If I claim that there is a desk in front of me, what makes it true? The fact that there is, in fact, a desk in front of me. In an ultimate sense this is because God decreed this, but in the most immediate sense, the truth-maker is the fact itself.
I will happily agree with you here. Yes, there are secondary causes, as well as mediums.
I also don't mind saying that certain facts are human constructs: for example, I am currently in the State of Georgia. However, the borders that define the State of Georgia are a human construct and depend on there being a government which all acknowledge has authority over this state. When we talk about truth-makers, we are simply talking about why X is X in an immediate sense.
I agree with you here as well, and I am glad that you clarified your position that X is X in an 'immediate' or apparent sense.
Again, we're skirting Divine occasionalism here. The logical conclusion of this is that there is no causal relationship between my seeing the desk and my having knowledge that the desk is there---instead, my seeing the desk is an occasion for God to impose knowledge upon my mind. If we go further with this, when I read Scripture, my knowledge of God is occasioned by my reading of the Word, but is, in fact, imposed on me by God on that occasion. Sound familiar? (this is the view of Karl Barth, by the way)
I have never held to this view, and if my arguments have made it seem like I do, that was not my intention. It would be similar to discussing human action with a hard-determinist (just as Vincent Cheung. He argues that when man acts sinfully, it is God who is DIRECTLY causing the man not only to have a sinful desire but to also have a sinful act. He would actually argue that God IS the author of sin. I myself hold to a compatibilist view, and I think that this would be true concerning our understanding of knowledge. Yes, I would never deny that man can actually know things. I was only trying to show that man has ALWAYS 'known' God first. It would be impossible for a man to know something without knowing God in his sense of the divine. This is not to be confused as me saying that God 'knows' something FOR you, or anything similar to what Barth would say.
I don't think I need to explain why this is absurd. Further, when we talk about revelation, we are talking about God revealing Himself. When we talk about general revelation, we are talking about the way that God reveals Himself in creation. We are not talking about God showing me that there is a desk---we are talking about God showing me something of Himself in the created order through the medium of the desk. Revelation is a medium.
Wholeheartedly agree.
When we talk about God's sovereignty in knowledge, we are talking about attitudes toward it and the way that we recognize our dependence upon God and thank Him for our belief-oriented capabilities. I suppose that it's true that there is sovereign decree involved here, but that's not the reason for it.
I am not sure what you mean when you say: "that's not the reason for it." I mean, it like saying: what is the reason why Jesus died on the cross? Well, the 'immediate' reason is that the Romans and Jewish leaders put him there because they wanted him dead. The ultimate reason is that God had preordained that this would happen as part of his redemptive plan. In the same way, I agree that you YOURSELF know things in an immediate sense, but in an ultimate sense the REASON you know anything is that God decreed and ordained that you would. What I mean by God 'revealing' things is not the way Barth means the term. What I mean is that if God has decreed for me not to know something, then I will not know it. If God decrees that I will be born blind, never knowing things in a visual sense, than I will not know them. I think we should indeed draw a parallel between God's relationship between us and our choices as well as us and our knowledge.
Consider this:
If God has decreed X, X is true
If God has not decreed X, X is not true
Therefore, if X is true, God has decreed it
This establishes only that God wills whatsoever comes to pass. It does not follow, though, that God is the direct cuase of everything, nor does it make Him the truth-maker. It merely means that nothing comes to pass without God allowing it.
Completely agree. Again, I never said he was the DIRECT cause of everything. I have always believed in secondary causes (which are also believed by Edwards, Van Til, and others).
Then here's my advice to you: get to know these disciplines as disciplines so that you avoid making mistakes. If you're going to talk about epistemology, start reading up on it, get to know its methods and in particular, find out the issues that Christian epistemologists are addressing. Warranted Christian Belief by Plantinga is a good start.
Believe me Philip, I have read a good amount of information and plan to read much more. You make it sound as if I never even cracked open a book about epistemology. Please do not jump to conclusions, and I ask that you show at least some respect in the same way that I have shown you respect. I mean, we ALL could use a little more learning, and I doubt that any of us have read ALL the writings on a particular topic to no longer need to read anymore. Have you read them all? Have you read ALL of Oliphint, Van Til, or Bahnsen? Whether you did or not, I won't patronize you by suggesting that you need to 'start reading up on it', as if this is something you have never done before.
