# Gordon H. Clark on Logic and Scripture



## Whitefield

Here is a short article by Gordon H. Clark on Logic and Scripture found in the Postscript to his book _Logic_.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

I do agree with him on this matter except that Scripture is "axiom".

-----Added 4/11/2009 at 11:10:42 EST-----

Is there a particular aspect of this article you question?


----------



## PresReformed

Clark was brilliant.


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Is there a particular aspect of this article you question?



Not at all. I have been reading Clark more and more and find that I naturally gravitate to his positions. I know a lot of people have not really read much by Clark and I thought I would post something by him in the area of apologetics. In another thread where people were to vote on their apologetic method - I chose Presuppostionalism/Clark.

-----Added 4/11/2009 at 11:48:43 EST-----



Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> I do agree with him on this matter except that Scripture is "axiom".



Is there another axiom which is the beginning point for the Christian?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a particular aspect of this article you question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I have been reading Clark more and more and find that I naturally gravitate to his positions. I know a lot people have not really read much by Clark and I thought I would post something by him in the area of apologetics. In another thread where people were to vote on their apologetic method - I chose Presuppostionalism/Clark.
> 
> -----Added 4/11/2009 at 11:48:43 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree with him on this matter except that Scripture is "axiom".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there another axiom which is the beginning point for the Christian?
Click to expand...



Yes, I think so. Both General and Special Revelation presuppose reason for intelligibility. See attached:


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

PS. I would highly recommend a thoughtful reading of Philosophical Foundations by Surrendra Gangadean. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundation-Critical-Analysis-Beliefs/dp/0761839909/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239465559&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Philosophical Foundation: A Critical Analysis of Basic Beliefs: Surrendra Gangadean: Books[/ame]


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a particular aspect of this article you question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I have been reading Clark more and more and find that I naturally gravitate to his positions. I know a lot people have not really read much by Clark and I thought I would post something by him in the area of apologetics. In another thread where people were to vote on their apologetic method - I chose Presuppostionalism/Clark.
> 
> -----Added 4/11/2009 at 11:48:43 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree with him on this matter except that Scripture is "axiom".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there another axiom which is the beginning point for the Christian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think so. Both General and Special Revelation presuppose reason for intelligibility. See attached:
Click to expand...


Am I correct in concluding from that article that human reason is the beginning point, and everything else follows from that axiom?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. I have been reading Clark more and more and find that I naturally gravitate to his positions. I know a lot people have not really read much by Clark and I thought I would post something by him in the area of apologetics. In another thread where people were to vote on their apologetic method - I chose Presuppostionalism/Clark.
> 
> -----Added 4/11/2009 at 11:48:43 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Is there another axiom which is the beginning point for the Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think so. Both General and Special Revelation presuppose reason for intelligibility. See attached:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I correct in concluding from that article that human reason is the beginning point, and everything else follows from that axiom?
Click to expand...



Clark argues that logic is not mere human reason. Neither do I. I don't think Clark would argue that the laws of thought are merely human. So I would rather say reason is presupposed necessarily (ontologically) as the starting point. You don't choose reason. You are by nature "rational".


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Clark argues that logic is not mere human reason. Neither do I. I don't think Clark would argue that the laws of thought are merely human. So I would rather say reason is presupposed necessarily (ontologically) as the starting point. You don't choose reason.



Does the axiom of human reason pertain to fallen human reason or regenerated human reason?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clark argues that logic is not mere human reason. Neither do I. I don't think Clark would argue that the laws of thought are merely human. So I would rather say reason is presupposed necessarily (ontologically) as the starting point. You don't choose reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the axiom of human reason pertain to fallen human reason or regenerated human reason?
Click to expand...


Reason itself is not fallen. The Fall affects the use of reason and issue of integrity to think and see what is clearly revealed so as to leave us without excuse.

-----Added 4/11/2009 at 12:20:25 EST-----

I don't mean to take away from the thread on Clark. I was just saying I do think he contributes but falls short just as Van Till contributes and falls short.


----------



## Davidius

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clark argues that logic is not mere human reason. Neither do I. I don't think Clark would argue that the laws of thought are merely human. So I would rather say reason is presupposed necessarily (ontologically) as the starting point. You don't choose reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the axiom of human reason pertain to fallen human reason or regenerated human reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reason itself is not fallen. The Fall affects the use of reason and issue of integrity to think and see what is clearly revealed so as to leave us without excuse.
> 
> -----Added 4/11/2009 at 12:20:25 EST-----
> 
> I don't mean to take away from the thread on Clark. I was just saying I do think he contributes but falls short just as Van Till contributes and falls short.
Click to expand...


Short of...?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Davidius said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the axiom of human reason pertain to fallen human reason or regenerated human reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reason itself is not fallen. The Fall affects the use of reason and issue of integrity to think and see what is clearly revealed so as to leave us without excuse.
> 
> -----Added 4/11/2009 at 12:20:25 EST-----
> 
> I don't mean to take away from the thread on Clark. I was just saying I do think he contributes but falls short just as Van Till contributes and falls short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Short of...?
Click to expand...


Short in the area of apologetics in showing the inexcusability of unbelief. They don't go far enough in showing the clarity of General Revelation which shuts up all in unbelief.


----------



## Whitefield

This may be an area of agreement between Clark and Van Til.

Cornelius Van Til
_An Introduction to Systematic Theology_
pp. 190-1



> Over against both the rationalism rejected by Barth and Brunner, and the irrationalism affirmed by them, the Reformed Faith has set the idea that we must begin with the actuality of the book. We must not pretend that we have established the possibility of the book and the necessity of it in terms of a philosophy that we did not get from the book. We have as Christians indeed learned with Calvin to interpret ourselves in terms of the book, and that on the authority of the book, and then we have looked to the book for the interpretation of the meaning of facts. We do not speak of the denotative definition of the facts of the Christian revelation. We know nothing but such facts as are what the book, the authoritative revelation of God, says they are. And we challenge unbelievers by saying that unless the facts are what the Bible says they are, they have no meaning at all.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> This may be an area of agreement between Clark and Van Til.
> 
> Cornelius Van Til
> _An Introduction to Systematic Theology_
> pp. 190-1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over against both the rationalism rejected by Barth and Brunner, and the irrationalism affirmed by them, the Reformed Faith has set the idea that we must begin with the actuality of the book. We must not pretend that we have established the possibility of the book and the necessity of it in terms of a philosophy that we did not get from the book. We have as Christians indeed learned with Calvin to interpret ourselves in terms of the book, and that on the authority of the book, and then we have looked to the book for the interpretation of the meaning of facts. We do not speak of the denotative definition of the facts of the Christian revelation. We know nothing but such facts as are what the book, the authoritative revelation of God, says they are. And we challenge unbelievers by saying that unless the facts are what the Bible says they are, they have no meaning at all.
Click to expand...


Yes, I do think they agree here. That is why I don't see much difference between Van Til and Clark on a basic level. 

I think we have to be careful to not equate the use of reason with rationalism though. Rational Presuppositionalism denies both Rationalism (Descarte) and Fideism (Clark/Van Til). 

RP ".. applies reason as a test for meaning to what is presupposed in a dispute." (See Attached)


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> RP ".. applies reason as a test for meaning to what is presupposed in a dispute." (See Attached)



And how do we know if what reason determines is true knowledge? What is it tested against? If it is tested against reason itself, then reason is the starting point. If it is tested against Scripture, then Scripture is the starting point.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> RP ".. applies reason as a test for meaning to what is presupposed in a dispute." (See Attached)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we know if what reason determines is true knowledge? What is it tested against? If it is tested against reason itself, then reason is the starting point. If it is tested against Scripture, then Scripture is the starting point.
Click to expand...



Example: If by reason we can clearly see that matter is not eternal (it is contradictory) or that not all is spirit (Hinduism), then do you say this is only true because the Bible says the world is created?

Consider how Paul speaks of General Revelation as revealing the Divine nature and attributes (being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth). Can naturalists and Hindus know this? Ought they to know this? Are they excusable?


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Example: If by reason we can clearly see that matter is not eternal (it is contradictory) or that not all is spirit (Hinduism), then do you say this is only true because the Bible says the world is created?



How can reason know that matter is not eternal? Reason would have to know all matter in all time into the future. Reason may know that this specific "matter" held in the hand is not eternal, but how can it know that for all matter? There may be something buried 100 miles underground which always has been and always will be.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> RP ".. applies reason as a test for meaning to what is presupposed in a dispute." (See Attached)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we know if what reason determines is true knowledge? What is it tested against? If it is tested against reason itself, then reason is the starting point. If it is tested against Scripture, then Scripture is the starting point.
Click to expand...


Tested against which scripture? If you say the Bible then the next question is why the Bible and not some other version of scripture.

CT


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example: If by reason we can clearly see that matter is not eternal (it is contradictory) or that not all is spirit (Hinduism), then do you say this is only true because the Bible says the world is created?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can reason know that matter is not eternal? Reason would have to know all matter in all time into the future. Reason may know that this specific "matter" held in the hand is not eternal, but how can it know that for all matter? There may be something buried 100 miles underground which always has been and always will be.
Click to expand...


Due to time restraints for now (cleaning house ) I will just share this excerpt: (source_MM.htm)

4. Given the assumption that all is matter certain implications follow necessarily. Consider the following: the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life, the destiny of man, human equality, the origin of thought, the good, freedom, rationality, political authority. These are important parts of a materialist worldview and answers are derived by reason seeking consistency and are not and cannot be a matter of experience.

5. The first argument against materialism is based on the relation of the most fundamental feature of the physical universe (change) and our most basic concept (eternal).
major premise: if the material world were eternal it would be self-maintaining
minor premise: the material world is not self-maintaining
conclusion : the material world is not eternal
Is this argument sound: is it valid and are the premises true?

6. The major premise assumes 1) that there must be something eternal and what is eternal is not dependent on anything for its continuing existence. If all is matter then matter must be eternal. 2) that if something is self-maintaining it will continue without any change or if it changes it is a matter of recycling.

7. There are no unique events in an eternal being (see earlier discussion).

8. The reason for the minor premise: 1) the physical universe is highly differentiated in terms of hot and cold 2) these differences interact 3) the interaction continues until sameness is reached 4) sameness remains sameness; it cannot return to differentiation.

