What marks of Scripturalism show it to be something you will not put your trust in?

[Civbert]

... Yet all the same, the question remains whether you have seriously attempted to hear the objections. If I understand everyone correctly, your summary of their objections does not fit what they were objecting to. Your summary is more of a caricature (vb) of the objections than a serious attempt to understand them. We could ask in return what you are afraid of that you have to do that instead of trying to honestly represent our own views back to us, and then answering them for what they really are.

It's difficult not to caricaturize some of the objections. And I've tried to avoid doing this. I think the thread on Clarkians and induction and empirical analysis is a good example of a clearly articulated objection to Scripturalism. This kind of clarity is normally lacking.

There is also the problem that when Scripturalist attempt to answer the objections, we are accused of not listening.

... This is the honesty and humility that I am trying to get at. It has nothing to do with the subject of epistemology, yet it has everything to do with it as much as it has everything to do with every subject. It is an objective indicator of whether or not what you're saying has any objective meat to it, of whether it is trustworthy. If I can't trust you to understand what I am asking in my questions, if you're just going to pidgeon-hole everything that doesn't agree with your theorem, how can I trust you that you're giving me an honest and truthful, a trustworthy account of how we know?

Even lacking a serious counter theorem to yours, where is the integrity and humility in your theorem that makes it a trustworthy thing to believe? Clark aside, where is it in your accounting of it?

Your feeling of trust is not an objective objection. It's not an argument per say but a subjective reaction to the Scripturalist arguments. And the lack of a "serious counter theorem" is sufficient reason for a Clarkian to distrust your distrust.

.
I'm not saying that the Scripturalists on this Board are the only ones lacking integrity and honesty....

Nice. Now you go from a subjective sense of distrust to an outright accusation of dishonestly. Did you really want to say that?

... while you and Anthony are doing so from a position of advancing something additional to the confessional basis.

Let's not make this assumption. This is your opinion and God bless opinions, but as of yet, no one has advanced an argument to support you contention that Scripturalism is anything but confessional. We have REPEATEDLY shown that Scripturalism is based on the Westminster Confession of Faith.

This does not excuse the erroneous arguments, but these erroneous arguments do not undermine the trustworthiness of the standards themselves.

Which is why I'm a Scripturalist, because it does uphold the standards.

... For me, I have to see the ingredients and characteristics of truth and of people who have come into contact with truth before I can put my trust in them. .

I went to a Mormon Church meeting where one lady made this same argument. She didn't sense the Spirit in some non-Mormon church. This kind of argument is why I reject mysticism and experientialism as lacking any integrity. I just don't trust this kind of argument.

JohnV. I'd appreciate if you could put Scripturalism into your own words, so that I can try to see if you really understand it. I think we can get at the heart of the misunderstanding if you could do that. After all, how can we attempt to work out the root of our disagreement if you don't really understand my position.

 

[MW]

We have REPEATEDLY shown that Scripturalism is based on the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Is there a "light of nature" as the Confession teaches in numerous places? Are the books of the Bible the Word of God written, as the Confession teaches in chapter 1, sections 2 and 8, or is the Word of God written to be restricted to propositions contained in the Bible? Are there marks of Scripture whereby it is shown to be the Word of God, and this as something distinct from the testimony of the Spirit in the heart giving infallible persuasion thereof, as sect. 5 teaches? Is it acknowledged that the work of the Spirit is necessary for a "saving understanding" of the Scriptures, which clearly implies there might be a natural understanding of them, as sect. 6 teaches? May we know the effects of providence and especially the effects of His singular care and providence in preserving the writings of the Old and New Testament, as section 8 teaches?

 

[Civbert]

Is there a "light of nature" as the Confession teaches in numerous places?

Sure. Be specific.

Are the books of the Bible the Word of God written, as the Confession teaches in chapter 1, sections 2 and 8, or is the Word of God written to be restricted to propositions contained in the Bible?

Knowledge is restricted to propositions. For instance Rom 3:27 " Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.

One does not know "Where is boasting then?", but one does know "It is excluded.". And one can not say "By what law?" or "Of works?" is true. A question can not be true. But "No, but by the law of faith." has propositional meaning. Statements can be true or false, but questions are neither.

Are there marks of Scripture whereby it is shown to be the Word of God, and this as something distinct from the testimony of the Spirit in the heart giving infallible persuasion thereof, as sect. 5 teaches?

