# Philosophy vs. Theology



## Skyler

What would you say the difference between "philosophy" and "theology" is? Especially from a Reformed perspective?

It seems to me that if we take the Bible as a basic presupposition, that affects all areas of "philosophy"--not only religion, but also metaphysics, epistemology, ethics(especially ethics!) and so forth. So, for the Christian, is there(or should there be) a difference between philosophy and theology? Or are they co-extensive in scope?


----------



## steven-nemes

Theology is the study of doctrines of scripture. I think Alvin Plantinga once said that philosophy is just thinking hard about things.


----------



## Skyler

But what if you're thinking hard about Scripture?


----------



## steven-nemes

Depends on what specifically you're thinking about. Are you thinking about whether or not you can claim to _know_ some of the things that scripture teaches? Then you're doing philosophy. Are you thinking about whether or not scripture is reliable? You're not doing philosophy then; that would count as history.


----------



## Philip

Philosophy is the study of metaphysics, epistemology, and ontology.

Theology is the study of God--His character, His relationship to us, our relationship to Him, and how that affects us in everyday life.

Philosophy does not necessarily presuppose revelation. Theology necessarily presupposes revelation.

For a Christian Philosopher, his philosophy and his theology should coincide, influencing one another. However, they do not necessarily need to be the same. Philosophy should not cross Scripture, but it can be useful in understanding doctrine and theology.


----------



## au5t1n

Theology is a branch of philosophy which affects our whole philosophy.


----------



## Skyler

So philosophy is a broader study which includes, and is built upon, but goes beyond special revelation? (For the Christian, of course)


----------



## au5t1n

Skyler said:


> So philosophy is a broader study which includes, and is built upon, but goes beyond special revelation? (For the Christian, of course)


I wouldn't say "goes beyond special revelation." The study of, say, politics is going to be derived from our theology, but it is not theology proper, in the sense that, say, the study of the Trinity is.


----------



## Skyler

austinww said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So philosophy is a broader study which includes, and is built upon, but goes beyond special revelation? (For the Christian, of course)
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say "goes beyond special revelation." The study of, say, politics is going to be derived from our theology, but it is not theology proper, in the sense that, say, the study of the Trinity is.
Click to expand...


But if it's not immediately arrived at by exegesis, then is it philosophy?

By "goes beyond special revelation" I mean "goes beyond that which can be extracted from the Bible through exegesis".


----------



## au5t1n

Skyler said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So philosophy is a broader study which includes, and is built upon, but goes beyond special revelation? (For the Christian, of course)
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say "goes beyond special revelation." The study of, say, politics is going to be derived from our theology, but it is not theology proper, in the sense that, say, the study of the Trinity is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if it's not immediately arrived at by exegesis, then is it philosophy?
> 
> By "goes beyond special revelation" I mean "goes beyond that which can be extracted from the Bible through exegesis".
Click to expand...

All thought and logic falls under "philosophy," and as Christians, all of ours should be based on our theology and derived from Scripture in however the Scripture speaks to it or however its principles apply to it.


----------



## Skyler

austinww said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say "goes beyond special revelation." The study of, say, politics is going to be derived from our theology, but it is not theology proper, in the sense that, say, the study of the Trinity is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if it's not immediately arrived at by exegesis, then is it philosophy?
> 
> By "goes beyond special revelation" I mean "goes beyond that which can be extracted from the Bible through exegesis".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All thought and logic falls under "philosophy," and as Christians, all of ours should be based on our theology and derived from Scripture in however the Scripture speaks to it or however its principles apply to it.
Click to expand...


So then, if all thought and logic falls under philosophy, and all thought and logic falls under theology, then philosophy and theology are co-extensive, unless either philosophy or theology covers something other than thought and logic as well.

Did you follow that?


----------



## au5t1n

Skyler said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if it's not immediately arrived at by exegesis, then is it philosophy?
> 
> By "goes beyond special revelation" I mean "goes beyond that which can be extracted from the Bible through exegesis".
> 
> 
> 
> All thought and logic falls under "philosophy," and as Christians, all of ours should be based on our theology and derived from Scripture in however the Scripture speaks to it or however its principles apply to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, if all thought and logic falls under philosophy, and all thought and logic falls under theology, then philosophy and theology are co-extensive, unless either philosophy or theology covers something other than thought and logic as well.
> 
> Did you follow that?
Click to expand...

I sort of agree, but I think we have to distinguish between theology proper, which is a category of philosophy and would include study of the Trinity, Christology, doctrine, etc. vs. theology as it applies to ALL of philosophy. But I guess we're just getting into semantics now.


----------



## Christusregnat

Philosophers question your answers.

Theologians answer your questions.

Theology is the queen of the sciences, to which all others must submit if they are to be legitimate.


----------



## JTB

In the academy, philosophy generally attempts to get at the fundamental or basic questions that govern all branches or disciplines of knowledge. There will be, for example, a philosophy of history, a philosophy of science, a philosophy of religion, etc. Philosophy searches out the most basic principles or assumptions of any branch of knowledge and concerns itself with the consistency of those principles with professed and practiced methods, arguments, and conclusions.

If Christianity is to take every thought captive under the Lordship of Christ, then the Christian definition of philosophy is that it is theology applied to the basic questions concerning all disciplines of knowledge, because the definition of God and His purposes is basic to Christian thought. In practice, pagan philosophy and Christian philosophy make look very similar--a well-trained and acute pagan or Christian philosopher will both be able to spot contradictions in a given view of history, for example. Where pagan philosophy and Christian philosophy clash is when they turn the lenses of consideration upon each other to uncover or discover the basic assumptions that either hold to be true.


----------



## Matthew1034

Education in early church theology will help put theology and philosophy in a proper relationship. Early theologians and apologists such as Justin Martyr (Dialogue w/Trypho) and Gregory of Nazianzus (Five Theological Orations) are great examples of how the Christian can integrate philosophy and theology into meaningful conversation with emphasis on Jesus Christ and the gospel.


----------



## ChristianTrader

steven-nemes said:


> Theology is the study of doctrines of scripture. I think Alvin Plantinga once said that philosophy is just thinking hard about things.



So would you say there is no such thing as Natural Theology?

CT


----------



## Philip

Christusregnat said:


> Philosophers question your answers.
> 
> Theologians answer your questions.



That's Sophistry, not philosophy.

I would say that there is a such thing as natural theology--that is, theology derived from general revelation--as man has knowledge of God and suppresses it. However, that knowledge is limited to _what_ God is. To know God for _who_ He is, one has to accept special revelation.



JTB said:


> If Christianity is to take every thought captive under the Lordship of Christ, then the Christian definition of philosophy is that it is theology applied to the basic questions concerning all disciplines of knowledge, because the definition of God and His purposes is basic to Christian thought.