9. The sun (and all stars) will burn out. The sun is finite in size. It is giving off its heat. Being finite this process cannot go on forever. Therefore the sun and stars will burn out.

10. A materialist response has been to appeal to the big bang oscillating universe theory. The non-materialist reply is 1) on empirical grounds there is not enough matter in the physical universe for gravity to pull everything back together 2) on logical grounds the model of the big bang does not overcome the problem of entropy (sameness) - at some point the force pulling in will have to equal the force pushing out.
In the true vacuum to false vacuum theory of the beginning of the universe, when the true vacuum is described as empty of matter and energy in contrast to the false vacuum as empty of matter but not energy, the change so described involves being coming into existence from non-being.
The reason for the minor premise is not overcome by appeal to black holes, antimatter, antiuniverses etc.

11. To explain change and diversity from an original unity and oneness in materialist's terms has often involved appeal to uncaused events:
Epicurus 300 BC - the atomic swerve theory
Dirac 1930 - evenly heated vacuum theory
Hoyle 1950 - the steady state theory
B. Russell 1960 - cold ash heap view
currently widespread - the big bang oscillating universe theory
S. Hawking and others 1980 - true vacuum/false vacuum theory
Historically, appeals have been made to something non-material to account for change in light of the difficulties in materialists' explanations (e.g. Aristotle's Prime Mover).

12. Non-Materialist: appeal to an uncaused event violates the laws of reason.
Materialist: why should reason be an absolute; reason itself evolves as man evolves.
Non-M: if reason is not absolute then "all is matter" is not rationally true; its logical opposite is not false if it is true; both may be true at the same time.
M: "all is matter" is pragmatically true. It works for me.
Non-M: what works (satisfies) is a statement about one's feelings not about what is real.
M: about what is real I make no statement (c.f. Sextus Empiricus' move to silence).
Non-M: as rational beings we cannot give up reason; we can only give up integrity.


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> RP ".. applies reason as a test for meaning to what is presupposed in a dispute." (See Attached)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we know if what reason determines is true knowledge? What is it tested against? If it is tested against reason itself, then reason is the starting point. If it is tested against Scripture, then Scripture is the starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tested against which scripture? If you say the Bible then the next question is why the Bible and not some other version of scripture.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


That is the axiom for the Christian ... what would you test it against? The U.S. Constitution? The plays of Shakespeare? The Quran? The starting point is that the Bible is the propositional revelation of God and hence it alone can be the ultimate test for truth and knowledge. To appeal to anything else as the starting point denies the uniqueness of the God revealed in Scripture.

-----Added 4/11/2009 at 02:24:37 EST-----



Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> 7. There are no unique events in an eternal being (see earlier discussion).
> 
> 8. The reason for the minor premise: 1) the physical universe is highly differentiated in terms of hot and cold 2) these differences interact 3) the interaction continues until sameness is reached 4) sameness remains sameness; it cannot return to differentiation.
> 
> 9. The sun (and all stars) will burn out. The sun is finite in size. It is giving off its heat. Being finite this process cannot go on forever. Therefore the sun and stars will burn out.



These are asserted, but how do we know them to be true? They may have been true yesterday and today, but how do we know they will be true tomorrow. How do we know there is no unique events in an eternal being? How do we know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be in effect after midnight? How do we know that the sun (and all stars) will burn out? Without God telling us these things are true, there is no way we can know them to be ultimately true. We may think they are true based on some limited observation or a short time of reasoning, but we may be mistaken (e.g. the earth is flat).


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we know if what reason determines is true knowledge? What is it tested against? If it is tested against reason itself, then reason is the starting point. If it is tested against Scripture, then Scripture is the starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tested against which scripture? If you say the Bible then the next question is why the Bible and not some other version of scripture.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the axiom for the Christian ... what would you test it against? The U.S. Constitution? The plays of Shakespeare? The Quran? The starting point is that the Bible is the propositional revelation of God and hence it alone can be the ultimate test for truth and knowledge. To appeal to anything else as the starting point denies the uniqueness of the God revealed in Scripture.
Click to expand...


My point is what do you say to the non Christian, when they ask the same question that I put forward above.

Let us say that response you get is, "yes let us use the Koran". At that point, you are going to have to use reason to adjudicate between the various options. 

I also do not think of it as an axiom like something out of a math textbook. It is something that is true, but not an axiom.

Denying that the Bible is the Word of God is the ultimate axiom does not deny the uniqueness of the God revealed in the Bible. I can easily say that natural revelation points to him and only him.

CT


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tested against which scripture? If you say the Bible then the next question is why the Bible and not some other version of scripture.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the axiom for the Christian ... what would you test it against? The U.S. Constitution? The plays of Shakespeare? The Quran? The starting point is that the Bible is the propositional revelation of God and hence it alone can be the ultimate test for truth and knowledge. To appeal to anything else as the starting point denies the uniqueness of the God revealed in Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is what do you say to the non Christian, when they ask the same question that I put forward above.
> 
> Let us say that response you get is, "yes let us use the Koran". At that point, you are going to have to use reason to adjudicate between the various options.
> 
> I also do not think of it as an axiom like something out of a math textbook. It is something that is true, but not an axiom.
> 
> Denying that the Bible is the Word of God is the ultimate axiom does not deny the uniqueness of the God revealed in the Bible. I can easily say that natural revelation points to him and only him.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


What can natural revelation tell us about God? Not much ... creator who seems to let everything run down and decay ... it can tell us nothing about the nature of God, nothing about providence, and nothing about grace. Natural revelation may tell us there is a God, but it can't tell us who he is. Natural revelation might actually convince us that there is a Demiurge.


----------



## Arch2k

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> So I would rather say reason is presupposed necessarily (ontologically) as the starting point. You don't choose reason. *You are by nature "rational".*


 
How do you _know_ that?


----------



## Arch2k

ChristianTrader said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tested against which scripture? If you say the Bible then the next question is why the Bible and not some other version of scripture.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the axiom for the Christian ... what would you test it against? The U.S. Constitution? The plays of Shakespeare? The Quran? The starting point is that the Bible is the propositional revelation of God and hence it alone can be the ultimate test for truth and knowledge. To appeal to anything else as the starting point denies the uniqueness of the God revealed in Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is what do you say to the non Christian, when they ask the same question that I put forward above.
> 
> Let us say that response you get is, "yes let us use the Koran". At that point, you are going to have to use reason to adjudicate between the various options.
> 
> I also do not think of it as an axiom like something out of a math textbook. It is something that is true, but not an axiom.
> 
> Denying that the Bible is the Word of God is the ultimate axiom does not deny the uniqueness of the God revealed in the Bible. I can easily say that natural revelation points to him and only him.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...

 
It was said that the bible is the axiom for the Christian, not the unbeliever. It is part of apologetics to show the futility of a wrong axiom.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I would rather say reason is presupposed necessarily (ontologically) as the starting point. You don't choose reason. *You are by nature "rational".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you _know_ that?
Click to expand...


Well before one can know something to be true or false, one has to know what the statement or word means.

Or put another way, what would it mean to know by nature that I am irrational?

CT

-----Added 4/11/2009 at 03:19:36 EST-----



Jeff_Bartel said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the axiom for the Christian ... what would you test it against? The U.S. Constitution? The plays of Shakespeare? The Quran? The starting point is that the Bible is the propositional revelation of God and hence it alone can be the ultimate test for truth and knowledge. To appeal to anything else as the starting point denies the uniqueness of the God revealed in Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is what do you say to the non Christian, when they ask the same question that I put forward above.
> 
> Let us say that response you get is, "yes let us use the Koran". At that point, you are going to have to use reason to adjudicate between the various options.
> 
> I also do not think of it as an axiom like something out of a math textbook. It is something that is true, but not an axiom.
> 
> Denying that the Bible is the Word of God is the ultimate axiom does not deny the uniqueness of the God revealed in the Bible. I can easily say that natural revelation points to him and only him.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was said that the bible is the axiom for the Christian, not the unbeliever. It is part of apologetics to show the futility of a wrong axiom.
Click to expand...


And I am questioning whether or not it is an axiom for even a Christian. Please not that my questioning of whether Scripture is an axiom does not imply that I am saying that the Bible is not true.

CT


----------



## Arch2k

ChristianTrader said:


> And I am questioning whether or not it is an axiom for even a Christian. Please not that my questioning of whether Scripture is an axiom does not imply that I am saying that the Bible is not true.
> 
> CT


 
You mentioned above that an unbeliever would not accept the premise that the Bible is the correct axiom over and against others like the Koran etc. This is to be expected from our worldview. How does the fact that an unbeliever would not accept the Bible as an axiom argue that the Bible is not the axiom for the believer?

Just out of curiosity, what is your alternative epistemology if you are not convinced that the Bible is the source of knowledge?


----------



## ChristianTrader

Jeff_Bartel said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am questioning whether or not it is an axiom for even a Christian. Please not that my questioning of whether Scripture is an axiom does not imply that I am saying that the Bible is not true.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mentioned above that an unbeliever would not accept the premise that the Bible is the correct axiom over and against others like the Koran etc. This is to be expected from our worldview. How does the fact that an unbeliever would not accept the Bible as an axiom argue that the Bible is not the axiom for the believer?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what is your alternative epistemology if you are not convinced that the Bible is the source of knowledge?
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything about what the unbeliever would or would not accept. I only noted that one would have to bring reason into the game in order to adjudicate between the Bible and other alternatives.

Since that is the case, then why not say that reason is your axiom and that the Bible is the reasonable option while the Koran etc. is not a reasonable option.

CT


----------



## Arch2k

ChristianTrader said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am questioning whether or not it is an axiom for even a Christian. Please not that my questioning of whether Scripture is an axiom does not imply that I am saying that the Bible is not true.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mentioned above that an unbeliever would not accept the premise that the Bible is the correct axiom over and against others like the Koran etc. This is to be expected from our worldview. How does the fact that an unbeliever would not accept the Bible as an axiom argue that the Bible is not the axiom for the believer?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what is your alternative epistemology if you are not convinced that the Bible is the source of knowledge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about what the unbeliever would or would not accept. I only noted that one would have to bring reason into the game in order to adjudicate between the Bible and other alternatives.
> 
> Since that is the case, then why not say that reason is your axiom and that the Bible is the reasonable option while the Koran etc. is not a reasonable option.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...