Are the marks of Scripture ... what?

Is it acknowledged that the work of the Spirit is necessary for a "saving understanding" of the Scriptures, which clearly implies there might be a natural understanding of them, as sect. 6 teaches?

Either it's natural understanding, or it's the understanding by the work of the Spirit. It can't be both. But Scripturalism acknowledges the necessity of the Spirit in understanding AND believing.

May we know the effects of providence and especially the effects of His singular care and providence in preserving the writings of the Old and New Testament, as section 8 teaches?

What do you mean by "know the effects of". We know that Scripture is preserved by God's will.

 

[Magma2]

Is there a "light of nature" as the Confession teaches in numerous places?

The light of nature as it is used in WCF1:1 for example provides no support whatsoever for your natural theology and sensate epistemology. Man after all is also one of those works of creation mentioned in that section. Consequently the proof text are the law written on the hearts of men per Rom. 2 which alternatively accuses and defends the consciences of men without the written Law. Romans 1 is also cited and there we find men possess innate ideas concerning God's INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES which all men rather than assent to hold in unrighteousness. Unless I'm mistaken, I would think even you are unable to see the invisible through the eyes in your head. In addition the light of nature is not a means to knowledge even of God as the Confession clearly states; "yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation . . . ." A sense of divinity is not to be confused with knowledge. Calvin made no such confusion, why do you? Further, this section of the Confession pretty much kills the use of Rom. 1 to support the idea that men know God through observing nature. So you're clearly mistaken in trying to impose your natural theology on the Confession.

Further, the Confession's use of "light of nature" say per 1:6 has to do what is sometimes called common sense along with custom and Christian prudence in ordering "some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church . . . ." To advance the phrase "light of nature" as a basis by which men might arrive at the knowledge of truth is to stretch the Confession beyond all measure.

Sorry Rev. Winzer you will need to try harder.

 

[MW]

So Scripturalism does not uphold the proper distinction between natural and spiritual (or saving) knowledge as taught by the Confession. Likewise Scripturalism denies the books of the Bible are the Word of God written, contrary to the Confession. Therefore, Scripturalism is unconfessional.

 

[Civbert]

So Scripturalism does not uphold the proper distinction between natural and spiritual (or saving) knowledge as taught by the Confession. Likewise Scripturalism denies the books of the Bible are the Word of God written, contrary to the Confession. Therefore, Scripturalism is unconfessional.

JohnV,

You are correct - the anti-Scripturalist do not hear the arguments of the Scripturalists.



Rev Winzer,

Assertions aside, could you explain what "natural knowledge" is and how you obtain such? And where do you get the nonsense about Scripturalism denying the books of the Bible??? Have you read anything Clark wrote? When asked the definition of Christianity - Clark says he means the WCF. His epistemology is based in the WCF. If anything is confessional, it's Scripturalism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So if this rule of humility applies to millennial views, how much more does it apply to matters not directly doctrinal. The authority of theorems concerning the latter are scholastic, not ecclesiastical; and are therefore not binding upon anyone. The scholastic realm has no binding power upon the Church. Only ecclesiastical authority has that power. Yet even scholars who do work in the areas concerning Biblical truth should be demonstrating that same character of truth in their knowledge in as far as they have grasped it.

That is paragraph is not understood (in fact parsed and somewhat ridiculed) is extremely revealing to me.

From WCF, XXXI

II. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.

Let me say this very plainly: this board is about Confessional Reformed theology (that's actually redundant because there's no such thing as being Reformed and not being Confessional). I've seen multiple places where Scripturalism is preferred to the Confessional documents and an appeal to Scripture is made as if the Confession is competing with the Scirptures and so, after all, "...my Scripturalist reading trumps your quoting of the Confession on this point...."

But that is, in fact, the very point of the above excerpt from the WCF and is completely consistent with the Reformed tradition of Sola-Scriptura which places the testimony of the Church above the opinions of men on the teaching of Scripture.

Thus, what John has said above is so important to Reformed Confessionalism that those who want to represent themselves as Confessional should be fervently attempting to demonstrate themselves to be rather than parsing and ridiculing the notion.

You see, it's not about you covincing yourself through logical propositions that your position is Scriptural (or even convincing me). It's about you convincing the Church. Only they have the authority to settle a controversy of the faith over the proper epistemological method is or whether I ought to be using the word knowledge merely as justified true belief.

