I see a tree outside my window -

[Magma2]

One may affirm apparent contradiction in the true sense, that things might appear contradictory but after further reflection it can be ascertained that no law of logic is being violated. Mysteries are often like that. They might appear contradictory on the surface but after further study one finds no contradiction.

Your excusing Van Til´s idea the contradictory nature of Scripture is impressive. I could perhaps sympathize with your embarrassment over his overt attack on the doctrine of Scripture, but sticking your head in the sand is hardly admirable.

Further your ignorance of history, even recent history, is shameful. Van Til and his disciples have, to this day, viciously attack anyone who would dare harmonize so-called paradoxes of Scripture which they have deemed impervious to "œhuman reason." While the prime example of these attacks were leveled against Clark for attempting to harmonize one of these Van Tilian "œapparent contradictions," spend some time observing Van Tilians debate the contradictions entailed in the so-called "œWell Meant Offer." So if you have any evidence you´d like to put forward where Bahnsen distanced himself from Van Til´s errant and paradoxical view of Scripture and analogous view of truth please provide some citations now.

Quote:
After citing an example of divine foreordination and human freedom, Bahnsen writes: In this and many other cases, human knowledge may have a paradoxical cast to it, then; we affirm as truths things that may appear to be contradictory. 233-234


Sean, do you really think this makes your case? Things "œmay" have a paradoxical cast to it is not to suggest that after further reflection Bahnsen did not embrace those "œapparent" contradictions as simply mysteries that he understood violated no law of non-contradiction.

LOL Bahnsen; "œwe affirm as truths things that may appear to be contradictory . . . ." You might, but I don´t. If truths appear contradictory then arguably one of these "œtruths" is not true at all for we know that one side of any contradiction must be, not may be, false. Since we´re talking about God´s Word I also would suspect that the problem lies with me and that I need to seek the Lord with all the more diligence in order to resolve these apparent contradictions in my own mind. OTOH, if the contradiction must stand as Van Tilians assert, then I think I would be justified in concluding the bible is false. Of course I would be attacked as a "rationalist" by Van Tilians for even suggesting such a thing. For them, piety is measured by the degree one is willing to commit intellectual suicide in the name of Christ. If I were a Van Tilian like Bahnsen, I would bow my head in pious submissionn to nonsense and affirm contradictory propositions. After all, this is what Bahnsen says we should do for it is the heart of the Van Tilian Creator/creature distinction.

Regardless, Bahnsen NOWHERE distances himself from what Van Til actually taught in that book or in anything I have read or heard from him. Instead of facing this sad fact you try and excuse him.

Van Til on the other hand said that God is one person and three persons, which is not merely an apparent contradiction that relieves itself on further reflection "“ it´s a true contradiction. Now where did Bahnsen affirm anything like that?

What do you mean he didn´t affirm anything like that? "œVan Til produced valuable studies in the area of Christian theology (e.g., on equal ultimacy in the Trinity . . . )." Now, I´ve read Bahnsen´s book, I´ve listened to tapes by him, I´ve read a number of his published articles, but nowhere have I ever read his repudiation of Van Til´s doctrine of Scripture, the Trinity, biblical paradox, analogy . . . anything! So please show me where he rejects statements from VT like; "œOur knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical" and "œall teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory." Instead, it seems to me, he affirms this hallmark of Van Tilianism when he asserts "œwe affirm as truths things that may appear to be contradictory . . . ." He everywhere seems to be in complete agreement with VT when he said; "œWhile we shun as poison the idea of the really contradictory, we embrace with passion the idea of the apparently contradictory." Bahnsen shared his mentor´s passion.

That´s my point in separating Bahnsen from Van Til and even Frame. Bahnsen was too charitable to Van Til in my estimation.

We agree, then why all the disagreement? Given what you´ve said concerning VT´s unorthodox and contradictory doctrine of the Trinity, I have no idea why you´re being so charitable to Bahnsen who did NOTHING to combat these crippling errors in Van Til´s though. Instead, like the Van Tilian pit bull he was, he attacked Clark and Scripturalists as a "œrationalist" and anyone openly critical of his master.

