# what view are you?



## bigheavyq

since there are about 6 views of apologetics which view are you?

i am presuppositional from the van til school


----------



## Timothy William

I'm the same - 100% vote in the poll so far.


----------



## AV1611

I am presuppositional.


----------



## RamistThomist

Broadly Reformed Epistemology


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Gordan Clark was not presuppositional, he was a Christian Rationalist.


----------



## Me Died Blue

I'm largely in-line with the mindset (and the way of approaching issues) of the Van Tillian school of thought, except that I've never been convinced of the TAG as a silver-bullet.


----------



## christianyouth

Hrm... If existential means appealing to subjective religious experience(regeneration) as the basis for belief, then I'd be existential. Not sure if that that's the proper definition though.

Just read what existential apologetics are. Much different from what my approach.


----------



## Sebastian Heck

I am Biblical-Covenantal-Reformed Orthodox-Calvinist-Van Tilian. Honestly, I don't think Van Til reinvented the wheel here. He has more of the Reformed orthodox distinctions down (such as e.g. archetypal/ectypal distinction) than many realize. That's why I think the term/name "presuppositionalism" is not a very good one. It suggests Van Til was the founder of a new school which he wasn't. Guess what, he was Reformed!
Gordon Clark wasn't biblical/presuppositionalist. But also Schaeffer shouldn't be grouped with Van Til - too many differences. Not even John Frame should be grouped with Van Til for that matter...
Oh well, what a complicated world we live in!


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Everyone,

I voted for Presuppositional I; although, I think the poll is somewhat misleading. For instance, I think Clark is correct to understand starting points to be axiomatic. So, I am Clarkian in this sense. However, I do not believe that only and all knowledge is knowledge properly derived from the Scriptures. The key point being that there must already be knowledge of some sort prior to being able to derive anything from the Scriptures. The reason I pick Presuppostional I is because it really does attempt to start at the beginning - the presuppositions/axioms if you will. This underlies everything. 

With that said, I do not think Reformed Epistemology is properly called an apologetic method, even though it can be used with an apologetic method. The reason for my thinking being this way is that Reformed apologetics is really not offensive in nature. It does not provide a reason for someone to reject 'X' and embrace Christianity. It does provide an answer why my belief in God is warranted. So, it is not fair to compare it with all of the other methods listed.

Classical apologetics is fun for me because of its philosophical basis. When one brings into apologetic the presuppositional underpinnings, then these arguments can be compelling.

Evidential apologetics is my least favorite. If one wants to use this method, they need to be on top of all the latest science and discoveries. And even then, unless they deal with the presuppositional biases they will not get far. I do appreciate those who go into this arena - especially if they are able to point out the biases on the other side.

Cumlative Case apologetics is part of evidentiary apologetics and maybe others. Again, you need to be on top of your stuff, and I absolutely enjoy reading these guys. Richard Swinburne's _The Existence of God_ is a classic using an inductive logic based on several arguments to come up with the final conclusion that it is more likely God exists than not. Fun and fascinating. The problem with this is that you always have to be modifying the argument in some way as science continues to develop. 

Existential apologetics? What's that???

In the end, I actually use a little of everything mentioned with the exception of "Existential", and the presuppositional argument underlies everything. 

Brian


----------



## MrMerlin777

My views are ecclectic so I really couldn't cram myself into one camp.

I really like Francis Schaeffer but I like C.S. Lewis as well, and Sproul. So I guess that would make me just plain appologetically ecclectic.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick

How about primarily 4 but with influences from 5 and 6; and 1, 2, and 3 (and possibly 4 depending on what is meant by "existential"--but no to the irrationalism of Kierkegaard and the likes, in any case), in supplemental, later work (such as after a presuppositional groundwork has been set, perhaps in an "ad hominem" of the opponents view as Clark called it).


----------



## Davidius

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Gordan Clark was not presuppositional, he was a Christian Rationalist.



I don't think this is true. A rationalist believes that truth can be obtained by human faculty alone. Clark believed that all knowledge depends on revelation. And his approach to revelation was completely presuppositional. Am I missing something?