Until that happens, a Scripturalist is just another man with an opinion about the Scriptures with no Ecclesiastical authoriy.

Now, let me be extremely clear here. If you don't like being Confessional on matters of controversy then you can discuss those particulars on another board. Full stop.

 

[MW]

Assertions aside, could you explain what "natural knowledge" is and how you obtain such? And where do you get the nonsense about Scripturalism denying the books of the Bible??? Have you read anything Clark wrote? When asked the definition of Christianity - Clark says he means the WCF. His epistemology is based in the WCF. If anything is confessional, it's Scripturalism.

First, the viability of the Confession's teaching on the light of nature is not the point. It is the fact that the Confession teaches it and Scripturalism denies it.

Second, I haven't said anything in relation to Clark, but only in relation to statements made by Civbert on one of the roots this thread, namely, "Scripture is not the words and sentences written in the NKJV or the Greek or whatever language. Scripture is the propositional truths that God has revealed to us through verbal revelation." This denies the verbal inspiration of the autographs, whereas the Confession expressly teaches that the Bible itself is given by immediate inspiration, WCF 1:2, 8. I refuse to ignore this as if it is just a trifle. First, it is fundamental to a proper understanding of Scripture. Second, it shows the Scripturalist's non-commitment to historic orthodoxy, and the tendency of this system to re-mould the Chritian faith in the image of its own peculiar philosophy.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's difficult not to caricaturize some of the objections. And I've tried to avoid doing this. I think the thread on Clarkians and induction and empirical analysis is a good example of a clearly articulated objection to Scripturalism. This kind of clarity is normally lacking.

Well, when you get to the end of that thread then I suppose we'll all understand you.

Is your discussion with Brian Bosse really an example of perspicuity?

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

You see, you believe we have the responsibility to understand you. Wrong. You have the responsibility to be clear to the Church and those who do not understand you. We are commanded by the Word of God to beware of philosophy and the traditions of men. It is the responsibility of those that are bringing those categories into discussions to show the average person how they clarify things and do not cause them to be confused.

If you cannot do this then it is your failure and not ours. Note, I am not saying that Scripturalism is vain philosophy but I will presume it is until I'm convinced otherwise because it borrows so much from philosophical terminology and precision not insisted upon in the Word of God itself. I've yet to have it adequately explained where I can understand the point or how it fits with the Scripture that I know based on the testimony of the Church and the Spirit working through the Word.

I've never met a man that I could not explain the Westminster Confession of Faith to. It, like the Scriptures, lends itself to teaching to the common man.

 

[Civbert]

First, the viability of the Confession's teaching on the light of nature is not the point. It is the fact that the Confession teaches it and Scripturalism denies it.

"Point of fact"?!? You've said it teaches "the light of nature" but as far as I can tell, only Sean has explained what the "light of nature" means. You've merely asserted the WCF teaches it and Scripturalism doesn't.

Second, I haven't said anything in relation to Clark, but only in relation to statements made by Civbert on one of the roots this thread, namely, "Scripture is not the words and sentences written in the NKJV or the Greek or whatever language. Scripture is the propositional truths that God has revealed to us through verbal revelation."

If you take things out of context, they can mean anything you want. As you should know if you truly consider the context of the quote you snipped, the subject matter is the teaching of Clark. I ask again, have you read Clark? I beginning to think it wouldn't make any difference, but Sean and I both agree that Clark was much better at explaining these issues - and I think we agree that there's a chance you might better understand it if you actually read Clark. But if you have read Clark, then I stand corrected.

This denies the verbal inspiration of the autographs, whereas the Confession expressly teaches that the Bible itself is given by immediate inspiration, WCF 1:2, 8.

No it does not. You've snapped at a single point, and ignored the context of my comment. You think you've got something, but you really don't understand what I was saying. So you've taken it out of context in order to use it for you own intention to try to undermine what is really reformed confession epistemology.

JohnV, Here's are some marks of anti-Scripturalism for you. Notice how the anti-Scripturalist tends to clip quotes out of context, and ignores direct questions, and does not interact with content of posts directly. Where as the Scripturalist will actually respond to the directly to immediate post of the anti-Scripturalist, the anti-Scripturalist will completely ignore the words of the Scripturalist, and post a serious of assertions and mis-characterizations. I see no attempt to actually understand Scripturalism here, only the desire to win at all costs. I see these as the marks of anti-Scripturalism.