For instance, in the footnote for that exact quote you referenced Bahnsen writes: "œVan Til went out of his way to make it clear that he was actually talking only about the appearance of contradiction to man "“ not that there is actually any logical contradiction."

Van Tilians have been making this lame excuse for years. However, my problem is; What is the difference between the "œreally contradictory" and the "œapparently contradictory"? and, Is there any method by which we can tell one class of contradictions from the other? If there is no such method, what are the meaning and purpose of asserting that all Scripture is "œapparently contradictory"? Does not such an assertion encourage laziness in Bible study, commend ignorance, and elevate clerics and academics, especially those of the Vantilian stripe, into a new priestly class who alone can peer into the Biblical stew of apparent contradictions, antinomies, tensions, analogies, and insoluble paradoxes and demand assent to their contradictory view of truth on the basis of nothing more than their own authority?

This is Bahnsen at his worst, no doubt. For Van Til argued that we must violate logic, which Bahnsen did not affirm. Bahnsen tried to interpret Van Til in a way that defied Van Til´s actual thought.

This is an extremely charitable reading of Bahnsen, but where is the proof? Where did he defy Van Til on any of these points? Where is Bahnsen´s critique of Van Til´s doctrine of Scripture? Where is his critique of VT´s doctrine of the Trinity? Where is anything that supports your interpretation of Bahnsen? He always appeared to me to be a thorough going and devoted Vantilian. Admittedly his application and focus was quite a bit different from that of Frame, but, as I´ve pointed out, instead of distancing himself from Frame´s piece, "œVan Til the Theologian,"he commends it to his readers. I´m sorry Ron. While your remarks here give me a new appreciation for you, they have done nothing to alter my assessment of Bahnsen.

 

[Magma2]

Explain, how one can even hold to a presupposition, without utilizing the empyrical data or reason.

Can a deaf, mute, blind, leper that cannot smell and is also mentally handicapped know anything?

Along with the other question I´ve raised which I´m still waiting for you to answer, please explain how one can come to a knowledge of, say, justification by belief alone, from black ink marks on a page? If you want to include your blind friends you can use bumps stamped on a page if you prefer? As for your leper friend, how you can arrive at the knowledge of anything from smell is even more of a mystery to me, but we can work on that.

In any case, propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences and the Scriptures contain thousands of propositions. These, however, are not made from ink and paper. Per the Scriptures these are God´s thoughts and as such are "œspiritually discerned." That's because God is immaterial and is not found in black ink on a white page. If He were then everyone who reads his bible should come to the truth of God. Yet, I´ve been talking to Catholics almost daily now who read their bibles but are clueless concerning the truth of God and His great salvation in Jesus Christ. It seems in spite of these black marks their minds are mired in superstition and error which I fear is to the damnation of their souls. Maybe you can explain how they can deduce the truths of Scripture from ink marks for their benefit if not my own?

 

[Ron]

Your excusing Van Til´s idea the contradictory nature of Scripture is impressive.

Sean,

I don't believe that I am excusing Van Til in the least. I'm simply pointing out that by Bahnsen reinterpreting Van Til he did not affirm VT in this regard.

So if you have any evidence you´d like to put forward where Bahnsen distanced himself from Van Til´s errant and paradoxical view of Scripture and analogous view of truth please provide some citations now.

Are you resting your case on a fallacious argument from silence? "Produce where Bahnsen disagreed with VT or else we must assume that he agreed with VT." I've addressed this point already, though I needed not because it's fallacious. In any case, Bahnsen distanced himself from what VT actually stated by reinterpreting VT to say something that he never said consistently. Consequently, Bahnsen would not have distanced himself from VT for Bahnsen reinterpreted VT. By the way, VT makes many statements that are very Clarkian in this regard, which indicates VT confusion over this matter. Bahnsen highlighted those statements in fact, making them out to be the de-facto position of VT. Accordingly, given Bahnsen's revisions of VT, you shouldn't expect to find any disagreement from Bahnsen in his lectures or writings.