Which are the "disciplines of knowledge" here? Maybe you mean "fields of inquiry."


----------



## PMBrooks

Theology can actually be considered a branch of metaphysics as theology studies what is beyond this reality with which we interact. However, I would propose that to study philosophy properly, one needs to begin with a Christian epistemology...one that is given through divine revelation.


----------



## MW

Adam is correct -- philosophy raises questions and theology answers them. That is not sophistry. Philosophy without theology is itself sophistical and sceptical. Philosophy is not normative. I usually distinguish them by saying philosophy is descriptive while theology is prescriptive.


----------



## Philip

> However, I would propose that to study philosophy properly, one needs to begin with a Christian epistemology...one that is given through divine revelation.



And just where do the Scriptures provide an epistemology?


----------



## JTB

P.F. Pugh said:


> Which are the "disciplines of knowledge" here? Maybe you mean "fields of inquiry."



I'm not sure what you consider the difference to be. As for me, I don't see the point of inquiring into a field without turning out some conclusions that are true, and organizing those true conclusions into a robust system of thought, which is what I consider a good summary of what disciplines of knowledge are concerned to accomplish.

One may not arrive at "the one and only true" history, but one can have "the one and only true" approach to understanding or viewing history. One may not arrive at "the one and only true" science, but one can have "the one and only true" approach to understanding or viewing science. God's commandments don't simply or chiefly govern behavior, but rather they primarily govern what our thoughts ought to be. As I said before, in practice, a pagan philosopher may look for consistency in the same manner that a Christian philosopher does, but the Christian philosopher and pagan philosopher alike will seek to organize positive conclusions under some overarching principle or set of principles that direct the nature of inquiry or whatever you wish to call it.

The Christian philosopher will organize his thought in obedience to God's revealed Word, whereas the pagan philosopher will organize his thought according to whatever his autonomous desires and reason considers best of all.

-----Added 10/26/2009 at 09:56:42 EST-----



P. F. Pugh said:


> However, I would propose that to study philosophy properly, one needs to begin with a Christian epistemology...one that is given through divine revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just where do the Scriptures provide an epistemology?
Click to expand...


In numerous passages God is refered to as the Truth, and Christ as the Wisdom of God and the Truth. Elsewhere it is stated that Christ or God illuminates the minds of men with knowledge, wisdom, or truth. What else is epistemology than the study of knowledge? What else is knowledge but an understanding of the truth? The epistemology is there for one who considers the Scriptures a place worth making one's start.


----------



## PMBrooks

The Scriptures are a source for epistemology. Because we believe God is the Creator of the universe and the only source of the Ultimate Truth, revealed in Jesus Christ, we believe that the Scriptures are the ONLY infallible and inerrant epistemological source. Other epistemological sources may be used, such as reason, but not without the taint of sin. That is why I stated that our philosophy must be built upon a Christian epistemology, one grounded in Scripture.


----------



## Philip

JTB said:


> In numerous passages God is refered to as the Truth, and Christ as the Wisdom of God and the Truth. Elsewhere it is stated that Christ or God illuminates the minds of men with knowledge, wisdom, or truth. What else is epistemology than the study of knowledge?



The equivocation here is staggering. When I say that I know someone, I do not mean "know" in the same sense that I mean it when I claim to know that George Washington was the first president of the United States or that 2+2=4.



> What else is knowledge but an understanding of the truth?



And you would claim to understand the truth? Even Sts. Peter and Paul could not claim that much. The day that I claim to really understand Jesus is the day that I fall into major heresy.

You are here equivocating on truth and knowledge. Knowledge here is personal, not propositional. Truth, likewise, is personal, not propositional. To know God is not simply to know every proposition about God--that was the error of Leibniz. To know God is to be in and with God--it is to understand Him more fully on a personal level and to become more like Him. Can I express this propositionally? Partially.

Here is my contention: all education should be directed toward the discovery of truth, both factual and otherwise. Any philosophy of education that does have this goal in mind or believe it possible should be rejected.



PMBrooks said:


> The Scriptures are a source for epistemology.



Do you mean a source for knowledge here? Again, I don't think that the Scriptures provide an epistemology--they presuppose an epistemology (In my humble opinion they presuppose direct realism).


----------



## jwithnell

Interesting question ...

Philosophy seeks to systematize thought, classically defined as a pursuit of wisdom or a quest for truth through logical reasoning. 

As a pursuit of wisdom, theology makes sense as one part of philosophy -- for the christian the two are closely integrated since we are to bring all thought captive to Christ. 

The quest for truth through logical reasoning is more problematic -- on one hand, the scriptures inform us what truth is (about God and what he has revealed to us). On the other hand, God has given man the ability to reason and to logically think through what he sees in natural revelation.


----------



## JTB

P. F. Pugh said:


> The equivocation here is staggering. When I say that I know someone, I do not mean "know" in the same sense that I mean it when I claim to know that George Washington was the first president of the United States or that 2+2=4.



Your consistency in being obtuse is staggering. Truth is something that only applies to propositions. Knowledge, even "personal" knowledge is the sum of what is true about something. One cannot have knowledge without truth, nor truth without propositions.



> And you would claim to understand the truth? Even Sts. Peter and Paul could not claim that much. The day that I claim to really understand Jesus is the day that I fall into major heresy.



Paul and Peter both believed that God could be known, and that they had a knowledge of God. Indeed, they stated plainly that every believer has knowledge of God and Jesus Christ. They did not think that this knowledge originated in themselves, but it was still knowledge.

2 Peter 1:1-3 "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the *knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord*; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the *true knowledge* of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence."

1 Corinthians 2:11-13 "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words."

The day you claim NOT to really understand Jesus is the day you demonstrate that you are not a partaker with Him, or that you are extremely confused about what it is to understand your Savior.

Knowledge is not the same as omniscience, and "personal" knowledge does not require you to have touched or seen the object of knowledge. You might try reading Clark's commentary on First John.



> You are here equivocating on truth and knowledge. Knowledge here is personal, not propositional. Truth, likewise, is personal, not propositional. To know God is not simply to know every proposition about God--that was the error of Leibniz. To know God is to be in and with God--it is to understand Him more fully on a personal level and to become more like Him. Can I express this propositionally? Partially.



I am convinced that you have no idea what you are saying here. Why don't you start by giving us a definition of "personal" and "propositional" so we can distinguish them. Hopefully you can understand the difference between a definition and a description.



> Here is my contention: all education should be directed toward the discovery of truth, both factual and otherwise. Any philosophy of education that does have this goal in mind or believe it possible should be rejected.



I'd like to know what is a non-factual truth?

