that wraps it up.



Anthony,

If you feel I have mischaracterized something please elaborate. I quoted two statements about words right next to each other above. If you want to explain to me how you resolve the two then I'm all eyes. Perhaps it's an apparent contradiction. 

Here are the statements that I cannot resolve:



> Originally Posted by Civbert
> The devil's in the details, and so is God.
> 
> A word without definition is meaningless. A word used ambiguously leads to confusion. A word used equivocally leads to error.


But when referring to words Sean wrote:



> Originally Posted by Magma2
> I think you would agree that regardless of what meanings these types or tokens may convey, "a set of culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules," much less "a sense perceptible string of markings" can hardly, in and of themselves, be truths. They are arbitrary and change from culture to culture or even within a culture.



You also previously could not answer how a person becomes aware of a thing in guarding against a question I had about learning how to use words in sentences, etc. It seems in one conversation you want to devalue words, grammar, and syntax but in another you want to insist they are used in a very precise way to convey meaning.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Jesus said if we abide in his words we will know the truth. He said nothing about if we trust our senses or believe what we see we will know the truth. He said nothing to support your many deeply held empirical beliefs. Further, Paul said we live by belief not by sight. I realize you don't accept that either and rather contend, without so much as a rational or even a biblical argument, that the "truth is out there" and not in any way limited to Scripture, but I see no reason to believe you.



This in no way justifies your erroneous charge aimed at Rich. I am sure Rich wholeheartedly accepts the biblical teaching that we must walk by faith in relation to things which are not seen. Nevertheless, he maintains there are numerous Scriptures which use the word to know in relation to objects of sense. Rich is holding to the testimony of the Scriptures as to the trustworthiness of his senses.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> This in no way justifies your erroneous charge aimed at Rich. I am sure Rich wholeheartedly accepts the biblical teaching that we must walk by faith in relation to things which are not seen. Nevertheless, he maintains there are numerous Scriptures which use the word to know in relation to objects of sense. Rich is holding to the testimony of the Scriptures as to the trustworthiness of his senses.



And this coming from a man who has failed miserably trying to demonstrate that sensation has any cognitive role. I'm trying to figure out what you possibly can have left? The parable of the fig tree provided you no support. Pharisaic weather forecasting was of no use to you either and you failed to even identify Jesus' valid use of ad hominem. And doubting Thomas was a rebuke to your sensate Thomistic epistemology and you didn't even grasp that. Consequently, it's hard for me to conclude that Rich has chosen the right side in this debate.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> Anthony,
> 
> If you feel I have mischaracterized something please elaborate. I quoted two statements about words right next to each other above. If you want to explain to me how you resolve the two then I'm all eyes. Perhaps it's an apparent contradiction.



Perhaps it appears that way to you. But two people making two different statements at two different times in two different posts are hardly grounds for a real contradiction. I think you should first try to understand them one at a time first. And then if you still can't resolve it, explain what the contradiction appears to be. Frankly, I don't see any contradiction, so you'll have to spell it out since this is your claim.



SemperFideles said:


> You also previously could not answer how a person becomes aware of a thing in guarding against a question I had about learning how to use words in sentences, etc.


Now your impugning my motives when I answered questions as best I could - and also being honest about what I can answer with confidence and those things which I'm uncertain about. Do you think being open about limits to what I can say is a sign of being disingenuous? I don't recall your giving a solution. 



SemperFideles said:


> It seems in one conversation you want to devalue words, grammar, and syntax but in another you want to insist they are used in a very precise way to convey meaning.


 Well what it _seems_ to your is different than what I mean. I've never devalued words, grammar, or syntax. That's another mis characterization. 

I understand that your not "getting" what I'm saying. But these kinds of uncharitable and unwarranted generalizations against Scripturalism are not going to help you understand it. I think you are arguing from a gut level and not really trying to understand exactly what I've been saying. You think things don't "resonate" with Scripture, or things "seem" to be this way or that. These are not strong arguments. You need to be more specific and support your gut reaction with real substance.


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> And this coming from a man who has failed miserably trying to demonstrate that sensation has any cognitive role. I'm trying to figure out what you possibly can have left? The parable of the fig tree provided you no support. Pharisaic weather forecasting was of no use to you either and you failed to even identify Jesus' valid use of ad hominem. And doubting Thomas was a rebuke to your sensate Thomistic epistemology and you didn't even grasp that. Consequently, it's hard for me to conclude that Rich has chosen the right side in this debate.



Once again you try to turn your remarks on me, rather than acknowledge your mistaken statement about Rich and proceed upon a better footing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Perhaps it appears that way to you. But two people making two different statements at two different times in two different posts are hardly grounds for a real contradiction. I think you should first try to understand them one at a time first. And then if you still can't resolve it, explain what the contradiction appears to be. Frankly, I don't see any contradiction, so you'll have to spell it out since this is your claim.