----------



## RamistThomist

Lately I have been feeling irrational/fideistic/existential. 

just kidding. I like a lot of what Van Til had to say. Read most everything he wrote, bahnsen wrote, and frame wrote. I disagree with Van Til's critiques of other apologists, though. In fact, I can show where Van Til uses the same terminology and methods as people he critiques (actually, followers of people he critiques use the same stuff as Van Til). 

I don't hold to the silver bullet TAG (not many do, come to think of it).

As pertaining to a negative critique of opposing worldviews, I am definitely Van Tillian. This was Bahnsen's best arena. 

I really don't know what I would at this point as to offering a positive alternative. I guess that's where the existential fideist in me arises, sort of.

Right now, if I had to offer an argument I would just say--look at this example of Beauty. Therefore, God exists (or something like that).


----------



## Jim Johnston

Brian Bosse said:


> With that said, I do not think Reformed Epistemology is properly called an apologetic *method*, even though it can be used with an apologetic method. The reason for my thinking being this way is that Reformed apologetics is really not offensive in nature. It does not provide a reason for someone to reject 'X' and embrace Christianity. It does provide an answer why my belief in God is warranted. So, it is not fair to compare it with all of the other methods listed.



I'd have to agree here.

Even though RE guy Kelly James Clark contributed to Zondervan's 5 Views on Apologetics Book, Michael Sudduth told me that RE was not an apologetic *method* but that doesn't mean an RE can't have a *view* on apologetics.

In this sense, the poll is misleading....


----------



## historyb

What is this exactly: Cumlative case (cs lewis, zacharias)?


----------



## RamistThomist

historyb said:


> What is this exactly: Cumlative case (cs lewis, zacharias)?



CC guys point to a lot of individual lines of evidence, taken singularly aren't impressive but taken together are supposed to make a good case for Christianity. Its pros is that it has a lot of good names wiht it. But I am not too impressed.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Spear Dane said:


> Right now, if I had to offer an argument I would just say--look at this example of Beauty. Therefore, God exists (or something like that).




Jacob,

I'd recommend this book.

It's on my wish list, so I can't tell you anything from personal experience, but it comes highly recommended from people I highly respect.

It is expensive, so here is a paper he wrote on the subject. If you like it, that may influence you to break down and purchase the loner, more rigorous (both intellectually and monetarily!) project.

When I clikc on that link it doesn't work for me, so I'll offer the non-hyperlinked version

http://www.calvin.edu/faith/resources/faculty/beauty/providence_natural.pdf


----------



## Anton Bruckner

The Presups 1 has won the day.


----------



## D. Paul

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gordan Clark was not presuppositional, he was a Christian Rationalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is true. A rationalist believes that truth can be obtained by human faculty alone. Clark believed that all knowledge depends on revelation. And his approach to revelation was completely presuppositional. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...


I am so glad you said that!


----------



## Jim Johnston

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gordan Clark was not presuppositional, he was a Christian Rationalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is true. A rationalist believes that truth can be obtained by human faculty alone. Clark believed that all knowledge depends on revelation. And his approach to revelation was completely presuppositional. *Am I missing something*?
Click to expand...


I think so. You're talking about rationalists like 'Descartes.' But he was not a _Christian_ rationalist. That a _classical_ rationalist thinks that all truth can be obtained by human faculty alone does not imply that a _Christian_ rationalist would think so.

Now, this is not to say that the classification "Christian rationalist" is apropos to Clark (it may or may not be, you guys would need to debate that), it's just to say that I don't think your point serves to offer a rebutting defeater to Daniel Ritchie's claim.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Paul, the link of that book you recommended doesn't work either. What is the name of the book?


----------



## Jim Johnston

I wonder why that was...

Amazon.com: God and Goodness: A Natural Theological Perspective (Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion): Books: Mark Wynn


----------



## Cheshire Cat

heh...sometimes I don't have a lot of common sense...

Caleb McWoodrow out.


----------



## Me Died Blue

I fixed the link. It just had "http://" twice in a row.


----------



## Robert Truelove

This subject is for me one of the top 3 biggest disappointments I have as a pastor in Reformedom. 

That is, we spend 98% of our time (perhaps I am being too gracious, truth be known I see it more like 99.9%) discussing and debating apologetical methodologies then actually employing them in discussions with those on their way ot eternal destruction.