 
Just to name a couple:

First of all, reason cannot produce truth in and of itself. Reason needs prior knowledge by which to reason FROM in order to deduce knowledge. Reason is the arguing from premises to conclusions, so where do we get the starting premises? I say the scriptures...what say ye? 

Also, to state that reason should be the axiom of the Christian is to say that we are the autonomous determiner of truth, not dependent on God by faith in his word. Instead of trusting that the scriptures are true because God wrote it, the person who uses reason as his axiom should read every verse and decide for himself if or if not the verse is true or not.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Jeff_Bartel said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mentioned above that an unbeliever would not accept the premise that the Bible is the correct axiom over and against others like the Koran etc. This is to be expected from our worldview. How does the fact that an unbeliever would not accept the Bible as an axiom argue that the Bible is not the axiom for the believer?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what is your alternative epistemology if you are not convinced that the Bible is the source of knowledge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about what the unbeliever would or would not accept. I only noted that one would have to bring reason into the game in order to adjudicate between the Bible and other alternatives.
> 
> Since that is the case, then why not say that reason is your axiom and that the Bible is the reasonable option while the Koran etc. is not a reasonable option.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to name a couple:
> 
> First of all, reason cannot produce truth in and of itself. Reason needs prior knowledge by which to reason FROM in order to deduce knowledge. Reason is the arguing from premises to conclusions, so where do we get the starting premises? I say the scriptures...what say ye?
Click to expand...


Reason can work with simple hypothesis. If you reduce it to absurdity, then you know that such is not the case.

You can even set certain proofs up (using Some, all, none etc.) where if one position is false, then the other side has to be the case.



> Also, to state that reason should be the axiom of the Christian is to say that we are the autonomous determiner of truth, not dependent on God by faith in his word. Instead of trusting that the scriptures are true because God wrote it, the person who uses reason as his axiom should read every verse and decide for himself if or if not the verse is true or not.



We are not the determiner of truth, the only question is whether we recognize it or not. Also even when comes to the conclusion that there is a god, then one has to decide what is his word, and what the imposters are.

Why exactly would you reject Islam besides reason? If one does not want to make it reason, then someone is going to have to make some leap of faith.

CT


----------



## Confessor

Jeff_Bartel said:


> First of all, reason cannot produce truth in and of itself. Reason needs prior knowledge by which to reason FROM in order to deduce knowledge. Reason is the arguing from premises to conclusions, so where do we get the starting premises? I say the scriptures...what say ye?



*Exactly*--we cannot pretend that reason, a God-given _tool_, somehow has _content_ in itself. When someone says that they know something by virtue of "reason," he does not mean it in the truest sense. That would be like saying that I am going to build a house with my bare hands--and with no other materials involved. But such is impossible.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Hope to get back to this soon. I am working on post.


----------



## MW

Confessor said:


> *Exactly*--we cannot pretend that reason, a God-given _tool_, somehow has _content_ in itself.



I don't pretend; I'm simply faced with it every time I use reason. Man's rationality contains self-evident principles from which he reasons. The whole idea of presuppositionalism presupposes it.


----------



## VictorBravo

armourbearer said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Exactly*--we cannot pretend that reason, a God-given _tool_, somehow has _content_ in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend; I'm simply faced with it every time I use reason. Man's rationality contains self-evident principles from which he reasons. The whole idea of presuppositionalism presupposes it.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Matthew. You saved me from digging out a long quote from Dabney!


----------



## Confessor

armourbearer said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Exactly*--we cannot pretend that reason, a God-given _tool_, somehow has _content_ in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend; I'm simply faced with it every time I use reason. Man's rationality contains self-evident principles from which he reasons. The whole idea of presuppositionalism presupposes it.
Click to expand...


Could you provide some examples please? If by these principles, you mean the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle, etc., then you have only provided tools and not content. If not, I request further elaboration.


----------



## VictorBravo

Confessor said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Exactly*--we cannot pretend that reason, a God-given _tool_, somehow has _content_ in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend; I'm simply faced with it every time I use reason. Man's rationality contains self-evident principles from which he reasons. The whole idea of presuppositionalism presupposes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you provide some examples please? If by these principles, you mean the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle, etc., then you have only provided tools and not content. If not, I request further elaboration.
Click to expand...


I'd say, as a simple example, that the fact that we innately do not like contradiction, if we think about it, is such a principle. We could not operate without assuming the rightness of a right answer and the wrongness of a wrong answer.


----------



## Confessor

victorbravo said:


> I'd say, as a simple example, that the fact that we innately do not like contradiction, if we think about it, is such a principle. We could not operate without assuming the rightness of a right answer and the wrongness of a wrong answer.



So you're saying that one piece of information contained in the _content_ of reason is the moral proposition that we _ought_ to prefer non-contradiction to contradiction?


----------



## MW

Confessor said:


> Could you provide some examples please? If by these principles, you mean the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle, etc., then you have only provided tools and not content. If not, I request further elaboration.



Vic has provided one good example. If you can obtain the Sensualistic Philosophy by Dabney (available from Chris Coldwell's Naphtali Press), chapters 10 and 11 will provide sound and solid discussion. One undeniable pre-condition for all rationality is what Dabney calls "the essential condition of all consciousness," which is "the distinction of the 'Me' and the 'Not-Me.'" Rationality presupposes specific relationships between subject and object, which leads all epistemic discussions to generally revolve around the terms, subjective and objective.

Caution:- if one speaks of rationality as a mere tool, then human cognition is reduced to the belittling status of being nothing more than a pole of reference between the Me and the Not-Me, and eventually leads to relativism.


----------



## Christoffer

I too am very fond of Clark. To me it seems however that at least the basic laws of logic need to be assumed in order to understand Scripture.

I don't understand the part about reason not being able to produce truths independently. Isn't the law of non-contradiction a truth?

It is a proposition made true by correspondence...or?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Example: If by reason we can clearly see that matter is not eternal (it is contradictory) or that not all is spirit (Hinduism), then do you say this is only true because the Bible says the world is created?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can reason know that matter is not eternal? Reason would have to know all matter in all time into the future. Reason may know that this specific "matter" held in the hand is not eternal, but how can it know that for all matter? There may be something buried 100 miles underground which always has been and always will be.
Click to expand...


Reason is ontological and while we have finitude by virtue of our createdness and do not know things exhaustively (which I think you aim to keep intact here), things at the basic level of thought are clear to reason. So we can know something even if we don't know it exhaustively. What can reason grasp? 

By reason all persons can know at least something exist. There is being as opposed to non-being (as is a). Right off the bat reason is being used here. When we think about being logically we think that it exists now, not always pastfuture or now and always past future. Right off the bat we can speak of existence in two ways. It is either temporal or eternal. Logically eternal is more basic than temporal. This is true ontologically and logically. I just offer this as an initial example of the use of reason as applied to being as well as thought. We can do this because we are by nature rational. The Apostle Paul writes that the God's Divine nature and attributes are clearly seen in the things created. Reason applied to being would be able to show just how this is so (vs "sensus divinitatis"). Do we do this? No. No one seeks, no one understands, no one does what is right. Are they accountable to know what is clear. Yes. 

-----Added 4/14/2009 at 10:45:23 EST-----



Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> RP ".. applies reason as a test for meaning to what is presupposed in a dispute." (See Attached)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do we know if what reason determines is true knowledge? What is it tested against? If it is tested against reason itself, then reason is the starting point. If it is tested against Scripture, then Scripture is the starting point.
Click to expand...



I hope my other recent post clarifies this.

-----Added 4/14/2009 at 10:47:56 EST-----



Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the axiom for the Christian ... what would you test it against? The U.S. Constitution? The plays of Shakespeare? The Quran? The starting point is that the Bible is the propositional revelation of God and hence it alone can be the ultimate test for truth and knowledge. To appeal to anything else as the starting point denies the uniqueness of the God revealed in Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is what do you say to the non Christian, when they ask the same question that I put forward above.
> 
> Let us say that response you get is, "yes let us use the Koran". At that point, you are going to have to use reason to adjudicate between the various options.
> 
> I also do not think of it as an axiom like something out of a math textbook. It is something that is true, but not an axiom.
> 
> Denying that the Bible is the Word of God is the ultimate axiom does not deny the uniqueness of the God revealed in the Bible. I can easily say that natural revelation points to him and only him.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What can natural revelation tell us about God? Not much ... creator who seems to let everything run down and decay ... it can tell us nothing about the nature of God, nothing about providence, and nothing about grace. Natural revelation may tell us there is a God, but it can't tell us who he is. Natural revelation might actually convince us that there is a Demiurge.
Click to expand...


I think before exploring this the basic issue of reason needs to be established. If that gets in place you'll see how clarity builds from the bottom up foundationally.


----------



## Whitefield

I think Clark's and Van Til's point is that behind all human reason is God's reason, and the only place we can objectively encounter God's reason is in Scripture.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> I think Clark's and Van Til's point is that behind all human reason is God's reason, and the only place we can objectively encounter God's reason is in Scripture.



I agree that is their view. But I think we can objectively encounter reason in us. Read above. 

The logos (Word of God) comes to us as reason in us, in Creation, in Scripture and in Christ incarnate. It is four-fold in its manifestation.


Ps. I would also add that we need to not confuse reason in us and it's right use in integrity seeking what is clear about God.


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> The logos (Word of God) comes to us as reason in us, in Creation, in Scripture and in Christ incarnate. It is four-fold in its manifestation.



And which of these are infallible? Our reason is derivative and creation is derivative, so to start with them is to start with the lesser. Christ incarnate is only known to our reason through Scripture. So it seems to me that Scripture takes primacy in any discussion of reason.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logos (Word of God) comes to us as reason in us, in Creation, in Scripture and in Christ incarnate. It is four-fold in its manifestation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And which of these are infallible? Our reason is derivative and creation is derivative, so to start with them is to start with the lesser. Christ incarnate is only known to our reason through Scripture. So it seems to me that Scripture takes primacy in any discussion of reason.
Click to expand...



Fair questions.  Let me see how to put this.