Now, I´ve read Bahnsen´s book, I´ve listened to tapes by him, I´ve read a number of his published articles, but nowhere have I ever read his repudiation of Van Til´s doctrine of Scripture, the Trinity, biblical paradox, analogy . . . anything!

Again, you´re arguing from silence. Must you repudiate everything you disagree with from Robbins in order not to be found guilty of agreeing with him on those matters?

We agree, then why all the disagreement? Given what you´ve said concerning VT´s unorthodox and contradictory doctrine of the Trinity, I have no idea why you´re being so charitable to Bahnsen"¦

I´m not being charitable to Bahnsen. I´ve plainly stated that he did not affirm what VT consistently taught. I, also, noted that Bahnsen did not represent VT´s views accurately in my estimation. What more would you like me to do, Sean? I´ve tried to be truthful with respect to these men, no more no less.

Ron

 

[Saiph]

Originally posted by Magma2

Explain, how one can even hold to a presupposition, without utilizing the empyrical data or reason.

Can a deaf, mute, blind, leper that cannot smell and is also mentally handicapped know anything?

Along with the other question I´ve raised which I´m still waiting for you to answer, please explain how one can come to a knowledge of, say, justification by belief alone, from black ink marks on a page? If you want to include your blind friends you can use bumps stamped on a page if you prefer? As for your leper friend, how you can arrive at the knowledge of anything from smell is even more of a mystery to me, but we can work on that.

In any case, propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences and the Scriptures contain thousands of propositions. These, however, are not made from ink and paper. Per the Scriptures these are God´s thoughts and as such are "œspiritually discerned." That's because God is immaterial and is not found in black ink on a white page. If He were then everyone who reads his bible should come to the truth of God. Yet, I´ve been talking to Catholics almost daily now who read their bibles but are clueless concerning the truth of God and His great salvation in Jesus Christ. It seems in spite of these black marks their minds are mired in superstition and error which I fear is to the damnation of their souls. Maybe you can explain how they can deduce the truths of Scripture from ink marks for their benefit if not my own?

Maybe this thread is a phantom of my mind. I am not going to argue with phantoms. Since nothing you have said is directly stated in scripture, I guess I do not have to believe any of it.

And, in your postmodern take on the bible, since the ink marks do not correlate to real words with real meanings that I can rationally and empyrically look up in a dictionary, then the bible need not be the only word of God. I suppose I could read Melville, and if God wants to talk to me through Moby Dick then He will. The ink marks are irrelevant then, it is only the mind of God directly speaking to my mind that matters . . . not reading the words of scripture on a page and God's spirit illuminating their spiritual reality.

Dream on . . .

 

[Magma2]

Are you resting your case on a fallacious argument from silence?

I´ve provided quotes and evidence. You remain blind. Your hero worship borders on idiolatry Ron.

you shouldn't expect to find any disagreement from Bahnsen in his lectures or writings.

Of course not he was a Van Tilian like Frame and the rest.

Quote:
Now, I´ve read Bahnsen´s book, I´ve listened to tapes by him, I´ve read a number of his published articles, but nowhere have I ever read his repudiation of Van Til´s doctrine of Scripture, the Trinity, biblical paradox, analogy . . . anything!

Again, you´re arguing from silence. Must you repudiate everything you disagree with from Robbins in order not to be found guilty of agreeing with him on those matters?

Bahnsen affirms and praises VT´s view of the Trinity, is in agreement with Frame on paradox, appeals to the anti-biblical "œmystery" in light of VT doctrine of apparent contradictions in Christian doctrine yet you say this is an argument from silence! Score so far; Sean 1, Ron 0.

What more would you like me to do, Sean? I´ve tried to be truthful with respect to these men, no more no less.

I would like you to face the truth about your hero Bahnsen. I see now that was too much to ask.

 

[Magma2]

Maybe this thread is a phantom of my mind.

It might be, how would you know? You think your assertions should suffice, but I see you´re not even interested in taking the first step into tackling the problems of epistemology so I guess you will remain untouched in your empirical stupor.

Since nothing you have said is directly stated in scripture, I guess I do not have to believe any of it.

