Clarkian Knowledge and Archetypal/Ectypal Theology

[Civbert]

Civbert, (1.) Faith includes assent to knowledge. (2.) If condition X leads to fact Y, the people must have known condition X in order to be led to fact Y.

So a priori knowledge is required for one to be "led to fact Y". And nothing requires that this a priori knowledge X required experience, or even that they had epistemic justification to know Y.

We develop opinions based on a prior knowledge and experience. We know based on a priori knowledge without experience. If subjective interpretation of experience is a necessary condition for a particular conclusion Y, then conclusion Y is an opinion.

Since the truth of a subjective interpretation of experience is itself uncertain, then it is insufficient grounds for justifying the truth of any conclusion it is necessary for.

 

[Magma2]

Sean, you have ignored my challenge about predication. Either the people saw something out of the ordinary or they did not. You have said they did. That is enough to establish my case that knowledge comes through experience.

For a man who has just ignored a half dozen Scriptural references and who failed to correctly exegete the one you did interact with by completely missing the use of metaphor, you'll have to excuse me if I don't want to play semantical games.

Like others on this forum, I have enormous respect for you and even if you never write another thing, you're reply to Murray and the so-called Well Meant Offer was devastating and definitive. However, on this point you're just wrong.

Seeing something out of the ordinary -- or even seeing anything at all -- has no cognitive import at all and without the addition of divine propositions can produce no knowledge about anything whatsoever. You are simply mistaken.

Let me put it to you this way, I watched a magician on TV the other day. Some guy named David Blaine. I saw a lot of things that were out of the ordinary. I even saw him levitate. One of my employees believes Blaine has supernatural powers. But to Blaine or another magician or perhaps the camera men helping to create some of his tricks, I'm quite sure his performance was quite ordinary. That doesn't mean that magic tricks have any cognitive value or that knowledge requires experience.

 

[Magma2]

This only speaks of belief - and the second half - contrary to your position speaks of being more blessed if you believe without seeing Jesus. Thus it weighs against your position.
[bible]John 20:29[/bible]

Very interesting! The ESV has it in the form of a question. This further goes against experience for knowledge. Apparently, experience doesn't even justify belief, much less knowledge.

And of course Mat 16:17 really disproves that knowledge requires experience.
[bible] Mat 16:17 [/bible]

As a fellow defender of that "mongrel species of Scripturalism" this is a great point Anthony. The account of Thomas is an example of God's merciful condescension to our own weaknesses and frailties and is not biblical warrant for the empirical or "relational" epistemology Rev. Winzer defends . . . or, I should say, asserts.

I would say the sacraments are another example of God's condescension. The experience of breaking bread and drinking wine even until your stuffed and drunk can never provide the necessary premises by which we might infer Christ's cross work. The necessary premises are provided by the words of institutions. Without the divinely revealed propositions even the sacraments would be without any cognitive meaning. That's not to say that a nice glass of wine or a freshly baked loaf of bread has no value, it's just that bread and wine aren't a means by which we come to a knowledge of the truth.

I think this whole exchange is really sad in a way, because if you'll look at Rev. Winzer's posts per that link Paul Manata routinely provides, you'll notice that he is rightly critical of any epistemology which eliminates the work of the Spirit. Yet, when we affirm the absolute necessity of the Spirit's direct and immediate illumination through the Word in which He works in order for one to know anything at all, we're attacked as promoting some "mongrel species of Scripturalism." It reminds me of other uninformed critics who accuse Clark's Scripturalism of being "gnostic."

I think what "The Ghost of Van Til" said deserves repeating:

"A genuine Christian epistemolgy requires the premise that God takes the initative in our knowing as he does in our salvation (that is why salvation is called "coming to the knowledge of the truth"). People know only because God causes them to know, not because they have attained knowledge on their own."

 

[MW]

Civbert, Did you read the Scriptures with the phrase, "and ye shall know?" Simply restating your epistemic formula will not do. Exod. 16:12, "At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God." Condition X is not a priori knowledge. It is the eating of flesh and being filled with bread -- an experience. Conclusion Y is that they will know the Lord is their God.

 

[MW]

Seeing something out of the ordinary -- or even seeing anything at all -- has no cognitive import at all and without the addition of divine propositions can produce no knowledge about anything whatsoever. You are simply mistaken.

Let me put it to you this way, I watched a magician on TV the other day. Some guy named David Blaine. I saw a lot of things that were out of the ordinary. I even saw him levitate. One of my employees believes Blaine has supernatural powers. But to Blaine or another magician or perhaps the camera men helping to create some of his tricks, I'm quite sure his performance was quite ordinary. That doesn't mean that magic tricks have any cognitive value or that knowledge requires experience.