I'm not saying that in criticism of this thread, there is certainly a place to discuss this subject. I just hope all those who spend a lot of time discussing and arguing over this subject spend even more time dealing with unbelievers.

If I were on my presbytery's credentials committee for the examination of elder candidates, the question of "when was the last time you witnessed to an unbeliever?" would be far more important to me than "What is your apologetical methodology?" (Not that I wouldn't ask the second question.)



[[to the mods...I have no idea why my sig will not show in this post.]]


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gordan Clark was not presuppositional, he was a Christian Rationalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is true. A rationalist believes that truth can be obtained by human faculty alone. Clark believed that all knowledge depends on revelation. And his approach to revelation was completely presuppositional. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...



Sorry I missed this; Curt Daniel explains the difference between Gordon Clarke's Christian Rationalism and Van Tillian Presuppositionalism in this lecture on Calvinistic Philosophy.


----------



## Pergamum

So...should I be trying to figure out which one of these labels I firt under? I've got no clue? Does my ignorance of these labels affect my evangelism?

Where can I find simple explanations of these positions? And how each would appraoch an unbeliever? Would they approach them hugely different?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> So...should I be trying to figure out which one of these labels I firt under? I've got no clue? Does my ignorance of these labels affect my evangelism?
> 
> Where can I find simple explanations of these positions? And how each would appraoch an unbeliever? Would they approach them hugely different?




I think a presuppositional approach is best for evangelism for a number of reasons:

a) Its Biblical.

b) It shows men that the pride of their hearts is their real problem with the gospel, not a lack of _proof _that the Christian faith is true.

c) It means that the weakest believer can confront the greatest scholar without fear.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> So...should I be trying to figure out which one of these labels I firt under? I've got no clue? Does my ignorance of these labels affect my evangelism?
> 
> Where can I find simple explanations of these positions? And how each would appraoch an unbeliever? Would they approach them hugely different?



Tom the classicist would tell the unbeliever, "The Christian faith is entirely rational. I will prove to you by deductive arguments that the Christian worldview is rational." And then he would use something like the Cosmological argument: All things have a cause. The universe has a cause. That cause is God."

Joe the evidentialist would tell the unbeliever: There is good evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. You should look at these facts for the resurrection and on the basis of these evidences, believe the gospel.

Cal the presuppositionalist would tell the unbeliever: Unless you submit to Christ's lordship, you cannot make sense of reality. The proof of the Christian God is the transcendental argument: believing in Christ provides you with the preconditions of intelligibility. 

Martin the fideist would tell the unbeliever: Your deepest heart-felt need is to find fulfillment in the gospel, which you would find by taking a leap of faith.

Alvin the Reformed epistemologist would tell the unbeliever: The Christian is warranted in believing in God even without foundational evidence. You, on the other hand, are not warranted in believing ___________."


----------



## BlackCalvinist

I'm a presuppositional classical evidentialist.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BlackCalvinist said:


> I'm a presuppositional classical evidentialist.



That is what I call having your cake and eating it.


----------



## py3ak

> Cal the presuppositionalist would tell the unbeliever: Unless you submit to Christ's lordship, you cannot make sense of reality. The proof of the Christian God is the transcendental argument: believing in Christ provides you with the preconditions of intelligibility.



What I have been wondering lately is what distinguishes this remark from a form of evidence. To say that Christianity provides the necessary conditions for intelligibility --is that not a sort of evidence that Christianity is correspondent to reality?


----------



## RamistThomist

py3ak said:


> Cal the presuppositionalist would tell the unbeliever: Unless you submit to Christ's lordship, you cannot make sense of reality. The proof of the Christian God is the transcendental argument: believing in Christ provides you with the preconditions of intelligibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I have been wondering lately is what distinguishes this remark from a form of evidence. To say that Christianity provides the necessary conditions for intelligibility --is that not a sort of evidence that Christianity is correspondent to reality?
Click to expand...