You´re wrong Mark. 1 Cor 2:14; "œBut the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Also you might consider Rom 8:5-8:

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

And, in your postmodern take on the bible, since the ink marks do not correlate to real words with real meanings that I can rationally and empyrically look up in a dictionary, then the bible need not be the only word of God. I suppose I could read Melville, and if God wants to talk to me through Moby Dick then He will. The ink marks are irrelevant then, it is only the mind of God directly speaking to my mind that matters . . . not reading the words of scripture on a page and God's spirit illuminating their spiritual reality.

You´re right, ink mark are irrelevant and they are arbitrary. For example, I can stare for hours at the Chinese portion of the menu at my local Chinese restaurant and I guarantee that they´ll provide no occasion whatsoever in helping me decide what to order. The rest of your sentence is actually quite good.

Dream on . . .

Wake up.

 

[Ron]

God's speed, Sean.

Ron

 

[Myshkin]

Sean and Anthony-

Did the Apostles, etc. really see Christ in the flesh? Or was he just an idea planted in their heads by God's grace that allowed them to see his human form?

Suppose scripture is the only base of knowledge as you assert. Were the people reading the gospel of John while Christ was on earth, and therefore they could deduce that Christ was physically standing in front of them? Or regardless of what they thought of who he was, is it possible that they still saw him in the flesh?

Induction/empirical method does not need to be reduced to pure empiricism, as Clark did. Of course pure empricism is wrong. But this does not mean that one should swing the other way and declare absolute idealism as true. I wish you guys could see, when reduced to its logical conclusions, where this stuff takes you. I don't want to to debate it, I just am concerned that you guys don't see it. I truly do care, even though I don't know you. I have been down the path and paid dearly for it. I feel I would be neglecting my duty to love my brothers if I did not show concern for where they are heading. This may be a stumbling block, or it may cause you to have contempt for me. Either way, I am just trying to help.

 

[JohnV]

Alan:

You raise a good point. I too was wondering about that, and Moses and the burning bush, etc. But most of all I'm wodering where Christ is now? He said He would never leave us, and I personally can witness that He spoke the truth, and that His Spirit daily illumines not only my mind, but my heart. In other words, God acts into epistemology just as He acts into history.

For those of you who know your church history, does this not ring a bell with you?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by RAS
Sean and Anthony-

Did the Apostles, etc. really see Christ in the flesh? Or was he just an idea planted in their heads by God's grace that allowed them to see his human form?

Yes they saw him. But they didn't know he was the Messiah until he *revealed* that to them. The "seeing" Christ in the flesh didn't lead them to any positive knowledge. Clark's theory of knowledge is not restricted to the Bible - it's restricted to *revelation*. The epistemology at heart is that knowledge is *revelation*. What God thinks is knowledge. And God's written revelation is part of God's thoughts. We have it in a written form so that we can determine what things we believe are true because they are found in Scripture - or if they are merely things we believe without any rational foundation.

Originally posted by RAS

Suppose scripture is the only base of knowledge as you assert. Were the people reading the gospel of John while Christ was on earth, and therefore they could deduce that Christ was physically standing in front of them? Or regardless of what they thought of who he was, is it possible that they still saw him in the flesh?

Does it matter? They only knew "who" his was because he *told* them - not because they *saw* him. And they had the Old Testament - the same Scriptures used by Christ as prove of his teachings. Mose's had revelation directly from God. Eve had revelation from God, but believed her eyes instead. Noah believed God against all the empirical evidence at hand. He took God's word for knowledge, and not what his eyes and reason told him.

Do you think the Scriptures were based on the observations of men, or are they "God breathed" as Scripture claims. The Apostles and other writers of God's Words were not simply writing their memories - they were writing what God intended them to write. Each word is God's word, each thought is His thought. And with this foundation for truth, we can justify the truth of our beliefs, to see if they are God's thoughts our just man's opinions.

So the question is irrelevant. What they knew were those things *revealed* to them that they believed. And this was against much of what they saw or could have reasoned from sensations.