I first question if reason is derivative. Do you mean our reason is created? I don't see the laws of thought as "created". If nothing existed but the Triune God they would exist and they would be true. They are ontological.


The Word of God comes to us infallibly in four ways.

*Reason* -laws of thought. Are they negotiable? If one thinks clearly about basic things what will that show them? (see above)

*Creation* - Clarity of God's nature (eternality) and attributes (being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth) are revealed by the things created. Contrary to the Apostle Paul, is Creation unclear? By Creation this would include the nature of man as rational, created in the image of God.

*Scripture *- Are there contradictions in Scripture? Can it violate the laws of thought? The implications of this are severe if we deny it. 

*Christ the Lord* - Does our Lord uphold reason ( laws of thought and Scripture) in all he teaches? 

I hope this helps.


----------



## Whitefield

> I first question if reason is derivative. Do you mean our reason is created?



I didn't say "created" on purpose .. but human reason is derived from God .. the _imago Dei_ .. without the _imago Dei_ we would not be able to reason. So our ability to reason is derived from God.



> The Word of God comes to us infallibly in four ways.
> Reason -laws of thought.



Does this mean that the Word of God can be found infallibly in human reason? If it could then we would need nothing other than human reason to know the Word of God; that's the implication of the word _infallibly_.

Without God revealing His reason in Scripture, how can we know if we are exercising ours correctly?



> Creation



If the Word of God could be found infallibly in creation we would not need special revelation to know God.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logos (Word of God) comes to us as reason in us, in Creation, in Scripture and in Christ incarnate. It is four-fold in its manifestation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And which of these are infallible? Our reason is derivative and creation is derivative, so to start with them is to start with the lesser. Christ incarnate is only known to our reason through Scripture. So it seems to me that Scripture takes primacy in any discussion of reason.
Click to expand...


So when one has various different versions of scripture before them, why do you pick one to have priority?

Also, to say God comes to us in four-fold manifestation, would imply that they all lead to the say place. So to say which is infallible makes no sense. Now one could say that some do not use reason properly and therefore end up in a ditch.

CT


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> I first question if reason is derivative. Do you mean our reason is created?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "created" on purpose .. but human reason is derived from God .. the _imago Dei_ .. without the _imago Dei_ we would not be able to reason. So our ability to reason is derived from God.
> 
> *
> Ok, yes, I understand. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Word of God comes to us infallibly in four ways.
> Reason -laws of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does this mean that the Word of God can be found infallibly in human reason? If it could then we would need nothing other than human reason to know the Word of God; that's the implication of the word _infallibly_.
> 
> Without God revealing His reason in Scripture, how can we know if we are exercising ours correctly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Word of God could be found infallibly in creation we would not need special revelation to know God.
Click to expand...



We can know we are exercising reason correctly if we understand what is clear at the basic level and then understand less basic issue in light of that. We think presuppositionally. Scripture comes to us necessarily to show how God is both merciful and just to man in his sin against clear General Revelation. Scripture is one aspect of God's Revelation to us. It is special in the sense that it reveals what is not discoverable by reason alone or Creation. This does not mean it is contrary to reason. I should add that we can know that we are in need of redemption to which Scripture is the answer. 

What is understood in Creation by reason will not contradict what is understand in Scripture by reason. Scripture speaks in the name of the God who is there and is not silent. This is why we reject other other claims to possessing the Word of God in writing. It contradicts the revelation in both reason and Creation.


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> We can know we are exercising reason correctly if we understand what is clear at the basic level and then understand less basic issue in light of that.



Can you give me an example of what "the basic level" is?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can know we are exercising reason correctly if we understand what is clear at the basic level and then understand less basic issue in light of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example of what "the basic level" is?
Click to expand...



Sure. Let me first establish that what I mean by clear at the basic level is that which is clear to all who can think. Is this where you understand me to be coming from when I speak of the basic level of clarity and understanding?


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can know we are exercising reason correctly if we understand what is clear at the basic level and then understand less basic issue in light of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example of what "the basic level" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Let me first establish that what I mean by clear at the basic level is that which is clear to all who can think. Is this where you understand me to be coming from when I speak of the basic level of clarity and understanding?
Click to expand...


Yes, give me one of those basics in which the Word of God infallibly comes.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example of what "the basic level" is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Let me first establish that what I mean by clear at the basic level is that which is clear to all who can think. Is this where you understand me to be coming from when I speak of the basic level of clarity and understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, give me one of those basics in which the Word of God infallibly comes.
Click to expand...



Ok, sounds good. I will write something up as soon as I am able. I keep home with a near six year old at hand.


----------



## MW

Whitefield said:


> I think Clark's and Van Til's point is that behind all human reason is God's reason, and the only place we can objectively encounter God's reason is in Scripture.



Van Til definitely taught the sufficiency of natural revelation. At that point he was placing one foot on old Princeton's shoulder.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

armourbearer said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Clark's and Van Til's point is that behind all human reason is God's reason, and the only place we can objectively encounter God's reason is in Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Van Til definitely taught the sufficiency of natural revelation. At that point he was placing one foot on old Princeton's shoulder.
Click to expand...


I am not sure about this. I defer to you Mr. Winzer until I do a bit more study.  I do think he did build on both Princeton and Kuyper. He did value evidential apologetics. He might hold to natural revelation somehow getting through to man and man deep down *knowing* God and suppressing and rejecting that better knowledge. That is a debatable approach to understanding inexcusability. Well, it's a rich subject isn't it?


----------



## MW

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> I am not sure about this. I defer to you Mr. Winzer until I do a bit more study.  I do think he did build on both Princeton and Kuyper. He did value evidential apologetics. He might hold to natural revelation somehow getting through to man and man deep down *knowing* God and suppressing and rejecting that better knowledge. That is a debatable approach to understanding inexcusability. Well, it's a rich subject isn't it?



Yes, it certainly is a very rich subject, made so by the fact that our theology is intertwined in the way we understand human rationality.

Van Til wrote: "At every stage in history God's revelation in nature is sufficient for the purpose it was meant to serve, that of being the playground for the process of differentiation between those who would and those who would not serve God" (Doctrine of Scripture, 7).

I don't think there has been a more descriptive attribution given to natural revelation. As ones who acknowledge history as the process by which God works out His eternal purpose we must be careful not to undermine God's eternal purpose by ascribing to history an independent meaning.

Again, on the perspicuity of natural revelation: "Nature can and does reveal nothing but the one comprehensive plan of God... Scripture takes the clarity of God's revelation for granted at every stage of human history... Creatures have no private chambers" (Ibid., 8, 9).


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

armourbearer said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure about this. I defer to you Mr. Winzer until I do a bit more study.  I do think he did build on both Princeton and Kuyper. He did value evidential apologetics. He might hold to natural revelation somehow getting through to man and man deep down *knowing* God and suppressing and rejecting that better knowledge. That is a debatable approach to understanding inexcusability. Well, it's a rich subject isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it certainly is a very rich subject, made so by the fact that our theology is intertwined in the way we understand human rationality.
> 
> Van Til wrote: "At every stage in history God's revelation in nature is sufficient for the purpose it was meant to serve, that of being the playground for the process of differentiation between those who would and those who would not serve God" (Doctrine of Scripture, 7).
> 
> I don't think there has been a more descriptive attribution given to natural revelation. As ones who acknowledge history as the process by which God works out His eternal purpose we must be careful not to undermine God's eternal purpose by ascribing to history an independent meaning.
> 
> Again, on the perspicuity of natural revelation: "Nature can and does reveal nothing but the one comprehensive plan of God... Scripture takes the clarity of God's revelation for granted at every stage of human history... Creatures have no private chambers" (Ibid., 8, 9).
Click to expand...


Thanks so much. I will go back and reference this.


----------



## Whitefield

Van Til, _An Introduction to Systematic Theology_, pp. 112-113:



> No one, on the basis of present general revelation alone, actually knows God aright as the Creator. It is not as though man by himself and on the basis of natural revelation alone can truly know God as the creator, but that he cannot truly know God as Savior. Man ought, to be sure, from nature to know God as creator, seeing that nature clearly displays the creator. But since man has become a sinner, he has become a willing slave of sin (ethelodoulos). (Calvin's Institutes, II, 2.) He therefore never reads the “book of nature” aright even with respect to “natural” things. He may, to be sure, by virtue of the sense of deity within him, give involuntary, adventitious interpretations of natural revelation that are, so far forth, correct. In this sense every man knows God and knows himself to be a creature of God (Rom. 1:19). But to the extent that he interprets nature according to his own adopted principles, he does not speak the truth on any subject.


----------



## Whitefield

Clark, _God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics_, pp. 66-67.



> When Adam was created and placed in the Garden of Eden, he did not know what to do. Nor would a study of the Garden have led to any necessary conclusion. His duty was imposed upon him by a special divine revelation. God told him to be fruitful and multiply, to subdue nature, to make use of the animals, and to eat of the fruit of the trees (with one fateful exception). Thus moral norms, commands, and prohibitions were established by a special and not a general revelation. Only so could man know God's requirements, and only so later could he learn the plan of salvation.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Clark, _God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics_, pp. 66-67.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Adam was created and placed in the Garden of Eden, he did not know what to do. Nor would a study of the Garden have led to any necessary conclusion. His duty was imposed upon him by a special divine revelation. God told him to be fruitful and multiply, to subdue nature, to make use of the animals, and to eat of the fruit of the trees (with one fateful exception). Thus moral norms, commands, and prohibitions were established by a special and not a general revelation. Only so could man know God's requirements, and only so later could he learn the plan of salvation.
Click to expand...


Interesting quote. Thanks! I think I have a good rebuttal to this.  Not now though. 

I don't mean that glibly of course.

-----Added 4/14/2009 at 11:16:16 EST-----



Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clark, _God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics_, pp. 66-67.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Adam was created and placed in the Garden of Eden, he did not know what to do. Nor would a study of the Garden have led to any necessary conclusion. His duty was imposed upon him by a special divine revelation. God told him to be fruitful and multiply, to subdue nature, to make use of the animals, and to eat of the fruit of the trees (with one fateful exception). Thus moral norms, commands, and prohibitions were established by a special and not a general revelation. Only so could man know God's requirements, and only so later could he learn the plan of salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting quote. Thanks! I think I have a good rebuttal to this.  Not now though.
> 
> I don't mean that glibly of course.
Click to expand...