I refuse to ignore this as if it is just a trifle. First, it is fundamental to a proper understanding of Scripture. Second, it shows the Scripturalists non-commitment to historic orthodoxy, and the tendency of this system to re-mould the Chritian faith in the image of its own peculiar philosophy.

I think you have this backward. Your commitment to empiricism despite all the evidence and arguments rejecting it, is what is unorthodox and unreformed. You've fallen for unbiblical theories of knowledge and have molded you reading of Scripture and the WCF accordingly.

You refuse the most basic of Christian and reformed doctrine, that the Bible alone is the Word of God. You refuse the WCF's explicit propositions which say that the Scriptures contain the whole council of God. That's Scripturalism, plain and simple. No matter how you want to spin things, your ignoring the plain simple truth of God's Word - and cast your lot on experience and sensation. If this is not true, then explain how you are not an empiricist. Explain how you deduce a proposition from an experience. Explain how you can know what is not intelligible. Explain how knowledge is not justified true belief. I have asked again and again for you explanation of these things, and you have continues to duck and weave and sidestep every request for clarification and explanation. I see no reason to "trust" any assertion you make if you refuse to give any real arguments or explanations.

 

[Civbert]

Well, when you get to the end of that thread then I suppose we'll all understand you.

Is your discussion with Brian Bosse really an example of perspicuity?

If you over your head, so be it.

You see, you believe we have the responsibility to understand you.

You do if you are going to argue against my views. I've been more than willing to answer your questions to the best of my ability. But if you still don't understand, then so be it.

Wrong. You have the responsibility to be clear to the Church and those who do not understand you.

What is this, the Inquisition? When have I not tried answered you questions? We had a good thing going Rich. If you're going to spin this as my failure simply because you still don't get it, then I've waisted my time.

We are commanded by the Word of God to beware of philosophy and the traditions of men.

It doesn't say to be ignorant of the philosophies and traditions of men.

It is the responsibility of those that are bringing those categories into discussions to show the average person how they clarify things and do not cause them to be confused.

I think the average person can understand them, if they make some effort. It's not that hard. But it does take some work.

If you cannot do this then it is your failure and not ours.

Yeah. That's right. If you don't get it, it's my fault for answering you questions and trying to explain things. Nice.

I've never met a man that I could not explain the Westminster Confession of Faith to. It, like the Scriptures, lends itself to teaching to the common man.

That's good. You should be a Scripturalist then, since it's simply the application of the teaching of the WCF to answer the basic questions of philosophy. The basic questions of philosophy have been asked (and answers have been attempted) for thousands of years. How do we know? Why? What do we know? What is the meaning of life? What is the relationship of man to God? The Scriptures answer these philosophical questions. But you need to engage the questions, and understand them, before you can understand how the Scriptures answers them. Scripturalism does this. It shows the absurdities of the vain philosophies of man. It doesn't ignore them.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If you over your head, so be it.

You do if you are going to argue against my views. I've been more than willing to answer your questions to the best of my ability. But if you still don't understand, then so be it.

And so your philosophy is still presumed vain. Precisely. So be it.

What is this, the Inquisition? When have I not tried answered you questions? We had a good thing going Rich. If you're going to spin this as my failure simply because you still don't get it, then I've waisted my time.

I'm not spinning anything Anthony but when you and Sean start digging in and saying: "You're all a bunch of knuckleheads and if you really got it then you'd be like us..." then you need to understand where the standard really lies.

You use extremely precise philosophical language and are insistent upon it. I think you honestly believe that such precise philosophical training is necessary for men to study the Word. It is not.

It doesn't say to be ignorant of the philosophies and traditions of men.

No. It says to be beware of them. Your philosophical views still elude me after much effort. You say it is my fault.

I think the average person can understand them, if they make some effort. It's not that hard. But it does take some work.

Assuming they should make the effort. This could be said about a variety of cults as well Anthony. Teachers of the Word owe it to the ignorant to bring concepts to them that can be understood. Not all need to remain simplistic and naive but that's a far cry from an insistence on understanding the rules of logic and epistemic categories. I've studied math and logic and am pretty good at it but I knew a lot of really smart people that do not have a natural knack for it. It isn't a mistake that most Clarkians are men and more than a few are Engineers.