For all of your assertions that Clark is a fideist, you yourself are more subject to that claim. You say that I'm equivocating truth and knowledge, but you don't express a difference between the two. In fact, you say they are both non-propositional and rather, "personal." But you don't say what you mean by the latter term, and I frankly don't think you can, because it is an anti-intellectual absurdity.


----------



## Philip

JTB said:


> Your consistency in being obtuse is staggering. Truth is something that only applies to propositions. Knowledge, even "personal" knowledge is the sum of what is true about something. One cannot have knowledge without truth, nor truth without propositions.



So when Jesus said "I am the truth", what He meant was "I am a set of true propositions"? Knowing God is simply knowing propositions about Him? Knowing my best friend Luke is simply knowing propositions about him?

Tell me, then, if persons are just sets of propositions, what is the qualitative difference between knowing my friend Luke and knowing Elizabeth Bennett? The only qualitative difference that I can see is that Luke exists in my college campus while Miss Bennett exists in _Pride and Predjudice_ and has a smaller set of propositions.



> Paul and Peter both believed that God could be known, and that they had a knowledge of God. Indeed, they stated plainly that every believer has knowledge of God and Jesus Christ. They did not think that this knowledge originated in themselves, but it was still knowledge.



But could they claim to really understand God? St. Peter admitted that he didn't understand the letters of St. Paul while St. Paul said that his vision of God was cloudy at best, as in a mirror. We can't claim to understand the Scriptures--not fully. Show me someone who has a clear propositional interpretation of Revelation and I'll show you a heresy. Show me someone who has a clear and exhaustive understanding of the trinity and I'll show you a heretic.

We can't claim to really understand other people--much less, God. I suggest that your definition of knowledge is flawed.

Here's what I mean by propositional: that which can be expressed exhaustively by means of propositions. It deals with the head.

Personal: that which relates to the soul and heart of a person in addition to the mind. 

I would like to ask: is there, for you, any difference between the intellectual and the spiritual?



> You say that I'm equivocating truth and knowledge, but you don't express a difference between the two. In fact, you say they are both non-propositional and rather, "personal." But you don't say what you mean by the latter term, and I frankly don't think you can, because it is an anti-intellectual absurdity.



I'm not saying that the two (the propositional and the non-propositional) are mutually exclusive, just that they are not the same.



> I'd like to know what is a non-factual truth?



God's holiness. You can say that "God is Holy" is a fact and that it is true, but His holiness in itself is both true and non-propositional. We can formulate a lot of propositions about it--but a thing is not the propositions. Propositions only describe what it is. They are not what the thing is in itself.


----------



## JTB

> So when Jesus said "I am the truth", what He meant was "I am a set of true propositions"? Knowing God is simply knowing propositions about Him? Knowing my best friend Luke is simply knowing propositions about him?
> 
> Tell me, then, if persons are just sets of propositions, what is the qualitative difference between knowing my friend Luke and knowing Elizabeth Bennett? The only qualitative difference that I can see is that Luke exists in my college campus while Miss Bennett exists in Pride and Predjudice and has a smaller set of propositions.



Jesus often spoke using figurative expressions. When he called the the cup "the new covenant in my blood," he wasn't being literal, anymore than calling himself the truth equated to calling himself a set of propositions. However, when speaking about knowledge of something, the only relevant means by which anything is known is propositional.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between ontology and epistemology. What Luke or Jesus or Elizabeth Bennett are is distinct from how we know what each of them are. To express knowledge is to use a proposition: Luke is your friend. Jesus is the Son of God. Elizabeth Bennett is a fictional character penned by Jane Austen. Apart from these propositions, what truth or knowledge can be attempted?



> But could they claim to really understand God? St. Peter admitted that he didn't understand the letters of St. Paul while St. Paul said that his vision of God was cloudy at best, as in a mirror. We can't claim to understand the Scriptures--not fully. Show me someone who has a clear propositional interpretation of Revelation and I'll show you a heresy. Show me someone who has a clear and exhaustive understanding of the trinity and I'll show you a heretic.
> 
> We can't claim to really understand other people--much less, God. I suggest that your definition of knowledge is flawed.
> 
> Here's what I mean by propositional: that which can be expressed exhaustively by means of propositions. It deals with the head.
> 
> Personal: that which relates to the soul and heart of a person in addition to the mind.
> 
> I would like to ask: is there, for you, any difference between the intellectual and the spiritual?



You are being obtuse again. Did I not say that knowledge is not the same as omniscience? One does not have to know everything in order to know something. I know that Jesus is the Son of God without knowing everything about the relationship of the Son to the Father. Regardless of that deficiency, I still know that "Jesus is the Son of God" is a true statement, accurately depicting the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father.

First of all, Peter didn't say that he failed to understand Paul. He merely said that some things that Paul wrote were difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Difficult is not the same as impossible, nor does it preclude knowing the meaning of what Paul wrote. Paul's statement about seeing through a glass darkly implies only that our knowledge is incomplete, not that it is not knowledge at all. You would make all knowledge impossible upon such a conclusion, and you certainly cannot infer from my statements that an exhaustive knowledge of all things is what I claim is necessary for something to be known.

Your definition of proposition is not the definition I'm using, nor is it the normal meaning of the word. For example, when a group of debaters are asked to formulate a proposition upon which to argue for and against, no one expects them to exhaust the subject matter contained in that proposition. The burden is upon you to establish such a definition of proposition as relevant to this discussion. Upon your definition, no human being could ever use a proposition, for no human being can state anything exhaustively. As I said before, you seem to be talking in absurdities.

As for your definition of personal, I'd like to know how you distinguish the terms "soul," "heart," and "mind." The Bible uses the word for "heart" to represent all three of the English words (soul, heart, mind). If you don't believe me you can check any good lexicon for examples.

I don't make a distinction between "intellectual" and "spiritual," nor do I distinguish "soul" "heart" and "mind" in any strict fashion. Our soul is the immaterial aspect of our being, which thinks and wills, both of which find expression in the terms stated.

You seem to be making a lot of random assertions on the basis of nothing more than what occurs to you in the moment to be right. Perhaps a bit of study would be beneficial to you. Clark, if you are willing to read him, deals extensively with these very matters.



> I'm not saying that the two (the propositional and the non-propositional) are mutually exclusive, just that they are not the same.



Well that's conveniently opaque. How about some explanation of the difference then, if you are capable?



> God's holiness. You can say that "God is Holy" is a fact and that it is true, but His holiness in itself is both true and non-propositional. We can formulate a lot of propositions about it--but a thing is not the propositions. Propositions only describe what it is. They are not what the thing is in itself.