I apologize if I sound like I am out to rebutt such profound gentlemen. I would never presume. That is not my intention. I do think, though, that this approach to understanding the Fall in the garden needs looked at more closely and critically.


----------



## kalawine

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Consider how Paul speaks of General Revelation as revealing the Divine nature and attributes (being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth). Can naturalists and Hindus know this? Ought they to know this? Are they excusable?



They are inexcusable because they are liars. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They lie about what they know.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

kalawine said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider how Paul speaks of General Revelation as revealing the Divine nature and attributes (being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth). Can naturalists and Hindus know this? Ought they to know this? Are they excusable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are inexcusable because they are liars. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They lie about what they know.
Click to expand...


Romans 3: 10,11, " As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 


If no one understands, then how can you say they know? I think we have to dig a bit deeper to understand this.


----------



## MW

Whitefield said:


> Clark, _God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics_, pp. 66-67.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus moral norms, commands, and prohibitions were established by a special and not a general revelation.
Click to expand...


The Confession clearly teaches that our first parents had the law of God written in their hearts. The special revelation forbidding to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is considered a "positive" commandment, not a "moral" one, and intended only to direct man to his eschatological goal.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

#49 >>Yes, give me one of those basics in which the Word of God infallibly comes. <<

Basic beliefs flow from our most basic concepts. We can know these from reason and argument (laws of thought as test for meaning and coherence). Our most basic concept is that of existence. Whatever we say about anything we speak of it as being, "it is". The sky *is* blue. The ground *is* hard. All such expressions assume "it is". This is true for anyone, anywhere, at any time. 

Logically we can say two things about existence, "it is" now, and always past/future (eternal) or "it is" now and not always past/future (temporal). The eternal is prior to the temporal both logically and ontologically. So, we can know something exist and that something is at least eternal or temporal or both. We can at least know that if something is temporal then something is at least eternal. Saying nothing is eternal is reduced to absurdity, i.e. being cannot come from non-being. This is clarity at the basic level of thought concerning our most basic concepts from which our most basic beliefs will flow. 

All world views flow from these basic concepts/beliefs. We don't stop here though. It can be shown whether such beliefs, through the critical use of reason, can stand and whether one has integrity in holding such beliefs, i.e. material monism, spiritual monism, dualism, certain forms of Theism. 

We all tend to use reason constructively. For instance, we draw out good and necessary consequences from Scripture but we over look the critical use of reason at the basic level to see what is clear about God and resort of fideistic approaches in the defense of Christianity against other world views. 

As to your question above. What I am trying to show here is clarity at the basic level of thought and this is the logos in us as light. The logos in us as reason interacting with the logos in Creation is clear. Creation is Revelation. The willingness to think and understand is not there. The irony is that if we but think clearly we could see, but we don't and resort to giving up reason. This ends in silence or absurdity and contradictory beliefs that cannot be held with spiritual integrity. That is the spiritual death in us. We shut our eyes to the light. We need redemption. We need regeneration. 

I am sure you will have questions or thoughts.


----------



## a mere housewife

I don't understand all of this and want to reread several times; so please do forgive the question if it is terribly ignorant: I was wondering if anyone could comment on the relation of this (sufficiency of not only natural revelation to reveal God but of man's reasoning faculty even after the fall to apprehend Him from creation, if I'm understanding correctly? -- as with the fallen will, it is not faculty but desire etc. that is lacking?) what what Calvin says in chapter 5 of the institutes, particularly sections 14 and 15?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

a mere housewife said:


> I don't understand all of this and want to reread several times; so please do forgive the question if it is terribly ignorant: I was wondering if anyone could comment on the relation of this (sufficiency of not only natural revelation to reveal God but of man's reasoning faculty even after the fall to apprehend Him from creation, if I'm understanding correctly? -- as with the fallen will, it is not faculty but desire etc. that is lacking?) what what Calvin says in chapter 5 of the institutes, particularly sections 14 and 15?



It's been awhile since I read that chapter and so will read it again later. I am not sure enough to answer affirmatively. A quick perusal though suggests to me that he doesn't hold to the idea of rational clarity. He doesn't seem to root accountability in clarity. He says, " But though we are deficient in natural powers which might enable us to rise to a pure and clear knowledge of God, still, as the dullness which prevents us is within, there is no room for excuse." Here he clearly says there is a deficiency. What does he mean? Is reason fallen? Or is it only the use of reason that is fallen? One can see a argument is sound and not rise to assent to it. Is this what he means? Much to consider here!


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> #49 >>Yes, give me one of those basics in which the Word of God infallibly comes. <<
> 
> Basic beliefs flow from our most basic concepts. We can know these from reason and argument (laws of thought as test for meaning and coherence). Our most basic concept is that of existence. Whatever we say about anything we speak of it as being, "it is". The sky *is* blue. The ground *is* hard. All such expressions assume "it is". This is true for anyone, anywhere, at any time.
> 
> Logically we can say two things about existence, "it is" now, and always past/future (eternal) or "it is" now and not always past/future (temporal). The eternal is prior to the temporal both logically and ontologically. So, we can know something exist and that something is at least eternal or temporal or both. We can at least know that if something is temporal then something is at least eternal. Saying nothing is eternal is reduced to absurdity, i.e. being cannot come from non-being. This is clarity at the basic level of thought concerning our most basic concepts from which our most basic beliefs will flow.
> 
> All world views flow from these basic concepts/beliefs. We don't stop here though. It can be shown whether such beliefs, through the critical use of reason, can stand and whether one has integrity in holding such beliefs, i.e. material monism, spiritual monism, dualism, certain forms of Theism.
> 
> We all tend to use reason constructively. For instance, we draw out good and necessary consequences from Scripture but we over look the critical use of reason at the basic level to see what is clear about God and resort of fideistic approaches in the defense of Christianity against other world views.
> 
> As to your question above. What I am trying to show here is clarity at the basic level of thought and this is the logos in us as light. The logos in us as reason interacting with the logos in Creation is clear. Creation is Revelation. The willingness to think and understand is not there. The irony is that if we but think clearly we could see, but we don't and resort to giving up reason. This ends in silence or absurdity and contradictory beliefs that cannot be held with spiritual integrity. That is the spiritual death in us. We shut our eyes to the light. We need redemption. We need regeneration.
> 
> I am sure you will have questions or thoughts.



I appreciate your explanation of how reasoning goes from basic to complex. But in response to your statement that the Word of God comes infallibly to us in reason and creation, I asked could you give me an example of the basics where the Word of God _infallibly_ comes. I don't see that in your post. 

_Infallible_: incapable of failure or error.

-----Added 4/16/2009 at 01:33:07 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Clark's and Van Til's point is that behind all human reason is God's reason, and the only place we can objectively encounter God's reason is in Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Van Til definitely taught the sufficiency of natural revelation. At that point he was placing one foot on old Princeton's shoulder.
Click to expand...


Why was special revelation necessary if natural revelation was sufficient?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> #49 >>Yes, give me one of those basics in which the Word of God infallibly comes. <<
> 
> Basic beliefs flow from our most basic concepts. We can know these from reason and argument (laws of thought as test for meaning and coherence). Our most basic concept is that of existence. Whatever we say about anything we speak of it as being, "it is". The sky *is* blue. The ground *is* hard. All such expressions assume "it is". This is true for anyone, anywhere, at any time.
> 
> Logically we can say two things about existence, "it is" now, and always past/future (eternal) or "it is" now and not always past/future (temporal). The eternal is prior to the temporal both logically and ontologically. So, we can know something exist and that something is at least eternal or temporal or both. We can at least know that if something is temporal then something is at least eternal. Saying nothing is eternal is reduced to absurdity, i.e. being cannot come from non-being. This is clarity at the basic level of thought concerning our most basic concepts from which our most basic beliefs will flow.
> 
> All world views flow from these basic concepts/beliefs. We don't stop here though. It can be shown whether such beliefs, through the critical use of reason, can stand and whether one has integrity in holding such beliefs, i.e. material monism, spiritual monism, dualism, certain forms of Theism.
> 
> We all tend to use reason constructively. For instance, we draw out good and necessary consequences from Scripture but we over look the critical use of reason at the basic level to see what is clear about God and resort of fideistic approaches in the defense of Christianity against other world views.
> 
> As to your question above. What I am trying to show here is clarity at the basic level of thought and this is the logos in us as light. The logos in us as reason interacting with the logos in Creation is clear. Creation is Revelation. The willingness to think and understand is not there. The irony is that if we but think clearly we could see, but we don't and resort to giving up reason. This ends in silence or absurdity and contradictory beliefs that cannot be held with spiritual integrity. That is the spiritual death in us. We shut our eyes to the light. We need redemption. We need regeneration.
> 
> I am sure you will have questions or thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your explanation of how reasoning goes from basic to complex. But in response to your statement that the Word of God comes infallibly to us in reason and creation, I asked could you give me an example of the basics where the Word of God _infallibly_ comes. I don't see that in your post.
> 
> _Infallible_: incapable of failure or error.<<<<
> 
> 
> 
> The Logos (Word) is clear here.
> 
> 
> 1)Something exists.
> 2)Something is necessarily eternal.
> 3)Being cannot come from non-being.
Click to expand...


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> The Logos (Word) is clear here.
> 
> 
> 1)Something exists.
> 2)Something is necessarily eternal.
> 3)Being cannot come from non-being.



1) How does pure basic reason avoid solipsism? This is the dead end Descartes faced and which Bishop Berkeley tried to avoid.

2) Based on basic subjective reasoning this cannot be proved, only assumed. How can a basic reasoning of a mortal know this to be true?

3) Then basic reason places us in an infinite regression. For if by reason we deduce there is a God who created our present reality and this God has being, what being produced him, and the one behind him who produced him, _ad infinitum_.


----------



## MW

Whitefield said:


> Why was special revelation necessary if natural revelation was sufficient?



It comes down to what it is sufficient to accomplish. It was never intended to direct man to eternal blessedness in communion with God prior to the fall or to show him the way of salvation after the fall. Hence the necessity of special revelation. But it does suffice to manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God (WCF 1:1), that He hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might (WCF 21:1), and that man is inexcusable in failing to do so, which means that he is left without any reason for his unbelief and disobedience.