Sean, you know that what Christ did is out of the ordinary, so why would you compare His power to a sham magician? Please respond in a manner which is in accord with your profession of faith.

The Scriptures, as has been shown, testify that the people saw miracles. You have not come to terms with this fact. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious because you know the consequences are devastating to your epistemic claim.

If seeing has no cognitive import, how can you predicate things of seeing?

 

[MW]

I think this whole exchange is really sad in a way, because if you'll look at Rev. Winzer's posts per that link Paul Manata routinely provides, you'll notice that he is rightly critical of any epistemology which eliminates the work of the Spirit. Yet, when we affirm the absolute necessity of the Spirit's direct and immediate illumination through the Word in which He works in order for one to know anything at all, we're attacked as promoting some "mongrel species of Scripturalism." It reminds me of other uninformed critics who accuse Clark's Scripturalism of being "gnostic."

I'm not sure what posts are being referred to, but I affirm wholeheartedly that the work of the Spirit is essential for knowledge. The spirit of the Almighty gives every man knowledge; but everything in its kind. First the natural, then the spiritual. Reformed theology teaches the importance of general revelation. There is bona fide knowledge outside of the Scriptures, of which the Scriptures themselves testify. There are external "notes" whereby the Scriptures manifest that they are the very Word of God (Larger Catechism, answer 4). The demonstration of the Spirit whereby a person comes to faith in Christ and in the Scriptures is of a completely different order of persuasion. No form of human argument can produce it. It is a work of sovereign and irresistible grace.

But now, who cannot see the obvious fallacy which is present in Sean's defence of Scripturalism? It is one thing to say knowledge requires the work of the Spirit. It is quite another to suggest that knowledge is *solely* the work of the Spirit. Actually, Sean involves himself in a contradiction -- one moment saying this work of the Spirit is "immediate," the next moment saying it is "through the Word." This is all part and parcel of the fallacious manner in which idealist Scripturalism presents itself.

 

[Civbert]

Civbert, Did you read the Scriptures with the phrase, "and ye shall know?" Simply restating your epistemic formula will not do. Exod. 16:12, "At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God." Condition X is not a priori knowledge. It is the eating of flesh and being filled with bread -- an experience. Conclusion Y is that they will know the Lord is their God.

Like I said, they wouldn't know anything if God had not first said what he was going to do. God's Word is a priori to knowledge - not experience.

 

[MW]

But how did they know God had done it? That is what you cannot answer.

 

[Civbert]

But how did they know God had done it? That is what you cannot answer.

They knew God did it because God told them he was going to do it. He spoke, He revealed, God spoke propositions saying what He was going to do.

That's my whole point. If God had not given them that knowledge (propositions), then they would not have known He did anything. They did not know God did it because they experience it, but because God said he was going to do it.

 

[Civbert]

I has composed a nice long post on what "-ism" applied to Scripturalism and which did not. But to sum it up, idealism, rationalism, gnosticism, and fideism do not apply; but dogmatism and foundationalism do apply.

Idealism does not apply because idealist say only minds exists. Rationalism says that knowledge is a function of reason alone, and has not role for God's Word or the Holy Spirit. The rest I leave for everyone to look up.

Scripturalism is an explicit rejection of rationalism, empiricism, and mysticism. It is most exactly dogmatism and a form of foundationalism.

It is also a rejection of Thomistic philosophy that may be the most common view of the anti-Scripturalist. I'm not sure because anti-Scripturalist I've read have not given any cogent alternative epistemology.

Labels are fine when used appropriately. The convey knowledge in a succinct manner. So I have no problem with labeling per se, just to the misapplication of them. And slapping a label on something as if this was an argument unto itself is also of little value in debate.

P.S. I do not mean anti-Scripturalist as a pejorative term, simply a short-cut for a person who rejects Scripturalism for one reason or another.

 

[Civbert]

Recommended reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Although it's always questionable what you find on the net, that's also true for books and anything else other than Scripture. But the wikipedia articles are still reasonable in my opinion and can help one develop more informed opinions.

 

[MW]

They knew God did it because God told them he was going to do it. He spoke, He revealed, God spoke propositions saying what He was going to do.

This only leaves you with a WHAT, but no way of telling WHEN. Please explain how they would have known WHEN God had done what He said He was going to do. It is a completed action which is included in the condition which leads to the conclusion that the Lord is their God. This is made explicit in the example of Matt 24:32, "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh."