Yeah. That's right. If you don't get it, it's my fault for answering you questions and trying to explain things. Nice.

With all criticism you have two choices: learn from it or recoil from it. You seem to have made your choice. I've been repeatedly called names on this thread and put up with insinuations that I'm dense or an empericist or Thomistic. Get some backbone. If you think you have good news to spread about your epistemology then learn how to make it more explainable but don't keep whining that it's everybody else's fault because your numbers are small.

This has begun and will continue to be a dialogue about why I don't trust your system. Don't be shocked that your sacred cow keeps getting gored until you figure out a way to show us otherwise. As we interact with you two, you become increasingly agitated and don't even take heed to the fact that you are mischaracterizing your opponents with labels.

 

[crhoades]

It is the opinion of this Moderator that all engaged in this dialog would be better off spending the rest of the Lord's Day in prayer and meditation on His Word - something everyone here should agree with. Everyone can still try to make their point in a more edifying and Christ glorifying way.

I enjoy debates here on the PB as it sharpens my thinking. I do not enjoy debates when they reach levels of accusations and shrillness from all sides. Is it possible that discussing apologetics/epistemology is fine as far as it goes but if it's the main focus or one where all of one's time is spent could lead to an over intellectualized faith and unbalanced? Same thing goes for ethics, church history, etc. Maybe we should venture into other forums for a bit.

 

[MW]

"Point of fact"?!? You've said it teaches "the light of nature" but as far as I can tell, only Sean has explained what the "light of nature" means. You've merely asserted the WCF teaches it and Scripturalism doesn't.

"Light of nature" is knowledge attained by natural means, as is clear from the phrase itself and the usus loquendi of the 17th century.

If you take things out of context, they can mean anything you want. As you should know if you truly consider the context of the quote you snipped, the subject matter is the teaching of Clark. I ask again, have you read Clark? I beginning to think it wouldn't make any difference, but Sean and I both agree that Clark was much better at explaining these issues - and I think we agree that there's a chance you might better understand it if you actually read Clark. But if you have read Clark, then I stand corrected.

Yes, I've read Clark, and consider him useful. Regrettably, he also felt liberty to remould Christian theology into the image of his philosophical commitments, as is clear by studying his views on the person of Christ and the nature of faith. Nevertheless this thread is not about Clark, but Scripturalism -- a theory that really emerges only after Clark's Wheaton lectures. I have directed my statements to those who claim to be representing Scripturalism, and regardless of how incompetent they are to represent Clark, they should be accountable and responsible for representing themselves.

No it does not. You've snapped at a single point, and ignored the context of my comment. You think you've got something, but you really don't understand what I was saying. So you've taken it out of context in order to use it for you own intention to try to undermine what is really reformed confession epistemology.

I understand it only too well, I regret to say. Your Scripturalism was called to account for itself on the basis of a fundamental teaching of the reformed faith, and you responded by undermining that teaching. Scripturalism is inconsistent with the verbal, plenary authority of the Bible as a written revelation of God. You place no significance in the words as words given by God. Try as you might to put a good spin on your statement, it is unorthodox, and would be condemned as such by any conservative theologian.

I think you have this backward. Your commitment to empiricism despite all the evidence and arguments rejecting it, is what is unorthodox and unreformed. You've fallen for unbiblical theories of knowledge and have molded you reading of Scripture and the WCF accordingly.

I have no commitment to empiricism. My methodology would be accounted rationalist, as would the methodology of the Westminster divines and the Puritans in general.

You refuse the most basic of Christian and reformed doctrine, that the Bible alone is the Word of God. You refuse the WCF's explicit propositions which say that the Scriptures contain the whole council of God. That's Scripturalism, plain and simple. No matter how you want to spin things, your ignoring the plain simple truth of God's Word - and cast your lot on experience and sensation. If this is not true, then explain how you are not an empiricist. Explain how you deduce a proposition from an experience. Explain how you can know what is not intelligible. Explain how knowledge is not justified true belief. I have asked again and again for you explanation of these things, and you have continues to duck and weave and sidestep every request for clarification and explanation. I see no reason to "trust" any assertion you make if you refuse to give any real arguments or explanations.