----------



## MW

Whitefield said:


> Then basic reason places us in an infinite regression. For if by reason we deduce there is a God who created our present reality and this God has being, what being produced him, and the one behind him who produced him, _ad infinitum_.



I think bare reason alone would involve man in the problem of infinite regress, and therefore we must be wary of any argument which tries to "prove" God's existence by pure reason. The fact is that natural revelation is more than mathematical computation; it also includes relational entities. Combined with man's innate desire to seek out and to find the perfection of his own existence, human rationality cannot escape the concept of the Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable. Every use of reason therefore presupposes the Infinite, Eternal and Unchageable. Every use of reason which denies the Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable necessarily condemns man to the lost and miserable condition of never being able to find the perfection he naturally desires. Theism (Life) or Nihilism (Death) are really the only alternatives.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

armourbearer said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then basic reason places us in an infinite regression. For if by reason we deduce there is a God who created our present reality and this God has being, what being produced him, and the one behind him who produced him, _ad infinitum_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think bare reason alone would involve man in the problem of infinite regress, and therefore we must be wary of any argument which tries to "prove" God's existence by pure reason. The fact is that natural revelation is more than mathematical computation; it also includes relational entities. Combined with man's innate desire to seek out and to find the perfection of his own existence, human rationality cannot escape the concept of the Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable. Every use of reason therefore presupposes the Infinite, Eternal and Unchageable. Every use of reason which denies the Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable necessarily condemns man to the lost and miserable condition of never being able to find the perfection he naturally desires. Theism (Life) or Nihilism (Death) are really the only alternatives.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "presupposes the Infinite, Eternal and Unchangeable"?


----------



## MW

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> What do you mean by "presupposes the Infinite, Eternal and Unchangeable"?



It is the precondition upon which all human rationality functions and all truth statements are made. E.g., "everything in the world changes." That fact never changes. Ergo, "everything in the world changes" requires an unchanging point of reference to validate it.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

armourbearer said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then basic reason places us in an infinite regression. For if by reason we deduce there is a God who created our present reality and this God has being, what being produced him, and the one behind him who produced him, _ad infinitum_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think bare reason alone would involve man in the problem of infinite regress, and therefore we must be wary of any argument which tries to "prove" God's existence by pure reason. The fact is that natural revelation is more than mathematical computation; it also includes relational entities. Combined with man's innate desire to seek out and to find the perfection of his own existence, human rationality cannot escape the concept of the Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable. Every use of reason therefore presupposes the Infinite, Eternal and Unchageable. Every use of reason which denies the Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable necessarily condemns man to the lost and miserable condition of never being able to find the perfection he naturally desires. Theism (Life) or Nihilism (Death) are really the only alternatives.
Click to expand...


Just to clarify, could you please give an example of "bare reason alone"? 

I think if reason is being used (laws of thought)critically in thinking about "being" you either have to affirm that something is necessarily infinite, eternal and unchangeable (IEU) or *give up reason*. I don't see how presupposing the IEU is a safeguard to the use of reason, if it is indeed possible to affirm IEU without first thinking about it. It seems to me as rational beings by nature we think about what exists and then we can distinguish two kinds of existence (logically-eternal and temporal) and then we see that onotologically one is prior to the other (eternal prior to temporal), etc. Are we on the same page here?


----------



## ChristianTrader

kalawine said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider how Paul speaks of General Revelation as revealing the Divine nature and attributes (being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth). Can naturalists and Hindus know this? Ought they to know this? Are they excusable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are inexcusable because they are liars. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They lie about what they know.
Click to expand...


We can have inexcusable and say that they are not liars. Inexcusable just implies that one either knows or it is one duty to know better. One does not actually have to know.

CT

-----Added 4/16/2009 at 10:20:42 EST-----



a mere housewife said:


> I don't understand all of this and want to reread several times; so please do forgive the question if it is terribly ignorant: I was wondering if anyone could comment on the relation of this (sufficiency of not only natural revelation to reveal God but of man's reasoning faculty even after the fall to apprehend Him from creation, if I'm understanding correctly? -- as with the fallen will, it is not faculty but desire etc. that is lacking?) what what Calvin says in chapter 5 of the institutes, particularly sections 14 and 15?




Yes, that is the ticket 

-----Added 4/16/2009 at 10:24:49 EST-----



Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Logos (Word) is clear here.
> 
> 
> 1)Something exists.
> 2)Something is necessarily eternal.
> 3)Being cannot come from non-being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) How does pure basic reason avoid solipsism? This is the dead end Descartes faced and which Bishop Berkeley tried to avoid.
> 
> 2) Based on basic subjective reasoning this cannot be proved, only assumed. How can a basic reasoning of a mortal know this to be true?
> 
> 3) Then basic reason places us in an infinite regression. For if by reason we deduce there is a God who created our present reality and this God has being, what being produced him, and the one behind him who produced him, _ad infinitum_.
Click to expand...


1)Because Descartes did something wrong or half way does not imply that it cannot be done fully. You cannot deny that something exists without involving yourself in a multitude of self contradictions.

2)If something is not eternal then you have something coming from nothing. Which again puts you into a multitude of self contradictions.

3)No there is no infinite regression needed. That something cannot come from nothing does not imply that everything has to "come" from something else.

CT


----------



## MW

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Just to clarify, could you please give an example of "bare reason alone"?
> 
> I think if reason is being used (laws of thought)critically in thinking about "being" you either have to affirm that something is necessarily infinite, eternal and unchangeable (IEU) or *give up reason*. I don't see how presupposing the IEU is a safeguard to the use of reason, if it is indeed possible to affirm IEU without first thinking about it. It seems to me as rational beings by nature we think about what exists and then we can distinguish two kinds of existence (logically-eternal and temporal) and then we see that onotologically one is prior to the other (eternal prior to temporal), etc. Are we on the same page here?



E.g., the cosmological argument. If one tries to rationally arrive at the existence of God, the God that is "created" is not the true God because it has commenced with the idea that "everything" has a "cause." The moral argument is no better because if the existence of moral norms proves a Judge who determines good and evil, what does the existence of evil prove? And if design proves a Designer, where does death leave us?

OTOH, we can use reason within the relational framework within which human beings have been created. Reason can serve to explain man's relationship to God in terms of basic creational realities. It does not "prove" God's existence, but it does "confirm" belief in God to be rationally valid and conducive to the very best which men seek after.


----------



## Whitefield

Clark makes an interesting point in _What Do Presbyterians Believe_, pp. 7-8.



> Where do we get our information about God? This question has been answered in different ways. These different ways have resulted in different opinions on the nature of God. If we must learn about God from Plato, or from Bultmann, we shall not have the same idea as if we had accepted information from Mohammed or Mary Baker Eddy. No doubt all or most men have some idea of God, but since these ideas differ, and differ widely, we would like to know whom we may trust.
> 
> Where and what is the source of reliable, accurate, full, and true information about God?
> 
> Therefore, the authors of the Westminster Confession did not put the doctrine of God in their first chapter. They put it in the second chapter. Chapter one has to do with our source of knowledge.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clarify, could you please give an example of "bare reason alone"?
> 
> I think if reason is being used (laws of thought)critically in thinking about "being" you either have to affirm that something is necessarily infinite, eternal and unchangeable (IEU) or *give up reason*. I don't see how presupposing the IEU is a safeguard to the use of reason, if it is indeed possible to affirm IEU without first thinking about it. It seems to me as rational beings by nature we think about what exists and then we can distinguish two kinds of existence (logically-eternal and temporal) and then we see that onotologically one is prior to the other (eternal prior to temporal), etc. Are we on the same page here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E.g., the cosmological argument. If one tries to rationally arrive at the existence of God, the God that is "created" is not the true God because it has commenced with the idea that "everything" has a "cause."
Click to expand...


I guess one could formulate the cosmological argument in such a fashion, but it is in no way necessary. One can easily formulate it in the form that everything that is not eternal (or began), has a cause. In that form, the "created" God is the true God.



> The moral argument is no better because if the existence of moral norms proves a Judge who determines good and evil, what does the existence of evil prove?



That everything is not how it began? Something happened between the beginning and now.



> And if design proves a Designer, where does death leave us?



Same answer here.


----------



## a mere housewife

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand all of this and want to reread several times; so please do forgive the question if it is terribly ignorant: I was wondering if anyone could comment on the relation of this (sufficiency of not only natural revelation to reveal God but of man's reasoning faculty even after the fall to apprehend Him from creation, if I'm understanding correctly? -- as with the fallen will, it is not faculty but desire etc. that is lacking?) what what Calvin says in chapter 5 of the institutes, particularly sections 14 and 15?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been awhile since I read that chapter and so will read it again later. I am not sure enough to answer affirmatively. A quick perusal though suggests to me that he doesn't hold to the idea of rational clarity. He doesn't seem to root accountability in clarity. He says, " But though we are deficient in natural powers which might enable us to rise to a pure and clear knowledge of God, still, as the dullness which prevents us is within, there is no room for excuse." Here he clearly says there is a deficiency. What does he mean? Is reason fallen? Or is it only the use of reason that is fallen? One can see a argument is sound and not rise to assent to it. Is this what he means? Much to consider here!
Click to expand...


Beth it seems to me like he is saying the faculty itself is impaired: could this be because of what if I am understanding right, Vic was referencing -- that there is a 'moral' content to reason itself (that we prefer non-contradiction to contradiction?) and our -- apprehension of this content -- may be involved in the fall? It's not just the desire to reason correctly/to apprehend God but the moral content of a fallen creature's faculty of reason that is to some degree a ruin; and it takes regeneration to set that aright? 

(That is a *very* tentative suggestion, I might be misunderstanding the point about reason's content or something else?)

I also wanted to ask, if you know (which you probably do!) if this kind of presupposing of reason that you are speaking of is more along the lines of how C. S. Lewis does apologetics (which seems to me a very lucid and common sense approach, and not really 'Van Tillian' if I understand Van Tillianism -- which I confess is not lucid to me!)? It seems to me that the way you present things is similar to the the use he makes of reason in his arguments.