More absurdities. "God is holy" is both true and a proposition. "God's holiness" is simply a noun with an adjective describing what can only be known by expressing propositions, for example: "God's holiness is not like man's holiness because God's holiness is not derivative." No one is going to argue that the statement IS God's holiness, but it remains that you cannot know what God's holiness IS without a proposition. Again, you are conflating ontology with epistemology--what is, with what is known about what is.

Again, I'd suggest that you spend a bit less time making foolish statements and a bit more time reading some clear thinking treatments on these matters and thinking carefully through their contents. You may have the last word, for I don't foresee much progress will be made beyond this point.


----------



## Philip

> Jesus often spoke using figurative expressions. When he called the the cup "the new covenant in my blood," he wasn't being literal, anymore than calling himself the truth equated to calling himself a set of propositions. However, when speaking about knowledge of something, the only relevant means by which anything is known is propositional.



So Jesus is not the truth? Either He literally is or He literally isn't. If this is metaphorical, what is the meaning behind it?



> You don't seem to be able to distinguish between ontology and epistemology. What Luke or Jesus or Elizabeth Bennett are is distinct from how we know what each of them are. To express knowledge is to use a proposition: Luke is your friend. Jesus is the Son of God. Elizabeth Bennett is a fictional character penned by Jane Austen. Apart from these propositions, what truth or knowledge can be attempted?



As far as I am concerned, it seems that they are. If Luke, Jesus, and Elizabeth Bennett can all only be known via propositions, then as far as I am concerned, that's all they are: sets of propositions in a Leibnizian sense. Unless you are willing to say that some knowledge is not propositional, that's what you're left with.

The knowledge I am suggesting is expressible though propositions, but not entirely. For example, it is one thing to talk about Christian joy, but a whole different matter to actually experience it. It is one thing to talk about God and learn what God is--but to experience God Himself is an entirely different one. If you want to reduce spirituality to a merely intellectual matter, you lose knowledge of God in terms of a relationship with Him.



> You are being obtuse again. Did I not say that knowledge is not the same as omniscience?



If knowledge equals complete understanding, then yes it would have to be, because everything relates in some way to everything else.



> I know that Jesus is the Son of God without knowing everything about the relationship of the Son to the Father.



This is somewhat incoherent: if you define knowledge (in this maximal warrant sense) as involving pure intellectual understanding, then you don't know it. Intellect can only take you so far.



> As for your definition of personal, I'd like to know how you distinguish the terms "soul," "heart," and "mind." The Bible uses the word for "heart" to represent all three of the English words (soul, heart, mind). If you don't believe me you can check any good lexicon for examples.



The heart is the emotional seat of a person, the mind is rational, and the soul is spiritual. I'm using this in a technical sense (sometimes the bible speaks in terms less precise than the ones we mean). These three are distinct but inseparable--inextricably linked.



> I don't make a distinction between "intellectual" and "spiritual," nor do I distinguish "soul" "heart" and "mind" in any strict fashion. Our soul is the immaterial aspect of our being, which thinks and wills, both of which find expression in the terms stated.



So where is the emotion? Is that merely animal? We might be tempted to say so, but then we would also have to say that rationality is too, because animals are intelligent as well.

No, I must reject this Platonic picture of man that elevates the intellect and will above the emotions. Christianity is not stoicism.



> No one is going to argue that the statement IS God's holiness, but it remains that you cannot know what God's holiness IS without a proposition.



No, I just cannot state it without a proposition.



> Well that's conveniently opaque. How about some explanation of the difference then, if you are capable?



If you read my last post, I defined the terms, though I think my definition of the propositional was badly stated.

The propositional is that which is known only by means of propositions.

Actually, I think that one can express truth without propositions: it's called art. Music, especially, is suited to express non-propositional truth, which is why God has ordained it in conjunction with words.

At this point, I too must be off to refute Kierkegaard's view of truth (I seem to be caught between two extremes).


----------



## MW

JTB said:


> You are being obtuse again. Did I not say that knowledge is not the same as omniscience? One does not have to know everything in order to know something. I know that Jesus is the Son of God without knowing everything about the relationship of the Son to the Father. Regardless of that deficiency, I still know that "Jesus is the Son of God" is a true statement, accurately depicting the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father.



Surely you mean "abstruse." I can't imagine you would deliberately call another person "stupid."

How do you know that Jesus is the Son of God? Because you trust Him and therefore receive His testimony. Your knowledge is therefore dependent on a personal relation not a propositional statement.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> Because you trust Him and therefore receive His testimony. Your knowledge is therefore dependent on a personal relation not a propositional statement.



Certainly, the knowledge we possess is likewise dependent upon the testimony, or the propositional content God delivers as well? Faith is merely the hand that receives the gift. I suppose that the relational aspect would depend on one's definition and usage of faith in this context.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## JTB

armourbearer said:


> JTB said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are being obtuse again. Did I not say that knowledge is not the same as omniscience? One does not have to know everything in order to know something. I know that Jesus is the Son of God without knowing everything about the relationship of the Son to the Father. Regardless of that deficiency, I still know that "Jesus is the Son of God" is a true statement, accurately depicting the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you mean "abstruse." I can't imagine you would deliberately call another person "stupid."
> 
> How do you know that Jesus is the Son of God? Because you trust Him and therefore receive His testimony. Your knowledge is therefore dependent on a personal relation not a propositional statement.
Click to expand...


No, I mean obtuse. Or perhaps he is just ignoring (consciously or by carelessness) things I've said plainly already.

I know that Jesus is the Son of God because the Bible states that Jesus is the Son of God. Yes, I trust that the Bible is true, but trust isn't anything other than assent to something I've understood.

The "personal relation" is God revealing to my mind what is in His mind--thinking His thoughts after Him. But thoughts, other than exclamations or commands, are propositions to be understood and assented to.

When someone can adequately demonstrate how "personal" can be non-proposition (and by demonstrate, I don't mean assert), then I'll be willing to reconsider.


----------



## MW

JTB said:


> No, I mean obtuse. Or perhaps he is just ignoring (consciously or by carelessness) things I've said plainly already.



Then you need to apologise and refrain from using such language in the future.



JTB said:


> I know that Jesus is the Son of God because the Bible states that Jesus is the Son of God. Yes, I trust that the Bible is true, but trust isn't anything other than assent to something I've understood.



So what, exactly, in your understanding, brings you to assent that the Bible is true? Do you have an open window into the divinity of God which causes you to know things about the Bible which other men do not know? 



JTB said:


> The "personal relation" is God revealing to my mind what is in His mind--thinking His thoughts after Him. But thoughts, other than exclamations or commands, are propositions to be understood and assented to.



Does God Deify you? If not, how could you possibly know what is in the mind of an infinite, eternal, and unchageable Being?



JTB said:


> When someone can adequately demonstrate how "personal" can be non-proposition (and by demonstrate, I don't mean assert), then I'll be willing to reconsider.