Short answer--yes. Long answer (and more technical)--the above worldview argument makes possible the use of evidence. In other words, so goes the argument, appealing to evidence without a worldview fails to give the evidence any meaning.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Spear Dane said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cal the presuppositionalist would tell the unbeliever: Unless you submit to Christ's lordship, you cannot make sense of reality. The proof of the Christian God is the transcendental argument: believing in Christ provides you with the preconditions of intelligibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I have been wondering lately is what distinguishes this remark from a form of evidence. To say that Christianity provides the necessary conditions for intelligibility --is that not a sort of evidence that Christianity is correspondent to reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Short answer--yes. Long answer (and more technical)--the above worldview argument makes possible the use of evidence. In other words, so goes the argument, appealing to evidence without a worldview fails to give the evidence any meaning.
Click to expand...


Spot on. 

What is it you use to say to me about the use of terms? We had to agree to our terminology first and it had to be yours. Something like that.


----------



## Romans922

Where is Common Sense Realism?


----------



## RamistThomist

Romans922 said:


> Where is Common Sense Realism?



Could be classical apologetics or it could be Reformed Epistemology. The two top thinkers in RE, Alvin Plantinga and Nick Wolterstorrf, have appreciation for common-sense realism. Heck, if we properly qualify it, I don't mind it either.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

I'm all alone . Seriously though I think I gave New Evidence That Demands a Verdict to Goodwill...


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I have been wondering lately is what distinguishes this remark from a form of evidence. To say that Christianity provides the necessary conditions for intelligibility --is that not a sort of evidence that Christianity is correspondent to reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Short answer--yes. Long answer (and more technical)--the above worldview argument makes possible the use of evidence. In other words, so goes the argument, appealing to evidence without a worldview fails to give the evidence any meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spot on.
> 
> What is it you use to say to me about the use of terms? We had to agree to our terminology first and it had to be yours. Something like that.
Click to expand...


Something like that, but that's not always possible. First, if I were talking to an evolutionist or a Marxist, I would make it clear to them what kind of "God" I am defending--namely the Triune God. I can't take that for granted in a discussion.


----------



## RamistThomist

As to the OP, I actually like the way the Radical Orthodoxy guys read Thoma Aquinas. I don't think it is fully accurate as to what Thomas believed, but it does make for an interesting apologetic answering postmodernity and modernity.


----------



## Vytautas

I like Martin Luther's method - argument by assertion.

"Peter commands us to give a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). And what need is there of a multitude of proofs? Nothing is more familiar or characteristic among Christians than assertion. Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity." 
(The Bondage of the Will)


----------



## RamistThomist

Vytautas said:


> I like Martin Luther's method - argument by assertion.
> 
> "Peter commands us to give a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). And what need is there of a multitude of proofs? Nothing is more familiar or characteristic among Christians than assertion. Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity."
> (The Bondage of the Will)



Luther is using "assertion" in a different sense than is used today. Nowadays, "assertion" means setting forth a proposition/position but without proof (like much Reformed argument online). Luther is using it in a different sense.


----------



## Vytautas

Spear Dane said:


> Vytautas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like Martin Luther's method - argument by assertion.
> 
> "Peter commands us to give a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). And what need is there of a multitude of proofs? Nothing is more familiar or characteristic among Christians than assertion. Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity."
> (The Bondage of the Will)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luther is using "assertion" in a different sense than is used today. Nowadays, "assertion" means setting forth a proposition/position but without proof (like much Reformed argument online). Luther is using it in a different sense.
Click to expand...


Given that Luther says 'And what need is there of a multitude of proofs?' it would seem on the face of it that he is using the word assertion to mean 'setting forth a proposition but without proof'. Perhaps this definition would shead light on the matter:

"I mean staunchly holding your ground, stating your position, confessing it, defending it and persevering in it unvanquished." (Bondage of the Will)


----------



## RamistThomist

But if he defends it then it is no longer an assertion, but now is an argument.


----------



## yeutter

*Reid & Common Sense Realism*



Romans922 said:


> Where is Common Sense Realism?


I would put it with the classical approach of Aquinas & Anselm. 

Are Clark & Hoeksema really a different type of presuppositionalist?. They seem to me to be fideists that believed nothing could be known apart from special revelation.


----------



## Davidius

yeutter said:


> Are Clark & Hoeksema really a different type of presuppositionalist?. They seem to me to be fideists that believed nothing could be known apart from special revelation.