Originally posted by RAS

Induction/empirical method does not need to be reduced to pure empiricism, as Clark did. Of course pure empiricism is wrong. But this does not mean that one should swing the other way and declare absolute idealism as true. I wish you guys could see, when reduced to its logical conclusions, where this stuff takes you.

Clark did no wrong in showing the fallacy of empiricism. And he did not reject induction as a tool for understanding. He just made sure that it was clear the induction has it limits. Clark used induction when he wrote his commentaries. Clearly he did not reject induction. He rejected empiricism and rationalism. If you blend the two, you still have not solved the issues of knowledge. The problem with both rationalism and empiricism is their first principles are insufficient to produce any rational system of thought. They provide no rational foundation. And Clark solved that with the axiom of Scripture.

I don't want to to debate it, I just am concerned that you guys don't see it.

Too late! You've already given arguments in response to the thread, like it our not - you're debating!

Originally posted by RAS

I truly do care, even though I don't know you. I have been down the path and paid dearly for it. I feel I would be neglecting my duty to love my brothers if I did not show concern for where they are heading. This may be a stumbling block, or it may cause you to have contempt for me. Either way, I am just trying to help.

I appreciate your concern. But I don't think the problem is with my understanding. I think there are people who have given many bad arguments against Clark's Scripturalism because they simply don't understand it. They either extend it beyond what Clark intended, or they have a pre-commitment to Vantillianism, or some other reason. The path that Scripturalism takes is fine. It doesn't give people what they want all the time, but that doesn't really matter. What matter's is how well if does at helping us justify true beliefs. It keeps our beliefs from being irrational, and it accounts for our experiences. And it does so without making the errors in thinking that are frequent among Christians.

Ironically, if *only* Christianity provided the "preconditions of intelligibility" - why are some many Christian so irrational? It certainly fails the induction and empirical tests. Why are so many un-believers much more rational in their thinking? "Borrowed capital" seems to be the answer. Apparently they borrowed it and still haven't returned it.

I'd recommend you read God and Logic by Clark. He does a much better job explaining how his epistemology works.

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by JohnV
... He said He would never leave us, and I personally can witness that He spoke the truth, and that His Spirit daily illumines not only my mind, but my heart. In other words, God acts into epistemology just as He acts into history.

For those of you who know your church history, does this not ring a bell with you?

Heart and mind are the same thing in Scripture. Both terms are used for emphasis. Like "flesh and bone", or "sprit and soul". The heart being the center of emotion and "unspeakable" knowledge is a modern, but I think it might have come from the Greeks. It's certainly not a Biblical dichotomy.

[Edited on 3-23-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Magma2]

Did the Apostles, etc. really see Christ in the flesh? Or was he just an idea planted in their heads by God's grace that allowed them to see his human form?

Define "œsee" ? That is not a facetious question, but a very serious one.

Suppose scripture is the only base of knowledge as you assert. Were the people reading the gospel of John while Christ was on earth, and therefore they could deduce that Christ was physically standing in front of them? Or regardless of what they thought of who he was, is it possible that they still saw him in the flesh?

I didn´t realize the gospel of John was written while Christ was on earth? But in answer to your many questions I would refer you to Mat. 16:13ff. I can´t find a corresponding passage in John´s Gospel. Sorry.

Induction/empirical method does not need to be reduced to pure empiricism, as Clark did. Of course pure empricism is wrong. But this does not mean that one should swing the other way and declare absolute idealism as true.

You´re confusing two separate issues, but I think you´re on the right track. The problem with induction (a complete induction excepted) is that its conclusions are always false. The problems entailed in empiricism are much deeper and consequently much worse.

I wish you guys could see, when reduced to its logical conclusions, where this stuff takes you.

Why don´t you show me were "œthis stuff" will take me? As far as I can see it takes me to a rejection of fallacious arguments and question begging, which you evidently accept without argument, and positing the Scriptures alone as the sole source of knowledge in its place.

I don't want to to debate it, I just am concerned that you guys don't see it. I truly do care, even though I don't know you. I have been down the path and paid dearly for it. I feel I would be neglecting my duty to love my brothers if I did not show concern for where they are heading. This may be a stumbling block, or it may cause you to have contempt for me. Either way, I am just trying to help.