I will demonstrate it by asserting it in the language of holy Scripture -- "thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift." Either you believe what Scripture says concerning the gift of Christ, or you do not? If you do, then you must accept a personal element which surpasses human thought and speech to describe it, and yet so fills your heart as you are able to give God true thanksgiving for it.


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> Certainly, the knowledge we possess is likewise dependent upon the testimony, or the propositional content God delivers as well? Faith is merely the hand that receives the gift. I suppose that the relational aspect would depend on one's definition and usage of faith in this context.



It is the Being Who testifies which makes the testimony credible. There is no other standard by which to receive the truthfulness of what God testifies except the fact that He is supremely trustworthy.


----------



## Philip

> I know that Jesus is the Son of God because the Bible states that Jesus is the Son of God. Yes, I trust that the Bible is true, but trust isn't anything other than assent to something I've understood.



So when you say that you trust Christ, what you mean is that you assent to Him?



> When someone can adequately demonstrate how "personal" can be non-proposition (and by demonstrate, I don't mean assert), then I'll be willing to reconsider.



I have given you examples: I know my friend Luke, not because I have known propositions about him, but because I have been with him.

This is as opposed to you: I cannot be said to know you in the same way. This is not because I have fewer propositions about you. I suppose, if I wanted, I could hack, find your IP address, and discover many more propositions about you. However, even then I could not be said to know you personally. In order to know someone personally, one has to interact with that person.

Or let's take Satan: Satan knows many more true propositions about God than any of us do--can we say then that Satan knows God personally in the way that we do? No.

I'm not being inconsistent here--I am a bit confusing mostly because I'm simultaneously switching between refuting your position and thinking out my own.


----------



## JTB

armourbearer said:


> So what, exactly, in your understanding, brings you to assent that the Bible is true? Do you have an open window into the divinity of God which causes you to know things about the Bible which other men do not know?



The Holy Spirit testifies with my spirit that the Bible is God's Word. I have an "open window" as much as any man who has been illuminated by God's Spirit to know the truth.



> Does God Deify you? If not, how could you possibly know what is in the mind of an infinite, eternal, and unchageable Being?



If by deify you mean does God make me equal to Himself, then no. If you simply mean that He shares His thought with me, then yes, in that sense, all Christians are partakers of divinity. How could any Christian be a Christian and NOT know God? As I've said before, knowledge is not to be equated with omniscience. The Bible says that we have the mind of Christ. How could we have the mind of Christ and not know God?



> I will demonstrate it by asserting it in the language of holy Scripture -- "thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift." Either you believe what Scripture says concerning the gift of Christ, or you do not? If you do, then you must accept a personal element which surpasses human thought and speech to describe it, and yet so fills your heart as you are able to give God true thanksgiving for it.



Funny. Demonstration by assertion. Not quite a demonstration.

And besides, you quoted a proposition, so that supports what I'm saying. What is the gift that is received? Can you articulate it without stating a proposition? The intellect isn't opposed to giving praise and thanksgiving. Indeed, the intellect is indispensable for giving thanksgiving and praise. Without a mind to know, you couldn't know to what you offered praise in the first place.

What good is it to cling to such irrationalism?


----------



## MW

JTB said:


> The Holy Spirit testifies with my spirit that the Bible is God's Word. I have an "open window" as much as any man who has been illuminated by God's Spirit to know the truth.



And what proposition has the Holy Spirit testified with your spirit to assure you that the Bible is true? If you say, the Holy Spirit simply testifies the Bible is true, then your acceptance of the proposition is based on a personal relation to the Holy Spirit, not on a proposition.



JTB said:


> If by deify you mean does God make me equal to Himself, then no. If you simply mean that He shares His thought with me, then yes, in that sense, all Christians are partakers of divinity. How could any Christian be a Christian and NOT know God? As I've said before, knowledge is not to be equated with omniscience. The Bible says that we have the mind of Christ. How could we have the mind of Christ and not know God?



This is your dilemma, not mine. If you simply accepted the fact that knowledge contains a personal element you would be delivered from this dilemma. While you insist that all knowledge is propositional you are bound to Deify yourself in order to know God.



JTB said:


> Funny. Demonstration by assertion. Not quite a demonstration.



It is if you believe the Scripture cannot be broken. In the end, however, it appears that your philosophy requires you to propositionally demonstrate the truthfulness of Scripture before it can be received as true. This is sad!



JTB said:


> And besides, you quoted a proposition, so that supports what I'm saying. What is the gift that is received? Can you articulate it without stating a proposition? The intellect isn't opposed to giving praise and thanksgiving. Indeed, the intellect is indispensable for giving thanksgiving and praise. Without a mind to know, you couldn't know to what you offered praise in the first place.



You are confusing the proposition with the thing to which the proposition refers. As soon as I allow for something unspeakable to affect the Christian life I am acknowledging an area of non-propositional, personal influence upon my Christianity. There is something about Christ I cannot understand for which I give thanks. Regrettably, you can only give thanks for a Christ you can contain within the propositional content of your mind.


----------



## JTB

P. F. Pugh said:


> So when you say that you trust Christ, what you mean is that you assent to Him?



I assent to what is testified concerning Christ in the Scriptures. One cannot assent to something that isn't stated. If someone walks up to you and stares you in the face, what exactly would you be able to assent to simply by virtue of their presence?



> I have given you examples: I know my friend Luke, not because I have known propositions about him, but because I have been with him.



His presence doesn't communicate anything to you. You may infer many things by his presence, such as, "Luke must think well of me because he hasn't left me," or "Luke has brown hair," or even "I must not smell bad, since Luke hasn't pointed it out to me." It isn't presence that gives you knowledge of Luke, but what you infer from his presence, or by means of his communication (verbal or nonverbal) with you.



> This is as opposed to you: I cannot be said to know you in the same way. This is not because I have fewer propositions about you. I suppose, if I wanted, I could hack, find your IP address, and discover many more propositions about you. However, even then I could not be said to know you personally. In order to know someone personally, one has to interact with that person.



You are interacting with me. You read my expressed thoughts, and I read yours. I don't know what you look like, so I lack that information, but I believe certain things about you based upon what you've said, things that perhaps Luke doesn't know about you (unless you've had a conversation about the topic we're discussing with him as well as me).



> Or let's take Satan: Satan knows many more true propositions about God than any of us do--can we say then that Satan knows God personally in the way that we do? No.



The difference between Satan and you and me is a difference in what we believe about God. Satan cannot know God as his savior as we can. But knowing that God is our savior requires us to know certain propositions to be true, such as Christ is the propitiation of God's wrath on our behalf. Satan cannot know that truth for himself, because God has not offered it to him. That is a difference that is propositional and, if you wish, personal. But it isn't personal without being propositional, as you wish to claim.