Presuppositionalism is not fideism. Fideism rejects philosophy/logic and just says "believe," even if what you are believing is irrational and makes no sense. The Clarkian system depends on making deductions based on the propositions contained in scripture. It also holds that the Christian worldview can be logically/philosophically defended. Of course it holds to the need for an axiom, but if that makes it "fideism" then Euclidean Geometry is also fideism. In fact, it would make everyone a fideist because the construction of any system depends on presuppositions.


----------



## Jim Johnston

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are Clark & Hoeksema really a different type of presuppositionalist?. They seem to me to be fideists that believed nothing could be known apart from special revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presuppositionalism is not fideism. Fideism rejects philosophy/logic and just says "believe," even if what you are believing is irrational and makes no sense. The Clarkian system depends on making deductions based on the propositions contained in scripture. It also holds that the Christian worldview can be logically/philosophically defended. Of course it holds to the need for an axiom, but if that makes it "fideism" then Euclidean Geometry is also fideism. In fact, it would make everyone a fideist because the construction of any system depends on presuppositions.
Click to expand...


Are you a Clarkian, David?

Can you deduce the proposition: "presuppositionalism is not fideism" from Scripture?

If not, then youi don't really know that "presuppositionalism is not fideism," right?

Ironically, on the Vantillian pressuppositionalist, or some other apologetic methodology, can help the Clarkian out here. So, I'd agree with you that Clark's position isn't fideism. It's actually, as he says, dogmatism. The difference is, that I can defend the charge, you can't. Well, you can give your _opinion_ on the matter, but you don't _know_ that Clarkian presuppositinalism is not fideism.

Remember, David, Clarkians are consigned to silence. As Wittgenstein said, "Where one cannot speak, one should remain silent."

And while I'm at it, the 6 who voted that they were Clarkian, I'd like to know how they know that they are.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> And while I'm at it, the 6 who voted that they were Clarkian, I'd like to know how they know that they are.



I wonder why you have made such a request? Hope there is no violence involved.

As a Van Tillian, I should be safe.


----------



## Vytautas

Tom Bombadil said:


> And while I'm at it, the 6 who voted that they were Clarkian, I'd like to know how they know that they are.



Why is self-idenity so importaint? Is it really importaint who I am? I am just an unprofitable servant. You will say to me then, how can you predicate that to yourself? Who else am I going to predicate that statement to when Scripture reveals I am but dust? The Gospel is all about looking outward to Christ; it does not matter if I exist. God only really cares about two men: Adam and Christ. All else are under their headship.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Vytautas,

I think Paul's point was simply to say that the Clarkian view of knowledge does not permit us to have any knowledge. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Jim Johnston

Vytautas said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> And while I'm at it, the 6 who voted that they were Clarkian, I'd like to know how they know that they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is self-idenity so importaint? Is it really importaint who I am? I am just an unprofitable servant. You will say to me then, how can you predicate that to yourself? Who else am I going to predicate that statement to when Scripture reveals I am but dust? The Gospel is all about looking outward to Christ; it does not matter if I exist. God only really cares about two men: Adam and Christ. All else are under their headship.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean to ask how they know that they "are" as in "exist" - though that would be interesting - I meant how do they know that they "are" ... "_Clarkians_." Can they deduce that from Scripture? 

Should the poll read: "Which view are you of the unjustified opinion of that you are?"


----------



## JM

Vytautas said:


> I like Martin Luther's method - argument by assertion.
> 
> "Peter commands us to give a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). And what need is there of a multitude of proofs? Nothing is more familiar or characteristic among Christians than assertion. Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity."
> (The Bondage of the Will)



I missed this, thank you for posting it.


----------



## Vytautas

Tom Bombadil said:


> I didn't mean to ask how they know that they "are" as in "exist" - though that would be interesting - I meant how do they know that they "are" ... "_Clarkians_." Can they deduce that from Scripture?
> 
> Should the poll read: "Which view are you of the unjustified opinion of that you are?"