First, I am the one maintaining the Bible is the Word of God, whilst you confine that Word to its propositions. Second, the WCF's explicit statement relates to the whole counsel of God for all thigns necessary for God's glory, etc, thereby implying there is knowledge outside of the Scriptures for other purposes; and the end of the section explicitly makes this clear when it speaks about the light of nature and Christian prudence. Moreover, WCF 20:3 speaks of opinions and practices "contrary to the light of nature," which is something impossible on your theory. Again, WCF 21:1 says "the light of nature showeth there is a God." The Confession everywhere affirms that things can be known from sources other than Scripture; you deny this; therefore you deny the Confession's teaching, plain and simple. Third, again, I am not called upon to explain the viability of the Confession's teaching; it is a fact that this is what the Confession teaches and that you deny it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is the opinion of this Moderator that all engaged in this dialog would be better off spending the rest of the Lord's Day in prayer and meditation on His Word - something everyone here should agree with. Everyone can still try to make their point in a more edifying and Christ glorifying way.

I enjoy debates here on the PB as it sharpens my thinking. I do not enjoy debates when they reach levels of accusations and shrillness from all sides. Is it possible that discussing apologetics/epistemology is fine as far as it goes but if it's the main focus or one where all of one's time is spent could lead to an over intellectualized faith and unbalanced? Same thing goes for ethics, church history, etc. Maybe we should venture into other forums for a bit.

Well, it's been Monday all day here Chris.

I have a Confessional interest in this discussion Chris. I have been very open at the beginning of this OP about the reasons why.

I also intend to level set some of these discussions because I'm not in a minority over a weariness of these discussions and insistence over terminology that finds its way well beyond the borders of the Philosophy and Apologetics forums and causes unneeded rancor. I'm trying to get some men to give an account for this insistence and if it cannot be done then I'm going to make rules that restrict such fine discussions to the philosophy forum.

 

[MW]

It is the opinion of this Moderator that all engaged in this dialog would be better off spending the rest of the Lord's Day in prayer and meditation on His Word - something everyone here should agree with. Everyone can still try to make their point in a more edifying and Christ glorifying way.

Just a note -- it is not the Lord's Day in this time zone.

 

[Civbert]

It is the opinion of this Moderator that all engaged in this dialog would be better off spending the rest of the Lord's Day in prayer and meditation on His Word - something everyone here should agree with. Everyone can still try to make their point in a more edifying and Christ glorifying way.

I'll be back in 15 minutes.

 

[crhoades]

Just a note -- it is not the Lord's Day in this time zone.

Please forgive the US centric bias of my post.

 

[crhoades]

I'll be back in 15 minutes.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Winzer is in Australia. Rich is in Japan. You're an Eastern time zone type of guy. This moderating thing is a losing battle.

{Switching to a libertarian Moderating mindset. Just don't harm each other physically or destroy each other's private property}

Love one another as Christ has loved us. Not to much to ask for is it?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just a note -- it is not the Lord's Day in this time zone.

If Rev. Winzer is posting then it's not the Lord's Day.

 

[Civbert]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Winzer is in Australia. Rich is in Japan. You're an Eastern time zone type of guy. This moderating thing is a losing battle.

{Switching to a libertarian Moderating mindset. Just don't harm each other physically or destroy each other's private property}

Love one another as Christ has loved us. Not to much to ask for is it?

Well I'm going to love everyone by going to bed now. So I guess I won't be back in 15 mins after all.

Good night to all.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

{Switching to a libertarian Moderating mindset. Just don't harm each other physically or destroy each other's private property}

Love one another as Christ has loved us. Not to much to ask for is it?

Not at all. A good point to always remember.

For the record, I'm really not trying to be petty. I have real concerns that need to take all the members of the board into consideration, which is why I opened up that Moderator thread on my concerns.

 

[crhoades]

Well I'm going to love everyone by going to bed now. So I guess I won't be back in 15 mins after all.

Good night to all.

Sleep (from Valley of Vision)

​

​

BLESSED CREATOR,
Thou hast promised thy beloved sleep;
Give me restoring rest needful for tomorrow’s toil.
If dreams be mine, let them not be tinged with evil.
Let thy Spirit make my time of repose a blessed temple of his holy
presence.