> I'm not being inconsistent here--I am a bit confusing mostly because I'm simultaneously switching between refuting your position and thinking out my own.



If you haven't thought enough about your own position to the point at which it cannot be stated without constant change, then you don't really have a position yet. You are just confused. It isn't very wise to argue that something is wrong when you are confused about what is correct.

-----Added 10/27/2009 at 09:16:32 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> And what proposition has the Holy Spirit testified with your spirit to assure you that the Bible is true? If you say, the Holy Spirit simply testifies the Bible is true, then your acceptance of the proposition is based on a personal relation to the Holy Spirit, not on a proposition.



How exactly is a testimony devoid of a proposition? The testimony of the Spirit is the impartation of belief that the proposition, "The Bible is God's Word" is true. The belief is imparted, but the belief is an assent to a revealed proposition. You don't get one without the other.



> This is your dilemma, not mine. If you simply accepted the fact that knowledge contains a personal element you would be delivered from this dilemma. While you insist that all knowledge is propositional you are bound to Deify yourself in order to know God.



It isn't my dilemma because you cannot provide a valid distinction between "personal" knowledge and "propositional" knowledge. Assert all you will, but assertions are not proofs.



> It is if you believe the Scripture cannot be broken. In the end, however, it appears that your philosophy requires you to propositionally demonstrate the truthfulness of Scripture before it can be received as true. This is sad!



Quoting a verse from the Bible isn't the same thing as proving an argument from Scripture. Thousands of years of heretical proof-texting should convince you of that much. It is sad that you cannot make such a simple distinction.



> You are confusing the proposition with the thing to which the proposition refers. As soon as I allow for something unspeakable to affect the Christian life I am acknowledging an area of non-propositional, personal influence upon my Christianity. There is something about Christ I cannot understand for which I give thanks. Regrettably, you can only give thanks for a Christ you can contain within the propositional content of your mind.



Reread my previous reply to you, carefully please. I do not deny a distinction between the thing itself and knowledge of the thing. Nor do I disallow the unknown to impact the Christian life. God has hidden many things from us that He does not wish us to know. But all that God has revealed He has revealed in order that we may know, without doubting. I haven't argued that one must have exhaustive knowledge of Christ, or of God. You and Philip are the ones who are failing to make a distinction between knowledge and omniscience.

And to clarify my position a bit more: I do not believe that the propositions of my mind that a truths about God are derived from myself or any special cognitive ability. God, who is the fountainhead of Truth, is the only source by which Truth may be known. If I know anything at all, it is because God has graciously revealed it to my mind, not because I have conjured it in some autonomous fashion.


----------



## Prufrock

*[Moderator]
Please show respect and courtesy to one others in posts.
[/Moderator]*


----------



## MW

JTB said:


> How exactly is a testimony devoid of a proposition? The testimony of the Spirit is the impartation of belief that the proposition, "The Bible is God's Word" is true. The belief is imparted, but the belief is an assent to a revealed proposition. You don't get one without the other.



But you believe it for a reason other than a proposition supporting it. It is on the basis of the Person testifying the proposition that you believe it.



JTB said:


> It isn't my dilemma because you cannot provide a valid distinction between "personal" knowledge and "propositional" knowledge. Assert all you will, but assertions are not proofs.



It is your dlilemma, because you don't worship a God Who exceeds your propositional knowledge of Him. Your very refusal to accept the distinctiopn between personal and propositional binds you up to rational idolatry.



JTB said:


> Quoting a verse from the Bible isn't the same thing as proving an argument from Scripture. Thousands of years of heretical proof-texting should convince you of that much. It is sad that you cannot make such a simple distinction.



Unless you have an actual interpretative problem with the way I am applying that text of Scripture then what the heretics do with Scripture is irrelevant. What is the chaff to the wheat? If my application is relevant, then the Scripture stands without need of demonstration; unless of course you reject the testimony of Jesus.



JTB said:


> Nor do I disallow the unknown to impact the Christian life.



Mystics allow the unknown to impact the Christian life. Christians should not give themselves up to the unknown, 1 Corinthians 12:2, 3. This is yet another problem created by your commitment to rationalism.


----------



## Philip

> I assent to what is testified concerning Christ in the Scriptures. One cannot assent to something that isn't stated.



So in other words, to ask a person to trust you is a meaningless question. It would be better to ask them to assent to the proposition that you will not do them wrong.

I once heard of a student of Clark's whose proposal to his wife consisted of "I have decided to adopt a policy of love toward you." Naturally, she refused to accept the ring until he said "I love you."

But honestly--trust is more than assent--it involves action (or at least a will to action).



> It isn't presence that gives you knowledge of Luke, but what you infer from his presence, or by means of his communication (verbal or nonverbal) with you.



It's interaction and connection of spirit. I know my friend in a way that I do not know Barack Obama even though I might be in the same room with the President and have seen him on television.



> That is a difference that is propositional and, if you wish, personal. But it isn't personal without being propositional, as you wish to claim.



I'm not necessarily claiming that the two are mutually exclusive, just that mere intellectual knowledge is not enough.



> You are interacting with me. You read my expressed thoughts, and I read yours. I don't know what you look like, so I lack that information, but I believe certain things about you based upon what you've said, things that perhaps Luke doesn't know about you (unless you've had a conversation about the topic we're discussing with him as well as me).



Possibly a bad example. However, let's examine your knowledge of Luke. I may tell you all sorts of information about him, but unless you have an actual interaction with him, you cannot, in any real sense, be said to know him. Knowledge of persons is quite different, I would say, than knowledge of facts because this kind of knowledge requires experience.



> If you haven't thought enough about your own position to the point at which it cannot be stated without constant change, then you don't really have a position yet. You are just confused. It isn't very wise to argue that something is wrong when you are confused about what is correct



What I'm saying is that truth happens on two levels--personal and propositional. While I reject Kierkegaard's irrationalist attempt to elevate the personal to the exclusion of the propositional, I also reject the rationalist attempt to eliminate the personal.

We have here two categories: The propositional and the non-propositional. In the second category are two subcategories: the nonsensical and the personal.

I was tempted to put irrationality in there somewhere, but I realized that even logic can be nonsensical. As I have pointed out before, _Jabberwocky_ is perfectly logical, and also absolute nonsense (albeit delightful nonsense). Irrationality may happen in any of the three categories.



> You and Philip are the ones who are failing to make a distinction between knowledge and omniscience.



Seeing as I define knowledge differently than you do, I'm just trying to figure out where your definition of knowledge leads. If to know a proposition is to understand it exhaustively, that would mean understanding its relation to every other proposition.


----------



## JTB

armourbearer said:


> But you believe it for a reason other than a proposition supporting it. It is on the basis of the Person testifying the proposition that you believe it.



