The Epistemology of Scripturalism

Status
Not open for further replies.
:lol: Too bad you don't know it's for completely different reasons. :D

At least I'm not foolish enough to label begging the question "knowledge". :rofl:

Oh, and is it true that it is for "completely different reasons?" If so, what about your claim that "truth" is "exclusively possessed in the Scriptures. For some odd reason, I don't recall the verse which says, "Me too, but for a completely different reason." Could you point out where that is?

Since I've already provided ample Scriptural evidence that the Scriptures are the only source of truth and " unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men," including the imagined "truths" arising from the current epistemic and philosophic traditions you're so enamored with, I fail to see the need to keep leading you by the hand. So rather than follow you and make the Apostle Paul a liar, I'll stick with Scripture.

As for the rest of your chest thumping, that pretty much sums up the rest of your impotent "critique" of Scripturalism. Can you spell
E Q U I V O C A T I O N?

If I were to tell you on my honeymoon I knew my wife, you'd ask me to deduce that from Scripture too. :rofl:

Pathetic.
 
Is Scripture only true because the creation, such as Paul's pain, has only derived being, thus is less real than God and his word which have absolute being?
 
I don't know what you mean. Seems a bit like Plotinus to me.

I asked: Is Scripture only true because the creation, such as Paul's pain, has only derived being, thus is less real than God and his word which have absolute being?

The unclear terms are derived being and absolute being. Absolute being is eternal, unchanging, and infinite. These are the incommunicable attributes of God. Derived being is temporal, changing, and finite which describes the creation of which I gave Paul’s pain as an example. There is a clear difference between these two types of being or reality. Since derived being is lesser than absolute being, then creation is less real than God. So knowledge of creation cannot come from creation because of its inferiority. Is this distinction of reality important in the rejection of extra-biblical knowledge?
 
I deny your gnostic assumptions and implore you to study the history of philosophy. I deny Plotinus and the great chain of being. Unless your prepared to argue for your position, and deduce it from Scripture, then you're just giving your unjustified opinion.

I think by Gnostic assumptions you mean that the creation is less real than God. A healthy dose of philosophy will cure me, perhaps the idea that all of realty is one, and thus all is equally real. I think Plato’s dialogues are what semenated Plotins and his ideas of being, so you might deny some of Plato’s ideas of reality.

I must prove that the creation is less real than God by Scripture. But before doing the proof, I must know what ‘less real’ means. Of course God is the ultimate reality and exists on a different plane than does the creation. For example, God lives outside of time, but we are timely creatures. So in what way are we different than God other than our being?

Indeed, if you know your position, it is extra-biblical knowledge. The bible no where says that we are "less real" than God. That our existence is contingent upon him , doesn't mean we're less real. Yeah, there's a clear difference between Creator and creature. Doesn't mean we're less real.

You deny that we are less real than God because you cannot think of a Scripture verse that would affirm this. I am not saying you are ignorant of the Bible, but that the verses are just not available right now.

And, your question doesn't change the fact of the truth of my immediate mental states, i.e., how I'm being appeared to, experiencing pain, etc. If I have an immediate report of being appeard to in a green way, even if it's a dream, a trick by an evil demon, a blue thing appearing to me as green, etc., that still doesn't change the fact that it's true that I'm being *appeared to* in that way. That was the context of my pain example.

It may very well be true, but how real is it?


Anyway, why do these Scripturalists continue to make claims, statements, arguments, etc., that are clearly not deducible from Scripture? Why do they think we should bow down to their *unjustified opinions?*

Well, years more of Scripture research might clear the matter as more of the ideas of the Bible are understood more. But really I think this is a matter of the will, not inteligence.
 
Instead of 'less real' we can use 'lesser being' which sounds more mild but essencially the same. Psalm 8:5 contains the notion that man is lesser in being than the angels. So man < angles. If angles < God, then man < God. Would you grant that angles are lesser beings than God?
 
That "all of reality is not one," does not entail the claim "some of reality is less real." Try again.

I agree.


You used the term, you should know what it means.


Let’s use yours: distinction.

God is timeless is a better phrase than "God exists 'outside' time."

No doubt.


I couldn't list all the ways that we're different than God. But difference doesn't entail "less real." Now, I know the gnostics and the Platonists thought the physical world was "less real" that the world of the unchanging forms, but of course the Christian doctrine of creation, and Jesus taking on a temporal and changing body sort of refuted that doctrine, huh? Unless, Jesus was partially "less real" than God?

Jesus is not less real than God.


No, because of positive doctrines, based on Scripture, which speak to the contrary, namely, the incarnation. There's plenty of Christians who have refuted Plotinus and great chain of being philosophy/theology. You might want to get aquainted with their works.

Very well.


Well, (a) you just disagreed with Sean Gerety a fellow Scripturalist, and to ask 'how real it is' presupposes your (as of yet) unproven gnosticism.

