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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

If the epistemology advanced does not comport with Scripture then you should be able to demonstrate this. That would be the brotherly thing to do, don't you think?

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 have never suggested that you can't beg the question or even beat us up with impunity. ;) I would prefer if you didn't do either, but, hey, I understand a lot of this is new to you.
 
Last edited:
I would like my opponents to please define truth?

I'll get the ball rolling. I would define truth as whatever God thinks and for no other reason than He thinks it.
 
Calvin for example said that men have a sense of the divine, but denied that men know God apart from the Scripture.

More Scripturalist conflations! I know that I have previously quoted Calvin's statement to the effect that men do but open their eyes and they see God -- natural theology. It is quite clear from the section quoted by Magma2 that Calvin is speaking about "saving" knowledge of God.
 
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.

I did. There are opinions and practices "contrary to the light of nature," 20:4. "The light of nature showeth there is a God," 21:1. Sins are aggravated when committed against the light of nature, LC 151. The mystical light of the Scripturalist cannot account for these propositions.

Yet, as Anthony has repeatedly stated, this IS Clark's position.

It could have been the US President's position, but if his name is not brought into the discussion it is irrelevant.
 
I would like my opponents to please define truth?

I'll get the ball rolling. I would define truth as whatever God thinks and for no other reason than He thinks it.

See the archetype/ectype thread. God does not think propositionally; as ALL reformed divines teach, God does not reason consequentially. The conceptualisation of truth is decreed by God so creatures might be blessed in Him.
 
See the archetype/ectype thread. God does not think propositionally; as ALL reformed divines teach, God does not reason consequentially. The conceptualisation of truth is decreed by God so creatures might be blessed in Him.


I asked for a definition not some nondescript reference to an old thread. I didn't ask whether God reasons consequentially or sequentially or whether creatures might bless Him, etc., etc.

If you can't answer the question, please don't respond with more irrelevancies. I asked for a simple definition. I take it that in your case it was asking too much.
 
If you can't answer the question, please don't respond with more irrelevancies. I asked for a simple definition. I take it that in your case it was asking too much.

Actually you provided your own definition, and it is that to which I was responding. Your definition presupposes certain ideas which are not in accord with reformed thought. Truth cannot be whatever God thinks, because God does not think consequentially. Full stop. End of story.
 
Then Rich where are the biblical passages complete with sound exegesis in support of your position and refuting mine?

As is not uncommon with the way Christians in the past have discussed things I have been referring to the sense of Scripture of some things as well as quoting the Confession and the Reformed tradition on certain principles.

Now, you may not like that according to your methodology but I agree with and submit to the Confession's teaching on these items and the Scriptures they draw from to support that position.

When I provide those critiques, however, they are excluded because, a priori, they don't fit a Scripturalist interpretation of the same material. In some cases, you've even accused the Confession of Thomistic corruption where it disagrees with you.

I don't honestly see how I can convince you. I'd have to argue for a passage using a Scripturalist epistemology to get you to agree with it but then you wouldn't be moved from your position.

Thus, I'm back where we started. I've argued my points and am content that the points have been made to the best of my ability relying not on my authority but upon the way Scripture uses words, what the Confession says about certain subjects, etc.

I believe I have Ecclesiastical warrant to confess alongside centuries of Presbyterians and am not dissuaded to change my mind on the basis of an epistemology that I see over-riding some fairly good portions of the Confession.

I'd actually like some WCF scholars to quote some primary sources about what "light of nature" means. I'll quote Calvin here about the two Kingdoms. What I ask of you, Sean, is to critique Calvin for me here and show me how he is all messed up in the way he talks about the innate knowledge that all men have:

Institutes 2.2.13-15

Yet its [man's natural reason] efforts do not always become so worthless as to have no effect, especially when it turns its attention to things below. On contrary, it is intelligent enough to taste something of things above, although it is more careless about investigating these. Nor does it carry on this latter activity with equal skill. For when the mind is borne above the level of the present life, it is especially convinced of its own frailty. Therefore, to perceive more clearly how far the mind can proceed in any matter according to the degree of its ability, we must here set forth a distinction. This, then, is the distinction: that there is one kind of understanding of earthly things; another of heavenly. I call “earthly things” those which do not pertain to God or his Kingdom, to true justice, or to the blessedness of the future life; but which have their significance and relationship with regard to the present life and are, in a sense, confined within its bounds. I call “heavenly things” the pure knowledge of God, the nature of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom. The first class includes government, household management, all mechanical skills, and the liberal arts. In the second are the knowledge of God and of his will, and the rule by which we conform our lives to it.