While I think you´re being a bit melodramatic and more than a little sanctimonious, I think it would be more helpful if you would demonstrate your concern and begin by defining what you mean by "œsee" above.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by Magma2

While I think you´re being a bit melodramatic and more than a little sanctimonious...

Wow. Sean, I am sorry you feel this way and presume these qualities about my concern. When someone shared the gospel with you for the first time, would you say they were being melodramatic and sanctimonious? I guess you can not see my genuineness because God has not revealed it to you yet, eh? Why do you insult those who seek to help, even if you disagree with the content?

I think this is a perfect example of how this system of thought not only messes with the christian faith, it messes with how one treats other people. Since you do not know everything about me, you, according to your system, know nothing about me, but apparently what I have said to you God has revealed to you as insincere. No hard feelings though. I will not return in kind. God bless you.

As to JohnV's question. It does resemble some history, and that's why I brought it up. I am thinking of docetism/gnosticism.

 

[Myshkin]

Anthony-

Thanks for your response. I'll try to respond briefly in a more conversational tone, and not one as if we are standing behind opposing podiums.

Originally posted by Civbert

Yes they saw him. But they didn't know he was the Messiah until he *revealed* that to them. The "seeing" Christ in the flesh didn't lead them to any positive knowledge. Clark's theory of knowledge is not restricted to the Bible - it's restricted to *revelation*. The epistemology at heart is that knowledge is *revelation*. What God thinks is knowledge. And God's written revelation is part of God's thoughts. We have it in a written form so that we can determine what things we believe are true because they are found in Scripture - or if they are merely things we believe without any rational foundation.

Honestly, how is this any different from pantheism? Of course scripture is fully rational, and of course God has revealed himself through it. But how is what your stating as the method of how this knowledge is transimitted to the subject (humans) any different from pantheism?

Also, if they did see him physically and not just spiritually (you did agree they saw him), then you are admitting that some knowledge comes in through the senses. It seems that you and Sean disagree that he was seen.

But regardless of what they believed about him as revelation as the savior and lord, etc., if they did not actually see a human being in front of them, (again, regardless of the significance of his humanity), and only saw an image as projected through a recollection of previous knowledge, then this is gnostic docetism. Either Christ was truly in human form or he was just an image of thought. Which do you say he was?

Originally posted by Civbert

Do you think the Scriptures were based on the observations of men, or are they "God breathed" as Scripture claims.

Both. It is a false dillema you have posed. God in his wisdom used his creation and the things in it in the lives of men and their experiences when He breathed his scripture through them. Truth is not based on man's creation or observance, but God did use his truth, that men subjectively observed. The orthodox position on the inspiration of scripture is the verbal/plenary position. If one thinks that there are no human elements in the composition of scripture than they are promoting the mechanical/dictation theory.

Originally posted by RAS
I wish you guys could see, when reduced to its logical conclusions, where this stuff takes you.

When I said this, I am referring to what I fleshed out more above regarding pantheism, and theory of inspiration. Gnosticism is where this stuff leads. This does not mean you are a gnostic. I am just hoping you think about this before you get that far. You are probably concerned that I am a materialist. I will tell you I side with the classical/evidential side and I am aware that to some presupps (Clarkian or Van Tillian) this disqualifies me altogether. If you think this is so, so be it. But that does not mean your position is therefore necessarily true.

Originally posted by Civbert

I'd recommend you read God and Logic by Clark. He does a much better job explaining how his epistemology works.

I have read it. I have read most of his books. I have read those who are sympathetic to him. I have read those who have modified him. I have read those who disagree with him.

As a side note, why is this not an appeal to authority fallacy? (It isn't one of course), I just found it funny that you accused me of that earlier for doing the same thing you have just done.

Originally posted by RAS

I truly do care, even though I don't know you. I have been down the path and paid dearly for it. I feel I would be neglecting my duty to love my brothers if I did not show concern for where they are heading. This may be a stumbling block, or it may cause you to have contempt for me. Either way, I am just trying to help.