May my frequent lying down make me familiar with death,
the bed I approach remind me of the grave,
the eyes I now close picture to me their final closing.
Keep me always ready, waiting for admittance to thy presence.
Weaken my attachment to earthly things.
May I hold life loosely in my hand,
knowing that I receive it on condition of its surrender;
As pain and suffering betoken transitory health,
may I not shrink from a death
that introduces me to the freshness of eternal youth.
I retire this night in full assurance of one day awaking with thee.
All glory for this precious hope,
for the gospel of grace,
for thine unspeakable gift of Jesus,
for the fellowship of the Trinity.
Withhold not thy mercies in the night season;
thy hand never wearies,
thy power needs no repose,
thine eye never sleeps.

Help me when I helpless lie,
when my conscience accuses me of sin,
when my mind is harassed by foreboding thoughts,
when my eyes are held awake by personal anxieties.
Show thyself to me as the God of all grace, love, and power;
thou hast a balm for every wound,
a solace for all anguish,
a remedy for every pain,
a peace for all disquietude.
Permit me to commit myself to thee awake or asleep.

 

[MW]

Please forgive the US centric bias of my post.

We Aussies became accustomed to that in the second world war.

 

[crhoades]

We Aussies became accustomed to that in the second world war.

Don't know my history well enough on that one, but I'm sure that it involves an apology on my part.

I've enjoyed my dealings with BSEM over the years. (Bridgestone Earthmover Australia). Hopefully one of these days I might make it out that way. My arch-nemesis businesswise is also in Australia - Klinge. They make a very good tire tracking software that I compete with.

 

[MW]

I was just being silly; no apology needed. Let me know if you're ever heading in our direction. Blessings!

 

[JohnV]

Not at all. A good point to always remember.

For the record, I'm really not trying to be petty. I have real concerns that need to take all the members of the board into consideration, which is why I opened up that Moderator thread on my concerns.

I am finding it hard to say what I want to say. In some ways I see that Rich and Matthew have caught what I'm driving at. Scripturalism is only what this methodology is about. Scripturalism itself is the point of weakness, not the point of strength. The point of strength that is relied upon is the methodology which a thing apart from Scripturalism.

If this is what the moderators are discussing in their own threads, then it is worthy of note that, if FV has been excluded as an acceptable version of the Confessions, then surely this particular version of Scripturalism ought to be excluded as well.

I started this thread in order to make it clear that the Scripturalists defending their position were doing so unilaterally, on their own authority, and not on the authority of the Scriptures or the Confessional standards.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I am finding it hard to say what I want to say. In some ways I see that Rich and Matthew have caught what I'm driving at. Scripturalism is only what this methodology is about. Scripturalism itself is the point of weakness, not the point of strength. The point of strength that is relied upon is the methodology which a thing apart from Scripturalism.

If this is what the moderators are discussing in their own threads, then it is worthy of note that, if FV has been excluded as an acceptable version of the Confessions, then surely this particular version of Scripturalism ought to be excluded as well.

I started this thread in order to make it clear that the Scripturalists defending their position were doing so unilaterally, on their own authority, and not on the authority of the Scriptures or the Confessional standards.

Before gloves are taken off and a duel ensues, let's be careful. I know for a fact that both Sean and Anthony loathe the FV as un-Confessional and un-Scriptural and I don't feel comfortable as simply the Admin of a board making what is essentially an Ecclesiastical pronouncement. I also consider the FV to be re-defining key doctrines of the Confession while Scripturalism tends to be punctilious about matters indifferent that I imagine the Church will never definitively resolve.

I think what I'm trying to do is set up guidelines where it is appropriate to have these kinds of conversations. I don't think the discussion in philosophical or apologetic threads ought to be off limits but if somebody is in a theological forum and uses the word "know" or "knowledge" in a way that a Scripturalist takes issue with then the thread ought not be de-railed over semantics as happens far too often. That's where I'm trying to figure out where to go because many are tired of the rancor. One of the principles of liberty of conscience is that Christians ought not to be browbeat about adiophora. Until the Church decides that epistemic definitions are not adiophora then how a Christian uses the word know or knowledge is not a matter that his/her conscience ought to be pricked with.



I do agree with Chris that this thread is becoming far less than edifying. With God as my witness, I do not bear Sean or Anthony ill will. I wish sin were not in the world and did not cause us to be so divided here. I received an e-mail just the other day from a long time lurker about all these Scripturalist threads and how the Reformed seem to have it altogether but "...see how this divides...." That grieves me.