So all of reality is equal in some way but distinct.


Right. It's because of my "less real" sinful will that I'm denying your gnosticism. Calling someone sinful, always a sure way to win a debate. :rolleyes:

Seems that I concede.
 
If it's "essentially the same," then no "we" can't grant that. Unless you want to grant that the God-man was somehow "less real" (which, for you, is the same as "less real" than God). You're treading on thin ice here.

Concepts like 'less real' are false just as something that is 'less true' is false.
 
I've interacted with every argument you've put up.

Indeed you have, I'm sure everyone who suffers through these posts will recall some of your "argumentation" like these representative gems:

"Who says I "need to" do that? Who elevated you to the Pontif of Argumentation?"

"They are immediately present. And therefore I deny your request for an "account.'"


You've not bothered to deal with them. Feel free to continue the debate and show where my arguments err.

Bald assertions and question begging aren't arguments. Not much to interact with.

Anyway, you said that Scripture "exclusively possessed the truth." I gave my argument from California and the orange freeze crisis (you never interacted with that, btw).

You've also said that ink scratches in a black book have a cognitive role, but refuse to provide any account at all. Instead I get; "I deny your request for an "account."


If your sentence is true, is it "exclusively possossed in Scripure?" That is, is it "exclusively possessed in Scripture that Sean Gerety has done such and such?" If it is not true, then it's fasle that "Sean gerety has provided ample Scripural evidence that truth is exclusively possessed by Scripture?" If it's false, why post it like it's a true statement? If it is true, and since it's not "exclusively possessed by Scripture" then where is its source? Inquiring minds want to know.


For a man who postures himself as a philosophical and modern epistemological sophisticate it has become increasingly evident that you use contemporary jargon to hide behind. One would have assumed that if Emperor Manata really did have some clothes on, he would realize that the account for knowledge, i.e., the demonstration that you know doesn't also require the demonstration that you know that you know. If that were the case then you would have to show that you know that you know that you know and into the spiraling drain of infinite regress we go.

You deny that Scripture has a monopoly on truth and that the Bible alone is the Word of God. So what? Someone on a different thread argued that "Sola scriptura is the belief that Scripture contains sufficient teaching for the man of God in matters of faith and morals." However the Confession asserts; "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added . . . ." To artificially restrict the sufficiency and authority of Scripture to matters of faith and morals is to contradict the Confession and sola Scripture -- at least as defined by the Confession. You share this person's two-source theory of truth implied above, but when asked to account for this other source or sources of yours, you reply; "I deny your request for an "account."

P.S. Btw, people still want to know how you don't render the written word superfluous, as unconfessional idea as any.

I've never said the written word is superfluous, just that black marks on white pages of a black book have no cognitive value. OTOH, I have maintained that the whole counsel of God, concerning all things which can be known are either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture. I have also maintained that if anyone is going to to know anything at all they must accept a word from God, which is why the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts is indispensable. The Scriptures are the thoughts of God. As such, the propositions of Scripture are spiritually discerned, something impenetrable to the carnal mind (and evidently the minds of some Christians as well).

You assert that ink marks play a role in the acquisition of knowledge and when I asked for you to account for this you deny me. OK, not much more I can do. Therefore I will have to drop out of this discussion with you. However, before I do, I'll leave you with a quote from Gordon Clark written in response to Robert Reymond from the posthumously published book; "Clark Speaks from the Grave" (a fun book to have to read around campfires). Reymond, who Clark admired greatly, also held to the widely accepted view that sensations must play a role in the learning process.

One could say that eating food plays a role in the learning process, since if one starves to death he can no longer learn. Most college students would say, contrary to Augustine's De Magistro, that the college professor plays a role in their learning process, if even a minor role. But what role? Then too, remember how sensation or perception played a role in Plato's theory. As one sees a harp and is reminded of a certain musician, so when one sees a crude square drawn in the sand, one remembers the perfect square in the World of Ideas. Sensation is thus a stimulus to reminiscence. Is this what Reymond meant? Hardly possible. Then, what role? In the intellectual arena an empiricist is under strict obligation to show how sensations produce knowledge. That is what empiricism is. Here one can only guess what the critic has in mind. The guess will probably be incorrect, for perhaps the critic has nothing in mind. In reviewing the several apologetes who oppose Clark, one gets the impression that some are subconsciously Kantian. One of them at least explicitly denies being an empiricist. But if this is so, these apologetes are under obligation to show how a set of categories can inform a mass of chaotic sensation. They escape this obligation by refusing to define sensation, and by skipping from beginning to end without passing through the intervening distance. In order to make their point they should have defined sensation and should have shown clearly and explicitly how it produces knowledge. Far from doing this, they do not explain even how sensation can produce perception. Much less do they describe the process of manufacturing abstract ideas from perception. Hence these objections to Clark are empty fallacies.

:amen: & :cheers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top