The testimony of a person is a proposition.



> It is your dlilemma, because you don't worship a God Who exceeds your propositional knowledge of Him. Your very refusal to accept the distinctiopn between personal and propositional binds you up to rational idolatry.



How can I accept a distinction that has not been demonstrated? Until you demonstrate that something personal can occur apart from something propositional, then I have no basis to accept a distinction.



> Unless you have an actual interpretative problem with the way I am applying that text of Scripture then what the heretics do with Scripture is irrelevant. What is the chaff to the wheat? If my application is relevant, then the Scripture stands without need of demonstration; unless of course you reject the testimony of Jesus.



I did disagree with your interpretation. I said the verse supported my position rather than yours. The gift given is saving knowledge of God. Until you prove that saving knowledge is personal without being propositional, the verse offers you no support in the argument, but rather begs the question.



> Mystics allow the unknown to impact the Christian life. Christians should not give themselves up to the unknown, 1 Corinthians 12:2, 3. This is yet another problem created by your commitment to rationalism.



I wonder if you are trying very hard to understand my words charitably. God's secret council is unknown, yet that council determines much about my life, and yours, and everyone else's life too. It is simply absurd to accuse me of limiting God to known propositions, when you argue against what is a plain acknowledgment on my part that God knows things that we don't, and never will--and those things still impact my life, though without my knowledge of how or in what specific case.

If you wish to knock down imagined specters and straw men, then don't let me interrupt you. When you grow weary you can begin interacting with what I'm actually articulating.

-----Added 10/27/2009 at 10:38:20 EST-----



P. F. Pugh said:


> So in other words, to ask a person to trust you is a meaningless question. It would be better to ask them to assent to the proposition that you will not do them wrong.



It isn't a meaningless question. To trust me is to trust what can be known about me. Saying, "I trust you," is identical to assenting to the proposition, "Joshua is trustworthy." The former is simply a different way of saying the latter, both of which are propositions (one about you, the other about me).



> I once heard of a student of Clark's whose proposal to his wife consisted of "I have decided to adopt a policy of love toward you." Naturally, she refused to accept the ring until he said "I love you."
> 
> But honestly--trust is more than assent--it involves action (or at least a will to action).



There is a sense in which assent is an action, a will to believe. There is also a sense in which it is entirely passive, the most apt analogy being that of light striking the eye, which causes us to see. But God has created us in such a way that what we know determines what we do. When someone acts contrary to an expressed belief (assent) it isn't because belief doesn't lead to action, but because they did not truly believe (assent). Assent always leads to action.



> It's interaction and connection of spirit. I know my friend in a way that I do not know Barack Obama even though I might be in the same room with the President and have seen him on television.



You're going to need to define what you mean by "spirit" here. When I say "spirit" I mean the mind. Do you mean an emotion? I'll grant that I feel a different emotion in the presence of my wife than I would in the presence of Barak Obama, but that's because what I believe about my wife is more satisfying to me than what I believe about Barak Obama.



> I'm not necessarily claiming that the two are mutually exclusive, just that mere intellectual knowledge is not enough.



Well claiming doesn't do you much until you've demonstrated how knowledge can be other than intellectual. I'm still waiting for something other than question begging, bald assertions, and irrelevant and unsupportive examples.



> Possibly a bad example. However, let's examine your knowledge of Luke. I may tell you all sorts of information about him, but unless you have an actual interaction with him, you cannot, in any real sense, be said to know him. Knowledge of persons is quite different, I would say, than knowledge of facts because this kind of knowledge requires experience.



If you tell me that Luke has brown hair, why can I not say that believe Luke has brown hair? What is the difference between your belief about Luke's hair and mine? I haven't seen Christ, but I know He is risen. I know this because it has been stated in Scripture. The eye witnesses knew it because it was demonstrated to their eyes. But they still inferred from the experience the meaning, and the meaning is a proposition that constitutes knowledge of what actually occurred. Throughout this entire exchange I've not denied that "personal" is a meaningful concept, or that is lacks value. All I've denied is that something "personal" is believed or known apart from the propositions that express whatever one marks as "personal."



> What I'm saying is that truth happens on two levels--personal and propositional. While I reject Kierkegaard's irrationalist attempt to elevate the personal to the exclusion of the propositional, I also reject the rationalist attempt to eliminate the personal.



I haven't eliminated the personal. I've simply defined it in such a way that doesn't appear to make sense to you. I cannot help the fact that it doesn't make sense to you, but it isn't true that I've eliminated it in some way.



> We have here two categories: The propositional and the non-propositional. In the second category are two subcategories: the nonsensical and the personal.



You really do make things up as you go, don't you?



> I was tempted to put irrationality in there somewhere, but I realized that even logic can be nonsensical. As I have pointed out before, _Jabberwocky_ is perfectly logical, and also absolute nonsense (albeit delightful nonsense). Irrationality may happen in any of the three categories.



Logic is not nonsensical. Only people's improper use of logic is nonsensical. Jabberwocky isn't nonsensical. It is a name of a fictional being in a poem. That makes perfect sense, don't you think?



> Seeing as I define knowledge differently than you do, I'm just trying to figure out where your definition of knowledge leads. If to know a proposition is to understand it exhaustively, that would mean understanding its relation to every other proposition.



Seeing as you've never, to my knowledge, defined knowledge, I have no idea what you are trying to do. I've never maintained that knowledge of a given proposition implies a knowledge of all propositions. Nor has anything I've said implies such a conclusion.


----------



## MW

JTB said:


> The testimony of a person is a proposition.



We have already been around this merry-go-round once. You obviously don't believe the proposition, "the Bible is true," on the basis of the proposition, "the Bible is true," because when I ask you why you believe "the Bible is true," you say it is because the Holy Spirit testifies it to your spirit. It is no longer the fact being attested to, but the act of testifying and specifically the One Who testifies, which is your court of appeal. Hence your faith is not dependent on the proposition so much as the One Who testifies the proposition.



JTB said:


> How can I accept a distinction that has not been demonstrated? Until you demonstrate that something personal can occur apart from something propositional, then I have no basis to accept a distinction.



You continue to create a rationalist dilemma to substantiate your rationalism. You will only accept propositional demonstration therefore you will not accept personal demonstration. On numerous fronts I have pointed out to you where the propositions points to realities known beyond the propositions. E.g., the worship of God, the testimony of the Spirit, the gift of Christ. You simply refuse to accept these personal demonstrations because you are a rationalist. But insofar as you are a rationalist you deny the superlative greatness of Christianity.



JTB said:


> I did disagree with your interpretation. I said the verse supported my position rather than yours. The gift given is saving knowledge of God. Until you prove that saving knowledge is personal without being propositional, the verse offers you no support in the argument, but rather begs the question.