What I imagine is that if you and I were in a Church together and not talking about this debatable issue we would probably line up really closely on most issues. I know it makes you mad when I take on Scripturalism but I just don't see it. That said, just yesterday when I was teaching Sunday School I was talking about God being the fountainhead of knowledge and how liberals begin with themselves. One of the women piped in and said: "Yeah, liberals want religion to be rational...." I clarified and pointed out that our faith is rational and that when God says not to steal we know He means not to steal. Contrary, perhaps, to your perceptions, I'm not going out of my way to make things irrational and incoherent.

We're on the same page theologically but I just can't get your epistemology because I believe it does not comport with the Scriptures. Since the Church has not decided to settle the matter of controversy I hope you can allow me the liberty to view matters otherwise. I'm allowing you such liberty but the only reason I beat you up is that you tend to go into so many threads outside of epistemic discussions and insist on your definitions and so I have to challenge you in this regard.

 

[Magma2]

So Scripturalism does not uphold the proper distinction between natural and spiritual (or saving) knowledge as taught by the Confession. Likewise Scripturalism denies the books of the Bible are the Word of God written, contrary to the Confession. Therefore, Scripturalism is unconfessional.

No, you're wrong Rev. Winzer. Clark's Scripturalism simply does not uphold your interpretation of "light of nature" as affirming anything like the Natural Theology and Empiricism you subscribe to. I view your interpretative slant both foreign to the WCF and Reformed tradition. Calvin for example said that men have a sense of the divine, but denied that men know God apart from the Scripture. Here are a few relevant quotes from the Institutes. 1:6-8:

SCRIPTURE IS NEEDED AS GUIDE AND TEACHER FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD COME TO GOD THE CREATOR

1. GOD BESTOWS THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF HIMSELF UPON US ONLY IN THE SCRIPTURES

. . . For, since the human mind because of its feebleness can in no way attain to God unless it be aided and assisted by his Sacred Word, all mortals at that time — except for the Jews — because they were seeking God without the Word, had of necessity to stagger about in vanity and error.

. . . Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.

. . . “The arm of God will not be revealed” to all [Isaiah 53:1 p.]. Whenever, then, the fewness of believers disturbs us, let the converse come to mind, that only those to whom it is given can comprehend the mysteries of God [cf. Matthew 13:11].

Ideas about God or even a sense of God is not what Calvin calls "actual knowledge" of God. For that the Scriptures are necessary and without substitute or addition. Neither Calvin nor the Confession contradicts Scripture which states that the world through its wisdom did not come to know God. Even Van Til called the kind of Natural Theology you advocate "anti-Christian," so you can't really place all of your disdain on Clark's Scripturalism alone. There are plenty of people who disagree with you.

The other use of "light of nature" have already been mentioned concerning things indifferent and to equate this with JTB is again to confuse apples with oranges. But I think it is clear that your epistemology is neither necessarily Reformed or even very coherent.

As for the Scriptures being written, no one has denied anything of the sort. You should at least attempt to follow the arguments already presented. I will refer you to the citation provided by J.P. Moreland (not a Scripturalist) in one of these threads around here started by Rich. As I said to another of Clark's critics on another thread; For Clark, and hopefully for all Christians, belief in truth is not the result of analyzing marks on a page in a black book called the Bible, it is the gift of God. There is no empirical component to knowledge. Unfortunately, my hope sometimes appears to be wishful thinking at least when it comes to some.

 

[Magma2]

First, the viability of the Confession's teaching on the light of nature is not the point. It is the fact that the Confession teaches it and Scripturalism denies it.

Wrong again. The light of nature is not cognitive. People have opinions about things indifferent like when church should start, how long sermons should be, etc. and people are at liberty to decide such things for themselves. If you think the Confessional phrase "light of nature" refers to extra-biblical knowledge and some cognitive power of nature then you should prove it.

Second, I haven't said anything in relation to Clark, but only in relation to statements made by Civbert on one of the roots this thread, namely, "Scripture is not the words and sentences written in the NKJV or the Greek or whatever language. Scripture is the propositional truths that God has revealed to us through verbal revelation."

Yet, as Anthony has repeatedly stated, this IS Clark's position. Read Intro to Christian Phil and you will see his entire arguments against the idea that knowledge requires experience and that written sentences are the same as propositions. See J.P. Morland's discussion already provided and he's not a "Clarkian" by any stretch. Propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences and, as such, they are spiritually and not empirically discerned. Jesus said the very words he spoke "are spirit and they are life."