By Clarkian, I think you mean the claim that knowledge is comprised of the propositions of Scripture and their deductions. So you mean how do they know that all knowledge is Scripture and their implications. I guess they would point to passages that support that view (Job 38-41, Eccl. 1:14-18, 3:10-11, 7:23-29, 8:16-17, 11:1-6, Isa. 8:19-20, Matt. 16:17, 1 Cor. 1:18-31, 2:1-16, 3:18-20, Col 2:8, 1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim: 3:7, Jam 1:5), and show how all other claims to knowledge are illogical or fail in some way.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Vytautas said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to ask how they know that they "are" as in "exist" - though that would be interesting - I meant how do they know that they "are" ... "_Clarkians_." Can they deduce that from Scripture?
> 
> Should the poll read: "Which view are you of the unjustified opinion of that you are?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By Clarkian, I think you mean the claim that knowledge is comprised of the propositions of Scripture and their deductions. So you mean how do they know that all knowledge is Scripture and their implications. I guess they would point to passages that support that view (Job 38-41, Eccl. 1:14-18, 3:10-11, 7:23-29, 8:16-17, 11:1-6, Isa. 8:19-20, Matt. 16:17, 1 Cor. 1:18-31, 2:1-16, 3:18-20, Col 2:8, 1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim: 3:7, Jam 1:5), and show how all other claims to knowledge are illogical or fail in some way.
Click to expand...


I mean how do they know that they are scripturalists.

So, let's just say, for arguments sake, that you are correct about what those verses mean, that still doesn't tell me how they know that they are Clarkians. Where are the deductions? Are their names in the Bible?

As far as those verses, surely you jest. I never even saw the word "deduction" in any of them.

Furthermore, "Scripture" isn't in most of them. And when it is, "all knowledge," "deduction" etc., aren't there.


I mean seriously, when you come with verses like this:

Ecc. 3:10 I have seen the burden God has laid on men. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

as exegetical support of this position: "knowledge is comprised of the propositions of Scripture and their deductions." I can only let out a hearty gufaw.

Or take this one:

Matthew 16:17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

The word "all" isn't in there. You're fallaciously going beyond the conclusion. That God revealed *ONE THING* to *Peter* doesn't logically imply that ALL THINGS must be revealed to ALL MEN in order for them to have knowledge.

Seriosuly, when I see stuff like this I get worried for the state of Christian philosophy and theology.

The same aplies to the rest of your proof texting.


----------



## Vytautas

Tom Bombadil said:


> Vytautas said:
> 
> 
> 
> By Clarkian, I think you mean the claim that knowledge is comprised of the propositions of Scripture and their deductions. So you mean how do they know that all knowledge is Scripture and their implications. I guess they would point to passages that support that view (Job 38-41, Eccl. 1:14-18, 3:10-11, 7:23-29, 8:16-17, 11:1-6, Isa. 8:19-20, Matt. 16:17, 1 Cor. 1:18-31, 2:1-16, 3:18-20, Col 2:8, 1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim: 3:7, Jam 1:5), and show how all other claims to knowledge are illogical or fail in some way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean how do they know that they are scripturalists.
> 
> So, let's just say, for arguments sake, that you are correct about what those verses mean, that still doesn't tell me how they know that they are Clarkians. Where are the deductions? Are their names in the Bible?
Click to expand...


Again, why is self-identity important? Why must I know who am I in order to have knowledge? Scripturalism or Clarkianism is an idea not an idenity. Let’s see if the idea is true.



Tom Bombadil said:


> As far as those verses, surely you jest. I never even saw the word "deduction" in any of them.
> 
> Furthermore, "Scripture" isn't in most of them. And when it is, "all knowledge," "deduction" etc., aren't there.



You are right, the words are not there. I just copied down the verses that a Scripturalist gave in favor of his position. Perhaps we can look at some of the verses to see if the idea of Clarkianism is there.



Tom Bombadil said:


> I mean seriously, when you come with verses like this:
> 
> Ecc. 3:10 I have seen the burden God has laid on men. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
> 
> as exegetical support of this position: "knowledge is comprised of the propositions of Scripture and their deductions." I can only let out a hearty gufaw.



Men cannot fathom or find out the work God has done from beginning to end. The verse shows that man cannot obtain knowledge of the works of God which are creation and providence. So man cannot know anything of God’s world that he made. This undercuts all claims to knowledge unless God reveals knowledge to us.




Tom Bombadil said:


> Or take this one:
> 
> Matthew 16:17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
> 
> The word "all" isn't in there. You're fallaciously going beyond the conclusion. That God revealed *ONE THING* to *Peter* doesn't logically imply that ALL THINGS must be revealed to ALL MEN in order for them to have knowledge.
> 
> Seriosuly, when I see stuff like this I get worried for the state of Christian philosophy and theology.
> 
> The same aplies to the rest of your proof texting.



