Poll - How Do We Know?

[Civbert]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Magma2]

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Civbert]

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

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

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

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

As an engineer, opinions are my bread and butter.

Knowledge is my salvation.

 

[Magma2]

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As an engineer, opinions are my bread and butter.

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

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

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

and you answer:

"It is my opinion that it will not."

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Magma2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace.

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Board,

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

The Axiom of Revelation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will stop at this point, and await comment.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Magma2]

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

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

First, see Brian's post above up.

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

That lc and lem are deliverances of scripture comes from 1 John 2:21:

No falsehood (pseudos) is of the truth.

That as it stands is a pretty good declaration of the law of contradiction. It says that there is no proposition (x) that is both a falsehood and of the truth (ie a member of the class of true propositions).

Note that this is a universal negative. That is, it applies to every member of the class, which in this case is propositions. Now, that it applies to all propositions not just those in scripture should be obvious from the fact that there are no falsehoods in scripture.

Let Tx stand for 'x is of the truth', and Fx stand for x is a falsehood.

Then we can put it into symbolic logic as:

~3x(Fx & Tx) ---(1)

where '~' means 'not' and '3x' means 'there exists an x'

By de Morgans laws this is equivalent to:

~3x~(~Fx + ~Tx) ---(2)

Now in scripture there are (as far as I can see) only two types of proposition spoken of: true ones and false ones. (If you disagree then please show where scripture indicates differently.) Also as far as I can see these two are in contradiction to one another (see the references Sean gave the other day). Again if you disagree then please show the error from scripture. If this is the case

That being the case (2) can be rewritten as:

~3x~(Tx + Fx)

Then by quantifier conversion this becomes:

(x)(Tx + Fx)

(where '(x)' means 'for all x')

Restating this in longhand it becomes:

For every proposition, x, it is the case that either x is of the truth or x is a falsehood.

And that is the law of the excluded middle.

[I used predicate logic first because it is easier to see what is going on and since when talking about contradictions predicate logic and aristotilian logic give the same results.]

For completeness, I shall do the same with Aristotilian logic:

No falsehood is of the truth can be written formally as:

E(F,T)

which by conversion can also be written as:

E(T,F)

As I said that is as good a statement as any of lc.

Then by obversion this becomes:

A(T,F')

and since T is equivalent to F' (as stated previously) we get

A(T, T) ---(3)

which is the law of identity.

Now recall from Clark's "Logic" that the universal affirmative can be written in symbolic terms as:

A(a, b) = (a < b)[(b < a) + (a < b')'(b' < a)']

So substituting from (3) into this gives:

(T < T)[(T < T) + (T < T')'(T' < T)]

Expanding gives:

(T < T)(T < T) + (T < T)(T < T')'(T' < T)

I am not going to go through this step by step (you can check it for yourself) but it should be pretty obvious that the left hand side of this disjunction reduces to 'T" and the right hand side reduces to 'F'

So we have:

T + F

Which is the law of the excluded middle, and states that every proposition is either of the truth or is a falsehood.

As a final note. This should be taken as a demonstration that lc and lem are deliverances of scripture. Since one has to assume them in order to proceed it constitutes proof only in the sense of implicit self reference along the lines of 2 Tim 3:16 or God swearing by himself.

Hope that helps.

 

[MW]

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

 

[Bladestunner316]

I said the Bible God's revelation to man.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Anthony,

You have said (in post 34),

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

Can I know that I am “in Christ”? And that He is in me? John 15:4-7 not only asserts it, but commands it. I am in Him by His own initiation and activity to the end (already realized, albeit not in its final phase) that I am one of His sheep, who shall never perish (John 10:27, 28). I know I am elect, as I am united to the Elector by virtue of His word and His Spirit.

You also said (post 32),

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

I would say Yes, I know this (with absolute certainty), although I do not keep them perfectly, for it is within the pale of His commandments to repent, confess and seek His restorative grace when I do fail. Thus keeping “short accounts” with Him is to keep His commandments. “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father…”

I am concerned when you say,

Because if you "know" at that level, then you can just kick back and not bother with all these "good works" because you "know" you are saved and nothing can change that.​

For knowing “at that level” does not cause one to “just kick back and not bother” but to the contrary, fills one with a joyous energy born of love and gratitude for the “epistemic certainty” of being irrevocably in His love and care. What I hear from you is an earning born of uncertainty.

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

 

[Civbert]

Steve,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

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

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

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

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

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Anthony,

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

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

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

----------

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

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

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

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

Steve

 

[Magma2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Anthony,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to look beyond the personalities and consider the truth. For instance, Sean often comes across as harsh and insensitive (especially to those who disagree with him). But when people object to him, very frequently ignore the vast majority of his arguments. And I think the reason why is that they don't have an answer to them. Of course, this makes them more irritated and hostile.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

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


P.S.

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

 

[Magma2]

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

I really enjoyed this one. Great line.

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

 

[Civbert]

I really enjoyed this one. Great line.

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

Sure! Occasionally I can get creative.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

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

Anthony:

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

-------

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

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

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

You say,

"Union with Christ" now means some sort of mystical experiences beyond words. No one explains it because it's not a "rational" concept.​

I have often explained this "rationally" when preaching on this topic or these verses, but when talking with mature believers it is not usually necessary. How would you talk about union with Christ, then?

Steve

 

[Magma2]

How would you talk about union with Christ, then?

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Steve,

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

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

Anthony:

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

-------

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say,

"Union with Christ" now means some sort of mystical experiences beyond words. No one explains it because it's not a "rational" concept.​

I have often explained this "rationally" when preaching on this topic or these verses, but when talking with mature believers it is not usually necessary. How would you talk about union with Christ, then?

Steve

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

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

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

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