----------



## a mere housewife

(added: here is a quote from Lewis'_ Miracles_ to illustrate what I am asking, chapter 3, "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism")



> "All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like _must be _and _therefore_ and _since_ is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really 'must' be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling _in _our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them -- if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work -- then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.
> "It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound . . ."


He is 'presupposing' the clarity of non contradiction and the clarity of reasoning processes to make that argument; and more explicitly that we can adjudicate by what we presuppose (reason) between ideas that can account for the validity of our reasoning processes and ideas that cannot? Is this somewhat similar to what you are saying?

(I know Van Tillian presuppositionalists say, we must presuppose God to account for reason: but I think what Lewis is doing is different in that his presupposition is the validity of reason?)


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Clark makes an interesting point in _What Do Presbyterians Believe_, pp. 7-8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do we get our information about God? This question has been answered in different ways. These different ways have resulted in different opinions on the nature of God. If we must learn about God from Plato, or from Bultmann, we shall not have the same idea as if we had accepted information from Mohammed or Mary Baker Eddy. No doubt all or most men have some idea of God, but since these ideas differ, and differ widely, we would like to know whom we may trust.
> 
> Where and what is the source of reliable, accurate, full, and true information about God?
> 
> Therefore, the authors of the Westminster Confession did not put the doctrine of God in their first chapter. They put it in the second chapter. Chapter one has to do with our source of knowledge.
Click to expand...


This is significant and nothing different than what I have been saying: 

Chapter I
Of the Holy Scripture

*I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;*[1] yet are they *not sufficient* to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is *necessary unto salvation*.


What do you think is significant about this? 

I am still working on answering your other post.


----------



## ChristianTrader

a mere housewife said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand all of this and want to reread several times; so please do forgive the question if it is terribly ignorant: I was wondering if anyone could comment on the relation of this (sufficiency of not only natural revelation to reveal God but of man's reasoning faculty even after the fall to apprehend Him from creation, if I'm understanding correctly? -- as with the fallen will, it is not faculty but desire etc. that is lacking?) what what Calvin says in chapter 5 of the institutes, particularly sections 14 and 15?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been awhile since I read that chapter and so will read it again later. I am not sure enough to answer affirmatively. A quick perusal though suggests to me that he doesn't hold to the idea of rational clarity. He doesn't seem to root accountability in clarity. He says, " But though we are deficient in natural powers which might enable us to rise to a pure and clear knowledge of God, still, as the dullness which prevents us is within, there is no room for excuse." Here he clearly says there is a deficiency. What does he mean? Is reason fallen? Or is it only the use of reason that is fallen? One can see a argument is sound and not rise to assent to it. Is this what he means? Much to consider here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beth it seems to me like he is saying the faculty itself is impaired: could this be because of what if I am understanding right, Vic was referencing -- that there is a 'moral' content to reason itself (that we prefer non-contradiction to contradiction?) and our -- apprehension of this content -- may be involved in the fall? It's not just the desire to reason correctly/to apprehend God but the moral content of a fallen creature's faculty of reason that is to some degree a ruin; and it takes regeneration to set that aright?
> 
> (That is a *very* tentative suggestion, I might be misunderstanding the point about reason's content or something else?)
Click to expand...


The problem with this view is that it seems to give space to the idea that one would have an excuse for unbelief. "Hey my brain does not work right so I couldn't see that God exists."

Next, Romans 1 was written to fallen people, so we should expect that God clearly reveals himself to fallen folks.

-----Added 4/17/2009 at 02:40:10 EST-----



a mere housewife said:


> (added: Here is a quote from lewis'_ miracles_ to illustrate what i am asking, chapter 3, "the cardinal difficulty of naturalism")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "all possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like _must be _and _therefore_ and _since_ is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really 'must' be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling _in _our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them -- if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work -- then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.
> "it follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound . . ."
> 
> 
> 
> he is 'presupposing' the clarity of non contradiction and the clarity of reasoning processes to make that argument; and more explicitly that we can adjudicate by what we presuppose (reason) between ideas that can account for the validity of our reasoning processes and ideas that cannot? Is this somewhat similar to what you are saying?
> 
> (i know van tillian presuppositionalists say, we must presuppose god to account for reason: But i think what lewis is doing is different in that his presupposition is the validity of reason?)
Click to expand...


yes!!!


----------



## Whitefield

> I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are *they not sufficient* to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is *necessary unto salvation.*



All I have been trying to say it is that natural revelation is not sufficient for salvation. To know God through natural revelation is nothing more than a curiosity. To know God through special revelation is salvation. Knowing God exists does not save, but knowing Jesus does. We simply cannot know anything about Jesus Christ through natural revelation. And without knowing Jesus Christ we really can't know the truth of the universe, for He _is_ the truth.

-----Added 4/17/2009 at 02:49:28 EST-----



a mere housewife said:


> (I know Van Tillian presuppositionalists say, we must presuppose God to account for reason: but I think what Lewis is doing is different in that his presupposition is the validity of reason?)



You can account for reason apart from God?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are *they not sufficient* to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is *necessary unto salvation.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I have been trying to say it is that natural revelation is not sufficient for salvation. To know God through natural revelation is nothing more than a curiosity. To know God through special revelation is salvation. Knowing God exists does not save, but knowing Jesus does. We simply cannot know anything about Jesus Christ through natural revelation. And without knowing Jesus Christ we really can't know the truth of the universe, for He _is_ the truth.
Click to expand...


No quibbles here except that I don't think knowing General Revelation is a mere curiosity. We are created to know Him in the fullness of His self-revelation. The earth is full of His glory. The earth will be filled with the of the knowledge of His glory as the waters cover the sea. 

Well, this could go into an entirely different topic. I can't elaborate on what I mean here fully now as I can only handle so much discussion right now.


----------



## a mere housewife

> The problem with this view is that it seems to give space to the idea that one would have an excuse for unbelief. "Hey my brain does not work right so I couldn't see that God exists."



I understand: I'm trying to make sense of Calvin saying, 'But though we are deficient in natural powers which might enable us to rise to a pure and clear knowledge of God, as the dullness which prevents us is within, there is no room for excuse.'

And of course, some people's brains *don't* work right (as some people are born blind and deaf and so have limited access to natural revelation), yet as Calvin goes on to say, 'dumb creatures have voices loud enough to declare' the truth and all are still inexcusable?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are *they not sufficient* to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is *necessary unto salvation.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I have been trying to say it is that natural revelation is not sufficient for salvation. To know God through natural revelation is nothing more than a curiosity. To know God through special revelation is salvation. Knowing God exists does not save, but knowing Jesus does. We simply cannot know anything about Jesus Christ through natural revelation. And without knowing Jesus Christ we really can't know the truth of the universe, for He _is_ the truth.
> 
> -----Added 4/17/2009 at 02:49:28 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> (I know Van Tillian presuppositionalists say, we must presuppose God to account for reason: but I think what Lewis is doing is different in that his presupposition is the validity of reason?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can account for reason apart from God?
Click to expand...


Reason is self-attesting. You could not distinguish anything without it. You could not make sense of propositions without reason. You could not even distinguish between God is and God is not.


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> No quibbles here except that I don't think knowing General Revelation is a mere curiosity. We are created to know Him in the fullness of His self-revelation. The earth is full of His glory. The earth will be filled with the of the knowledge of His glory as the waters cover the sea.



I never said natural revelation was unimportant. I would say that natural revelation has really no real meaningful content until it is understood under the guidance of special revelation. Natural revelation may teach the wonders of the creator, but Scripture teaches us _who_ that Creator is. Natural revelation my show us the bare phenomenon, but Scripture teaches the purpose behind that phenomenon.

-----Added 4/17/2009 at 02:55:47 EST-----



Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Reason is self-attesting. You could not distinguish anything without it. You could not make sense of propositions without reason. You could not even distinguish between God is and God is not.



I didn't ask for its function, I asked can you account for its existence apart from God.


----------



## a mere housewife

Lance I understand what Beth to be saying, to be that reason leads us into (and if I understand right, even reveals to some degree) the knowledge of God: nothing else is 'reasonable'. But what is 'presupposed' there seems to be the clarity and validity of reason?

(I answered this while Beth and you had another exchange: I'm going to bow out and wait to see what else turns up as my mind moves much more slowly than you all's!)


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No quibbles here except that I don't think knowing General Revelation is a mere curiosity. We are created to know Him in the fullness of His self-revelation. The earth is full of His glory. The earth will be filled with the of the knowledge of His glory as the waters cover the sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said natural revelation was unimportant. I would say that natural revelation has really no real meaningful content until it is understood under the guidance of special revelation. Natural revelation may teach the wonders of the creator, but Scripture teaches us _who_ that Creator is. Natural revelation my show us the bare phenomenon, but Scripture teaches the purpose behind that phenomenon.
> 
> -----Added 4/17/2009 at 02:55:47 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reason is self-attesting. You could not distinguish anything without it. You could not make sense of propositions without reason. You could not even distinguish between God is and God is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask for its function, I asked can you account for its existence apart from God.
Click to expand...



I disagree with this but we haven't worked through basics first. We can know our need of salvation from General Revelation and Scripture comes to us in that context. 

We are not yet agreed upon reason, which generally can end up dying the death of a thousand qualifications.


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> We are not yet agreed upon reason, which generally can end up dying the death of a thousand qualifications.



I guess the point around which this discussion has revolved is "is reason self-existent" or "is it derived from something outside itself?" The next layer of discussion is "whether reason is self-existent or derived, what can unaided reason discover about God, without borrowing from Scripture?" 

My stance has been that reason is derived and not self-existent (aseity), and that it can know nothing of significance about God apart from Scripture.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are *they not sufficient* to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is *necessary unto salvation.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I have been trying to say it is that natural revelation is not sufficient for salvation. To know God through natural revelation is nothing more than a curiosity. To know God through special revelation is salvation. Knowing God exists does not save, but knowing Jesus does. We simply cannot know anything about Jesus Christ through natural revelation. And without knowing Jesus Christ we really can't know the truth of the universe, for He _is_ the truth.
Click to expand...


I would say that one needs natural revelation/natural theology in order to care about Jesus and understand why he needed to come. Without it, all you have is someone claiming that you have to believe in him or order to be saved etc. Why should someone even care or even think that they are in need of salvation if there is no natural revelation/natural theology.