Of the first class the following ought to be said: since man is by nature a social animal, he tends through natural instinct to foster and preserve society. Consequently, we observe that there exist in all men’s minds universal impressions of a certain civic fair dealing and order. Hence no man is to be found who does not understand that every sort of human organization must be regulated by laws, and who does not comprehend the principles of those laws. Hence arises that unvarying consent of all nations and of individual mortals with regard to laws. For their seeds have, without teacher or lawgiver, been implanted in all men.
 
Let me finish with the conclusion of Calvin's quote. It could well be aimed at the epistemology in dispute:
Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [1 Corinthians 2:14] calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good.
 
I did. There are opinions and practices "contrary to the light of nature," 20:4. "The light of nature showeth there is a God," 21:1.

Like defining something as basic as truth, I gather this discussion is once again beyond you. Seeing I've already disposed of earlier mentions of the "light of nature" per the Confession which in no way can be construed, even by you, to provide warrant for your Natural Theology, it doesn't follow that mentioning the same term in later chapters you've miraculously discovered a new and different use of the term.

So what do we find in 20:4? Christians are not permitted to claim Christian liberty as a basis by which to oppose the use of lawful power which God ordained as such things are "contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity. . . ." Again, no assertion that the light of nature is any way cognitive or that the meaning intended is anything more than what we might call "common sense." Sorry Reverend, not surprisingly the Confession still does not provide you with any solace for your anti-Christian epistemology.

Per the proof texts of 21:1 it is clear they have in mind innate ideas which is nothing more than Calvin's sensus divinitas and the impress of conscious already covered above.

Sins are aggravated when committed against the light of nature, LC 151.

Of course it's always sinful to go against conscience. What you need to do is demonstrate that conscience is a means of cognition. Of course you won't. This game is have me jump through hoops while you jerk your knee ever time you see "light of nature." I played this game with you and your concordance and the word "know" in Scripture. You just don't seem to see 1 Cor. 1:21 contradicts you and it would be against the light of nature for me to go against the known principles Christianity which are found in Scripture alone.

I realize this is lost on you, but it is YOU who needs to demonstrate YOUR position. Not just cite a word here or a phrase there and sit back and just PRESUME your mere mention of a word supports your cause.

For what it's worth I'm very thankful you didn't play this kind of pathetic game in your review of Murray and the WMO.
 
Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, p. 73, shows what is meant by the light of nature and its functionality.

The same object may be known by the light of Nature, and by the light of Faith. This may easily be understood: I may know there is a God by the light of Nature; and I may beleeve it, because the Scripture saith so: so Hebr. 11. I may by faith understand the Word was made, and by arguments know it was made; and this is called faith, by James. The divels beleeve, that is, they have an evident intuitive knowledge of God, and feel it by experience; not that they have faith, for that is a supernaturall gift wrought by God, and hath accompanying it pia affectio, to him that speaketh, as the first truth. Faith therefore, and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing different waies: faith doth, because of the testimony and divine revelation of God; the light of Nature doth, because of arguments in the thing it self by discourse. And faith is not a dianoeticall or discursive act of the understanding, but it's simple and apprehensive.
 
Actually you provided your own definition, and it is that to which I was responding. Your definition presupposes certain ideas which are not in accord with reformed thought. Truth cannot be whatever God thinks, because God does not think consequentially. Full stop. End of story.

More irrelevancies. Full stop. End of Story.

Why don't you find a thread in which you have some competency to offer a worthwhile reply?
 
More irrelevancies. Full stop. End of Story.

Why don't you find a thread in which you have some competency to offer a worthwhile reply?

And on that note, this thread is closed. Both sides have had their opportunity to show where their commitments lie. I'm through with this rancor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top