You are right; from this single verse you cannot deduce the universal statement. But from the verse we can gather that the way in which Peter got his knowledge was by revelation from God. It would seem that for us to know that Jesus is the Christ, God must reveal this to us as well. Jesus did not say to Peter, you got to your conclusion by empirical observation or by deducing it from non-scriptural premises or by a wild guess. Now do you believe that this verse is for us as well so that there is an application? 

Note that I believe we can obtain knowledge from experience and deducing things from non-scriptural premises. I am just arguing what I think a Scriptualist might say, since I think there is some truth to their position, just not in their traditional formulations that I have looked at.


----------



## lwadkins

Might your method vary somewhat according to your audience?


----------



## Vytautas

Perhaps this is one of the better ones on the list.

1 Corinthians 2:9-10: But just as it is written, “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him” For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things; even the depths of God.

Here we find that all that God has prepared for those who love him are given by the Spirit. One of these things would be knowledge, since seeing, hearing, things entering the mind of man refer to ways of knowing. The context is that of methods of knowing. So knowing by experience and thinking are eliminated, and only knowing by revelation is left. So all knowledge is obtained by revelation, since I cannot think of another way of knowing.


----------



## Jim Johnston

lwadkins said:


> Might your method vary somewhat according to your audience?



I don't know about *method,* but *what you present* might differ.

There's no cookie-cutter approach.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Vytautas said:


> Again, why is self-identity important? Why must I know who am I in order to have knowledge? Scripturalism or Clarkianism is an idea not an idenity. Let’s see if the idea is true.



Again, and for the last time, I'm not talking about self-identity.

But, here's how it is important. Say some person S says that all knowledge is obtained in some specific way W. Then for some item of knowledge P, if S says that he knows P, but P was not obtained by W, then S rebuts W. Showing how someone can't live up to their critieria, or holds contradictory beliefs because of their position, is important, I'd say.



> You are right, the words are not there. I just copied down the verses that a Scripturalist gave in favor of his position. Perhaps we can look at some of the verses to see if the idea of Clarkianism is there.



And that should have told you all you need to know about their face-saving, ad hoc, contrived and forced position. Talk about grasping at straws.



> Men cannot fathom or find out the work God has done from beginning to end. The verse shows that man cannot obtain knowledge of the works of God which are creation and providence. So man cannot know anything of God’s world that he made. This undercuts all claims to knowledge unless God reveals knowledge to us.



For starters, "knowledge" isn't even a word in the verse. Secondly, is the context of Ecc. 3:10-11 to teach epistemology? To "undercut all claims to knowledge?" Why can't man "obtain knowledge of the works of God which are creation and providence." It seems that v. 14 indicates the opposite in that "God does it so that men will revere him." The text doesn't talk about "not knowing unless God reveals it to us." Where is that *in the text.*



> You are right; from this single verse you cannot deduce the universal statement. But from the verse we can gather that the way in which Peter got his knowledge was by revelation from God. It would seem that for us to know that Jesus is the Christ, God must reveal this to us as well. Jesus did not say to Peter, you got to your conclusion by empirical observation or by deducing it from non-scriptural premises or by a wild guess. Now do you believe that this verse is for us as well so that there is an application?



Then why'd they use it as a proof text for a universal statement?

For us to know that Jesus is the Christ that must be revealed, okay. So what follows? Nothing that supports Scripturalism.

Next, how does the Scripturalist know that Jesus didn't say those things? Why believe that? Is he trusting his senses? Can he "deduce" that Jesus didn't say that?



> Note that I believe we can obtain knowledge from experience and deducing things from non-scriptural premises. I am just arguing what I think a Scriptualist might say, since I think there is some truth to their position, just not in their traditional formulations that I have looked at.




"Some truth" is pretty vague. There's "some truth" in Quine's position. So what? Anyway, I don't feel it a wise use of time to debate a weak position with someone trying to defend that position even though he disagrees with that position. You think it's false. Nothing you've said rebuts my point that the Scripturalists don't know that they are Scripturalists. I was just wondering why they voted that way.


----------