I'm honestly trying to understand your position. You write things that Sean says Amen to and vice versa. I assume you both represent your positions correctly. If you disagree with Sean on the utility of letters, words, and syntax then this will resolve the tension. I'm honestly confused about how words are of real import to Scripturalists because I've gotten indication to the contrary.



> Now your impugning my motives when I answered questions as best I could - and also being honest about what I can answer with confidence and those things which I'm uncertain about. Do you think being open about limits to what I can say is a sign of being disingenuous? I don't recall your giving a solution.


You may interpret it as impugning your motives or you may interpret it as asking for a consistent explanation. On the one hand you don't seem convinced that our awareness from words and sentences precedes our learning of a thing (nor is even necessary) but you're still very insistent on the word "knowledge" meaning "justified true belief."



> Well what it _seems_ to your is different than what I mean. I've never devalued words, grammar, or syntax. That's another mis characterization.


A confusion perhaps but not a purposeful mischaracterization. I gain nothing by creating a strawman. If I'm going to criticize a position I want it to be on the basis of what it believes. I'm trying to get to a better understanding.



> I understand that your not "getting" what I'm saying. But these kinds of uncharitable and unwarranted generalizations against Scripturalism are not going to help you understand it. I think you are arguing from a gut level and not really trying to understand exactly what I've been saying. You think things don't "resonate" with Scripture, or things "seem" to be this way or that. These are not strong arguments. You need to be more specific and support your gut reaction with real substance.


Well, I believe I'm not being uncharitable but I am challenging you to account for your insistence on the use of terms. You want to repeatedly refer to people as "believing in the force" and that any use of knowledge below your accepted bar is unacceptable. I'm trying to have you provide a rational account for how words themselves are meaningful because I took that up in another thread and was left with the impression from both you and Sean that words themselves are not meaningful but arbitrary. Yet in this thread (and others) you are very insistent on the use of words. You can get emotional about this challenge or you can try to defend it and resolve the problem. 

I dare say that many others are having the same problem understanding it (we could take a poll if you like) and it's not all based on gut reactions but trying to resolve your system of thought and your belief about words, awareness, and learning with your insistence on the use of specific words.

If you don't want to answer honest questions then that's fine but I reject the charge that I've deliberately mischaracterized because I have not seen any arguments produced that demonstrate how you find words meaningful enough to insist upon them.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> You may interpret it as impugning your motives or you may interpret it as asking for a consistent explanation. On the one hand you don't seem convinced that our awareness from words and sentences precedes our learning of a thing (nor is even necessary) but you're still very insistent on the word "knowledge" meaning "justified true belief."


That's not correct. I insist that when I am speaking of epistemology and knowledge, I mean "justified true belief" and that this definition is completely consistent with the system of thought given to us in Scripture. Repeatedly I have said that this is not how the word is used in every case and that these other cases are also valid. What I am trying to avoid is ambiguity and equivocation. 



SemperFideles said:


> Well, I believe I'm not being uncharitable but I am challenging you to account for your insistence on the use of terms. You want to repeatedly refer to people as "believing in the force" and that any use of knowledge below your accepted bar is unacceptable.


I've tried to show that insisting that knowledge is something unintelligible leads to problems with any claims to rational thought. It is insistence of _others_ I object to because lowing the bar leads to incoherence and poor reasoning. It make the Christian worldview a fideist philosophy by discounting role of reason and logic. It sets faith against reason in a way that makes Christianity ultimately irrational (and dare I say - paradoxical). 




SemperFideles said:


> I'm trying to have you provide a rational account for how words themselves are meaningful because I took that up in another thread and was left with the impression from both you and Sean that words themselves are not meaningful but arbitrary.


 I'm sorry you got that false impression. But you started that thread by asking who the letter A can have meaning. I tried to explain to you that in and of itself a symbol does not have meaning unless you can define it. If I simply blurt out "elecampane piquant short perhaps return" it would not covey anything intelligible. You could look up the definitions of the words, but still not have a clue regarding what I was saying because random words don't really say anything by themselves. Words only work when they are part of an intelligible thought. 



SemperFideles said:


> Yet in this thread (and others) you are very insistent on the use of words. You can get emotional about this challenge or you can try to defend it and resolve the problem.


 I'm not getting emotional. 



SemperFideles said:


> If you don't want to answer honest questions ....


 You didn't ask any questions in your post.


SemperFideles said:


> ....then that's fine but I reject the charge that I've deliberately mischaracterized because I have not seen any arguments produced that demonstrate how you find words meaningful enough to insist upon them.


 I'm sorry you don't understand me. Maybe that's my fault, maybe it's yours. But if you don't understand me, then you should be more careful about making assertions regarding what I saying or what Scripturalism implies. It's better to _ask _if I mean X than to _assert _that I mean X. That way I won't get so "emotional".


----------

