Final Reply to Owen Anderson

Status
Not open for further replies.

owenanderson

Puritan Board Freshman
As a last final reply to Owen Anderson this thread has become very interesting! :)

Back to something PM said about wanting to protect young Christians from thinking something is easy only to find out it is not, this was a helpful glimpse into the possible psychology of what is going on. Having been convinced by some apologetic system that something or other is easy, you were overwhelmed at some point, and now you wish to show everyone else that this can also happen to them. This helps explain your approach. ;)

For instance, I tend to want to start of by asking others in the dialogue if we agree on the meaning of terms. We can then proceed slowly to build step by step to agreement. You start of by saying "here's what you think, and here are 10 quotes to show it is wrong, and here are 15 implications that are counter to Reformed Theology, and another 10 quotes to show that Reformed Theology has rejected those implications."

I think your initial approach (back when you thought something was easy) is different from what I am doing. I am not really doing apologetic work, although my work my have implications for it. I am not starting out saying "as a Christian, how do I show Christianity is true?" I'm starting out saying "as a human, am I responsible to know anything?"

It is one thing to find out that, subjectively speaking, it takes a ton of work to come to agreement on anything (thus, apologetic work is difficult not easy). It is another to say that nothing is clear and everything is clouded by a million qualifications--the implication seems to be skepticism as Rev. W is pointing out. This would have significant implications for the ethics of belief.

I think all of the concerns you've raised about my approach, internalism, O-I-C, doxastic voluntarism, focus on knowledge of God not salvation, can be addressed but, due to subjective concerns, it takes time. That it takes time does not mean that it is not clear.
 

owenanderson

Puritan Board Freshman
Sk[c]epticism

I think you're right that there is a kind of skepticism operating behind this method/approach.

At the end of the day you have managed to prove that the critique does in fact depend upon scepticism for its validity. Christians, who understand by faith, are left with no alternative but to reject this scepticism which masquerades under the name of philosophy, for the basic reason that it leaves them with no faith.[/QUOTE]
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
I also wonder if you guys can email R. Scott Clark and tell him that he has a position that leads to skepticism and people of faith should abandone what he says since he has a chapter in his Recovering book tittled: "The Irreligious Quest for Religious Certainty." Maybe he's just in the dark about Reformation theology history?

I am not sure if you really want to go there with respect to Rev. Winzer and Dr. R. Scott Clark.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/what-reformed-view-law-gospel-33247/

Then there is the representing the WSC's version of Two Kingdom's as The traditional Reformed version.

CT
 

Cheshire Cat

Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't know about P.M, but I sure am skeptical of philosophical theories (whether or not epistemological) that face an infinite regress, or other problems. Uh oh, guess I'm a skeptic...
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Funny, this is! You were giving a critique? And here I was all along assuming you were asking a question.

For the record, here is the question together with my clarifying statement: "Would this be true for Jesus also? Just asking to test the waters and see if the criticism against internalism is reducible to scepticism." Clearly I was forthright about my suspicions of scepticism lying behing the criticism.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Are you saying that traditionally Reformed Theology has affirmed infallible human knowledge (at least on some issues)? Do you have any references where I could see this explained or demonstrated more fully?

PB has a thread dealing with archetypal and ectypal theology. Richard Muller explains it in detail in vol. 1 of PRRD. Basically, what we have in the Bible -- the infallible rule of faith and life -- is not the knowledge of God as He knows Himself (archetype), but as accommodated and conceptualised in human form (ectype). Jesus Christ's human nature is the perfect possessor of this knowledge. In Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. As Prophet of the Church and Messenger of the Covenant He has revealed it to His people in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top