The gift is actually Jesus Christ; but even allowing your definition, you yourself have now claimed that saving "knowledge" is unspeakable. By your own words you stand corrected and are bound to accept a non propositional aspect to knowledge.



JTB said:


> It is simply absurd to accuse me of limiting God to known propositions, when you argue against what is a plain acknowledgment on my part that God knows things that we don't, and never will--and those things still impact my life, though without my knowledge of how or in what specific case.



Here you make yourself your own worst enemy -- you have things you do not know which impact your life, but apparently you know they impact your life. How do you know? Demonstrate it propositionally? You can't; and yet you accept it, or should I say, in your words, you assert it. Time to wake up to the absurdity of your rationalism, don't you think.


----------



## JTB

armourbearer said:


> We have already been around this merry-go-round once. You obviously don't believe the proposition, "the Bible is true," on the basis of the proposition, "the Bible is true," because when I ask you why you believe "the Bible is true," you say it is because the Holy Spirit testifies it to your spirit. It is no longer the fact being attested to, but the act of testifying and specifically the One Who testifies, which is your court of appeal. Hence your faith is not dependent on the proposition so much as the One Who testifies the proposition.



I'm not denying that God's being is something other than God's testimony, nor am I denying that some forms of revelation are non discursive. But that doesn't negate the fact that knowledge is the result of understanding and assenting to a proposition. Knowing Jesus Christ is knowing that Jesus is the Christ. You cannot know one without the other.



> You continue to create a rationalist dilemma to substantiate your rationalism. You will only accept propositional demonstration therefore you will not accept personal demonstration. On numerous fronts I have pointed out to you where the propositions points to realities known beyond the propositions. E.g., the worship of God, the testimony of the Spirit, the gift of Christ. You simply refuse to accept these personal demonstrations because you are a rationalist. But insofar as you are a rationalist you deny the superlative greatness of Christianity.



You won't tell me what is a personal demonstration. So far all you've provided are propositions. That beings are there without the propositions that make them known doesn't constitute a knowledge of those beings. The worship of God, the testimony of the Spirit, and the gift of Christ are labels, or names. Names, in order to be understood, and therefore known, require definitions. Definitions are propositions. You cannot receive the gift of Christ without also knowing who Christ is, that is, without knowing something stated about him that is true: a proposition.



> The gift is actually Jesus Christ; but even allowing your definition, you yourself have now claimed that saving "knowledge" is unspeakable. By your own words you stand corrected and are bound to accept a non propositional aspect to knowledge.



I didn't say it was unspeakable. I said it wasn't revealed. God knows the secret council of His will, but He hasn't given that knowledge for us to know, although His secret council determines the world, therefore impacting our lives apart from our knowledge of how or in what particular case. It isn't that such knowledge is non-propositional, but rather that it is unknown because it has not been revealed.



> Here you make yourself your own worst enemy -- you have things you do not know which impact your life, but apparently you know they impact your life. How do you know? Demonstrate it propositionally? You can't; and yet you accept it, or should I say, in your words, you assert it. Time to wake up to the absurdity of your rationalism, don't you think.



Scripture testifies that there are hidden things of God that He has not chosen to reveal. One of the the frequent examples of God's hidden council is why He chooses to take a life precisely the moment he does. I do not know why God chose to take my grandmother's life when He did, but certainly his reason impacts my life, for He took my grandmother out of my life! Therefore something I do not know (why God took my grandmother when He did) impacts my life (my grandmother is no longer living) despite my lack of knowledge of God's secret council.


----------



## VictorBravo

JTB said:


> I didn't say it was unspeakable. I said it wasn't revealed.



Joshua, at the risk of being obvious, it was the Apostle Paul who said it was unspeakable. And you accepted the proposition.

It is pretty obvious that the passage is not saying that God withheld knowledge, but, rather, this particular knowledge is unutterable. Similar to the unutterable words in 2 Cor. 12:4.


I think this has been an edifying thread, but it is close to time to take a breather and give the discussion some good thought. It's going in circles at this point. 

Moderation

I'm going to shut it down after 15 or 20 minutes.


----------



## MW

JTB said:


> nor am I denying that some forms of revelation are non discursive.



Yes, that is precisely what you were denying. Your first response to me was, "trust isn't anything other than assent to something I've understood." If you would like to repudiate that assertion now that you have contradicted it with the acknowledgment of non discursive forms of revelation this discussion might advance in a profitable direction.



JTB said:


> You won't tell me what is a personal demonstration. So far all you've provided are propositions.



You have demanded propositions, so I have propositionally directed you to things about the Christian life that are non propositional which we know -- the testimony of the Spirit, the worship of God, the gift of Christ. In each instance you have all but admitted that these things are known and yet cannot be put into propositional statement. It is only self-justification which hinders you from adding a "yes" to what you have already affirmed.



JTB said:


> I didn't say it was unspeakable. I said it wasn't revealed. God knows the secret council of His will, but He hasn't given that knowledge for us to know, although His secret council determines the world, therefore impacting our lives apart from our knowledge of how or in what particular case. It isn't that such knowledge is non-propositional, but rather that it is unknown because it has not been revealed.



You are confusing paragraphs. This section of our discussion revolves around the biblical statement, "thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift." You did not introduce the decree until the next paragraph. You defined "unspeakable gift" as "saving knowledge." For the sake of argument I went with your definition, and insisted that you must accept this "saving knowledge" to be unspeakable, in accord with what the Scripture states. Now you are saying that this saving knowledge is unknown. That is a contradiction.



JTB said:


> Scripture testifies that there are hidden things of God that He has not chosen to reveal.



Well, if Scripture says it, it must be true. Hence you are bound to accept the Scripture testimony that there are things you know that affect your life that you cannot put in propositional form, e.g., what is going to happen to you tomorrow. You don't know what the future holds but you know Who holds the future. Your knowledge of future certainties depends upon the personal knowledge of God even though it defies propositional explanation. (Please do not send us on another merry-go-round by confusing the proposition with the thing proposed.)


----------



## Brian Withnell

JTB said:


> One does not have to know everything in order to know something.



Actually, either you know everything, or are basing what you know on someone that does know everything, or you are sure of knowing nothing.

If you don't know everything, then the information that you don't know could show everything that you think you know to be false ... unless you are basing what you think you know upon an authoritative source that does have all knowledge. Without a source that is omniscient, then all knowledge is without certainty at best (from a philosophical point of view). Of course once you have an omniscient source that supplies knowledge, then you have confidence to build upon what that source testifies. We do have such a source, and that source gives us confidence to know that what he has revealed cannot be false.


----------



## VictorBravo

OK, closed for the night.


----------