> -----Added 4/17/2009 at 02:49:28 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> (I know Van Tillian presuppositionalists say, we must presuppose God to account for reason: but I think what Lewis is doing is different in that his presupposition is the validity of reason?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can account for reason apart from God?
Click to expand...


I think it is easier to say that one has reason and then go forward in asking what is true to reason. (Because one cannot make sense of "accounting for reason" if reason is not already accepted).

CT


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not yet agreed upon reason, which generally can end up dying the death of a thousand qualifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the point around which this discussion has revolved is "is reason self-existent" or "is it derived from something outside itself?" The next layer of discussion is "whether reason is self-existent or derived, what can unaided reason discover about God, without borrowing from Scripture?"
> 
> My stance has been that reason is derived and not self-existent (aseity), and that it can know nothing of significance about God apart from Scripture.
Click to expand...



Yes, thank you kind Sir. I think we need to pause here and hash this out as adding more to the discussion would not be profitable. I also think it will be more profitable for others too. I will take some time and prepare a post.


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> I would say that one needs natural revelation/natural theology in order to care about Jesus and understand why he needed to come. Without it, all you have is someone claiming that you have to believe in him or order to be saved etc. Why should someone even care or even think that they are in need of salvation if there is no natural revelation/natural theology.



What specifically is there in natural revelation/natural theology which teaches me to care about Jesus?

-----Added 4/17/2009 at 03:27:51 EST-----



Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Yes, thank you kind Sir. I think we need to pause here and hash this out as adding more to the discussion would not be profitable. I also think it will be more profitable for others too. I will take some time and prepare a post.



I will look forward to it and please keep in mind that that which is not derived has aseity, by definition.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that one needs natural revelation/natural theology in order to care about Jesus and understand why he needed to come. Without it, all you have is someone claiming that you have to believe in him or order to be saved etc. Why should someone even care or even think that they are in need of salvation if there is no natural revelation/natural theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically is there in natural revelation/natural theology which teaches me to care about Jesus?
Click to expand...


The need for salvation and the bankruptcy of somehow earning it.

CT

-----Added 4/17/2009 at 03:29:53 EST-----



Whitefield said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not yet agreed upon reason, which generally can end up dying the death of a thousand qualifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the point around which this discussion has revolved is "is reason self-existent" or "is it derived from something outside itself?" The next layer of discussion is "whether reason is self-existent or derived, what can unaided reason discover about God, without borrowing from Scripture?"
> 
> My stance has been that reason is derived and not self-existent (aseity), and that it can know nothing of significance about God apart from Scripture.
Click to expand...


How are you defining, significance?

CT


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> The need for salvation and the bankruptcy of somehow earning it.



Salvation from what? What does salvation mean strictly within natural revelation/natural theology?


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The need for salvation and the bankruptcy of somehow earning it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salvation from what? What does salvation mean strictly within natural revelation/natural theology?
Click to expand...


The wrathful God that nature reveals, (You have read Romans 1, right)?

CT


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> The wrathful God that nature reveals, (You have read Romans 1, right)?



I think I've read it .. in English, Greek, and Latin. And which verse in Rom. 1 says nature reveals the wrath of God?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wrathful God that nature reveals, (You have read Romans 1, right)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I've read it .. in English, Greek, and Latin.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wrathful God that nature reveals, (You have read Romans 1, right)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I've read it .. in English, Greek, and Latin.
Click to expand...


So do you have a different understanding of it than I do?

CT


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wrathful God that nature reveals, (You have read Romans 1, right)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I've read it .. in English, Greek, and Latin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do you have a different understanding of it than I do?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Yes, which verse states that nature reveals the wrath of God?


----------



## ChristianTrader

18, go ahead and put 19 and 20 in the mix as well


----------



## Whitefield

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



Says revealed from heaven, not nature.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> Rom. 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says revealed from heaven, not nature.
Click to expand...


That is why I added 19 and 20 to remove any smidgen of doubt. But even if I want to just stick to vs. 18, it certainly does not say from scripture.

And if you wanted to make it mean scripture then you have to hold that no one knows right from wrong without first reading and believing the Bible.

Also Westminster Chapter 1 section 1 blows your position apart.

CT


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> That is why I added 19 and 20 to remove any smidgen of doubt. But even if I want to just stick to vs. 18, it certainly does not say from scripture.
> 
> And if you wanted to make it mean scripture then you have to hold that no one knows right from wrong without first reading and believing the Bible.
> 
> Also Westminster Chapter 1 section 1 blows your position apart.
> 
> CT



Well, v. 19 does not tell us that this wrath was discovered by men, it was shewn by God. 

And I don't think we can know right from wrong without knowing what God says is right or wrong.

And if the WCF 1.1 blows my position apart, then I'm done.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I added 19 and 20 to remove any smidgen of doubt. But even if I want to just stick to vs. 18, it certainly does not say from scripture.
> 
> And if you wanted to make it mean scripture then you have to hold that no one knows right from wrong without first reading and believing the Bible.
> 
> Also Westminster Chapter 1 section 1 blows your position apart.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, v. 19 does not tell us that this wrath was discovered by men, it was shewn by God.
> 
> And I don't think we can know right from wrong without knowing what God says is right or wrong.
> 
> And if the WCF 1.1 blows my position apart, then I'm done.
Click to expand...


People who believe that natural revelation/natural theology exists/has content, do not believe that God was trying to keep something secret and then man busted down the door to see what he was hiding. God wants man to know how they should live and give him glory. God is not playing a game of, "If I can keep them from knowing, then I can send them to Hell for doing wrong/evil".

Also you didn't seem to have much to say about 20....

Westminster 1-1
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;

To know the goodness of God, one has to know wickedness, right?

CT


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

And if the WCF 1.1 blows my position apart, then I'm done.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean here? Done with this thread?


----------



## MW

Whitefield said:


> Well, v. 19 does not tell us that this wrath was discovered by men, it was shewn by God.



Hence the word "revelation" in "natural revelation."


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> And if the WCF 1.1 blows my position apart, then I'm done.
> 
> What do you mean here? Done with this thread?



It is my experience that when the WCF is invoked as the  the thread doesn't last long. And questioning the "common interpretation" of the WCF quickly degenerates into accusations of questioning the WCF itself and *poof* thread is closed. So to avoid going down that path, I'll just step away from the discussion for a while.


----------



## MW

Whitefield said:


> It is my experience that when the WCF is invoked as the  the thread doesn't last long. And questioning the "common interpretation" of the WCF quickly degenerates into accusations of questioning the WCF itself and *poof* thread is closed. So to avoid going down that path, I'll just step away from the discussion for a while.



If the intention is to cast light on the WCF then threads remain open. Problems only arise when adherence to the confession is brought into disrepute.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

The discussion came to a rather abrupt stop. I want to share a couple excerpts to stimulate discussion on the role and use of reason in us. 



> It is acknowledge by those who uphold the ministerial use of reason that reason is necessary to receive the revelation (the formative use of reason). It is also acknowledged that reason is useful in giving reasons for the truth of revelation. But it must never be magistrate over or judge of the truth of revelation. It is a maidservant, not a mistress, and the strongest condemnation is reserved for the arrogation of the role of magistrate by reason. It is of use in systematizing truth (the constructive use of reason). And it is used to interpret scripture and to support one interpretation over and against another interpretation (the interpretive use of reason). It may even be used to critically test alternative beliefs for coherence of meaning. But here the line is drawn by those regarding reason as servant, not judge. They claim it cannot -it shall not- be used to judge the truth of revelation. Is this line being arbitrarily drawn?
> 
> It should be granted here, over and against deist (Herbert) and dogmatic rationalists (Wolff) that special revelation is necessary and does not and cannot originate from reason. But since reason is necessary to receive and to understand revelation, revelation must necessarily pass the minimal test of intelligibility. What is contradictory and is seen as contradictory is unintelligible and cannot be thought and therefore cannot be believed. What is an actual and what is an apparent contradiction must be discerned, often with much effort, to uncover hidden assumptions. To separate the formative and interpretive uses of reason is artificial and to apply the critical use of reason to other scriptures and not to one’s own scripture is arbitrary in the extreme. As an alternative to several forms of SD – whether a vague higher being (Calvin) or basic theism (Hodge) or full theism (Oliphint) or the triune God (Van Til)- one can posit innate (non-empirical) concepts that are applied either to God or to creation (e.g., finite or infinite, temporal or eternal, changing or unchanging). All men have these concepts. How they should be applied (whether only to God or to the creation) is clear to reason.
> 
> Surrendra Gangadean, Philosophical Foundation: A Critical Analysis Of Basic Beliefs, 2.3 The Magisterial vs. the Ministerial Use of Reason pp. 24-25






> Reason, it is said, is one thing, and the work of the Holy Spirit another. What is necessary for faith is the witness of the Holy Spirit, the testimonium Spiritu Sancti. Man by reason cannot presume to do the work of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is by grace, not works. Man’s reason, it is said, is finite and fallen. Sin has had a negative effect on the human mind (the noetic effect). Reason does not persuade; the Spirit does. The Spirit regenerates. No one else, and nothing else, can.
> 
> The work of the Spirit is not in question. But does the Spirit work by and with the Word or apart from the Word? Does the Spirit work to convince, persuade, enlighten, and illuminate the mind by and with sound argument or above or apart from sound argument? Are there independent and inherent characteristics of a sound argument or must something be supernaturally added to make it sound? Do sound arguments ever fail to accomplish their purpose- is that purpose only to persuade or is it either to compel or to persuade? Can it compel a person to shut one’s eyes (turn off one’s mind) in order to avoid the force of a sound argument? Is it reason that is finite and fallen or is it man that is finite and fallen? Is it reason that fails to understand or man who fails to seek and understand through reason? Is the use of reason opposed to or independent of grace, or is the use of reason itself a work of grace? Is the use of and proper response to sound argument a purely natural occurrence or is it itself something of a miracle?
> 
> 
> Surrendra Gangadean, Philosophical Foundation: A Critical Analysis Of Basic Beliefs, 2.6 Reason and the Testimonium Spiritu Sancti pp. 26-27


----------