Again, I do mean this with all sincerety. I hope that your trying to convince me of your position is of the same attitude and not one of trying to win a debate and win a debate only.

-Allan

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by RAS

Originally posted by Magma2

While I think you´re being a bit melodramatic and more than a little sanctimonious...

I think this is a perfect example of how this system of thought not only messes with the christian faith, it messes with how one treats other people. Since you do not know everything about me, you, according to your system, know nothing about me, but apparently what I have said to you God has revealed to you as insincere. No hard feelings though. I will not return in kind. God bless you.

How nice Sean or I am to you has nothing to do Scripturalism. God didn't tell him you were being insincere - and nothing in Scripturalism would warrant that claim. His comment was likely a result of personal experience (i.e. it was merely his opinion). I think you're way outside the bounds of what Scripturalism entails.

And this shouldn't be about personalities. If you want to examine personalties, Martin Luther could be a real jerk - are you going to say that was due to his doctrine? And Pope John Paul was a sweet-heart. And what about Gandhi. I'm sure he's led more people to hell then most, all the while looking like a lovely guy. I doubt Jesus was the doe-eyed hippie flower-child that he is portrayed as by popular films and images.

So I think you're stretching here quite a bit - and ignoring Sean's other comments. I'm sure that little bit upset you, but the rest was the meat of the argument - you've only snatched at a parenthetical comment by Sean.

 

[Magma2]

Wow. Sean, I am sorry you feel this way and presume these qualities about my concern. When someone shared the gospel with you for the first time, would you say they were being melodramatic and sanctimonious? I guess you can not see my genuineness because God has not revealed it to you yet, eh? Why do you insult those who seek to help, even if you disagree with the content?

I don´t see as your comments are any help at all. Just more of the same. And, yes, I think your remarks which imply that the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark is some kind of heretical or gnostic cult is melodramatic, sanctimonious and without warrant. Case in point below:

I think this is a perfect example of how this system of thought not only messes with the christian faith, it messes with how one treats other people. Since you do not know everything about me, you, according to your system, know nothing about me, but apparently what I have said to you God has revealed to you as insincere. No hard feelings though. I will not return in kind. God bless you.

As to JohnV's question. It does resemble some history, and that's why I brought it up. I am thinking of docetism/gnosticism.

Not only are you ignorant of Gordon Clark, which is a very sad state for any man who considers him edcuated, thoughtful and Reformed, but I can see you´re also ignorant of both Docetism and Gnosticism or you wouldn´t be so foolish to compare these heresies with Scripturalism. I guess looking foolish is not among your many concerns.

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by Civbert

How nice Sean or I am to you has nothing to do Scripturalism. God didn't tell him you were being insincere - and nothing in Scripturalism would warrant that claim. His comment was likely a result of personal experience (i.e. it was merely his opinion). I think you're way outside the bounds of what Scripturalism entails.

And this shouldn't be about personalities. If you want to examine personalties, Martin Luther could be a real jerk - are you going to say that was due to his doctrine? And Pope John Paul was a sweet-heart. And what about Gandhi. I'm sure he's led more people to hell then most, all the while looking like a lovely guy. I doubt Jesus was the doe-eyed hippie flower-child that he is portrayed as by popular films and images.

So I think you're stretching here quite a bit - and ignoring Sean's other comments. I'm sure that little bit upset you, but the rest was the meat of the argument - you've only snatched at a parenthetical comment by Sean.

Anthony-

Thank you for your response. It is obvious to me now that this discussion will not progress with any civility. I am not hurt by anything that was said, I thought I made that clear. I am trying to interact with your position, I do not intend to be drawn into this back and forth kind of stuff. I will bow out now before I join in sin and so the moderators and viewers can assess for themselves who is who and what is going on here. God bless.

 

[Myshkin]

Sean-

Thanks for the response.

I am bowing out in the interest of wisdom. God bless you as you seek to be conformed to his grace.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I have been watching this thread. The inuendo being flung around is disgraceful coming from one whom Christ died for. I have openly warned everyone about these types of things; it will not be tolerated. If you guys cannot talk civily, your priviledges will be removed; last warning.

This is done; because you can't play nice.