Concerning your differentiation of idealism from Scripturalism, you have not accounted for the fact that idealism holds that other things exist, only that it is an opinion. Consider Plato's men looking at the shadows on the wall. That is the same way Scripturalism regards phenomena.

 

[Civbert]

This only leaves you with a WHAT, but no way of telling WHEN. Please explain how they would have known WHEN God had done what He said He was going to do. It is a completed action which is included in the condition which leads to the conclusion that the Lord is their God. This is made explicit in the example of Matt 24:32, "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh."

Well then if the "when" is not clear, then the experience can not lead to knowledge - but merely opinion. Again we must abandon experience as a means of knowledge. But since the Christian has the enlightening by the Spirit, apart from experience, he has an epistemic justification. So now we have left "experience" further away from justifying knowledge.

Concerning your differentiation of idealism from Scripturalism, you have not accounted for the fact that idealism holds that other things exist, only that it is an opinion. Consider Plato's men looking at the shadows on the wall. That is the same way Scripturalism regards phenomena.

In fact, that fact is not a fact.

Idealism holds that only minds exist. If idealism were simply that we only know propositions, then idealism is correct. But since I have pointed out that idealism is more than "knowledge is propositional" then you are incorrect.

By the way, when you see a duck, is the duck in your brain, or is an image of a duck in your brain? Also, does that image of a duck make it a duck, or is it because it conforms to the definition of a duck (which are propositions). And how do you know a duck is there unless you already knew what a duck was prior to the experience. And are you justified in saying you know you see a duck, when in fact, you are looking at a young goose. It seems that experience is unreliable for justifying knowledge- and since knowledge only includes truths, then a possible false mechanism (sensory perception) would not justify knowledge. This is just the tip of the iceberg and a reasonable epistemology needs to deal with them to be useful. And you will find that experience fails time and time again to provide epistemic justification by any reasonable definition. Again I say that the only reasonable justification of knowledge is revelation. Do you deny this?


Matt 24:32 is a parable, not a statement on epistemology. A parable is not the truth itself, parables point to other truths.

 

[MW]

Well then if the "when" is not clear, then the experience can not lead to knowledge - but merely opinion. Again we must abandon experience as a means of knowledge.

How can opinion lead to knowledge? You have said the WHEN would only be an opinion. But it is WHEN they had eaten flesh and were filled with bread that they would know that the Lord is their God. I wish you would take the Scriptures seriously.

But since the Christian has the enlightening by the Spirit, apart from experience, he has an epistemic justification. So now we have left "experience" further away from justifying knowledge.

Enlightening by the Spirit is an experience. It is an inward work of the Spirit of God. This shows yet another fallacy of your unscriptural scripturalism.

Idealism holds that only minds exist. If idealism were simply that we only know propositions, then idealism is correct. But since I have pointed out that idealism is more than "knowledge is propositional" then you are incorrect.

You may want to consider reading up on Plato's three-story universe.

Matt 24:32 is a parable, not a statement on epistemology. A parable is not the truth itself, parables point to other truths.

You refuse to accept the literal import of any Scripture which conflicts with your philosophy. For the lesson of a parable to be true (the heavenly things), that which the parable relates must be true (the earthly things).

 

[Magma2]

Sean, you know that what Christ did is out of the ordinary, so why would you compare His power to a sham magician?

Because it provides further demonstration that seeing something out of the ordinary is not cognitive. The Scriptures tell us that those who witnessed the miracles of Christ inferred that He was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Even others inferred that Jesus was Satanic. And to think, all this from seeing something out of the ordinary.

Since you're not willing to believe the Scriptures seeing they completely refute your sensate and "relational" epistemology, I thought a magician might help.

Please respond in a manner which is in accord with your profession of faith.

I did. My profession of faith is that coming to knowledge of the truth is a gift of God and knowledge does not require experience.

The Scriptures, as has been shown, testify that the people saw miracles. You have not come to terms with this fact. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious because you know the consequences are devastating to your epistemic claim.

I only know what Jesus did was miraculous because the Scriptures say so. Same applies to you. No experience necessary.

 

[Magma2]

I'm not sure what posts are being referred to, but I affirm wholeheartedly that the work of the Spirit is essential for knowledge.

Ask Paul Manata. I'm sure he has the link memorized.

The spirit of the Almighty gives every man knowledge; but everything in its kind. First the natural, then the spiritual.

Rom 11:8; just as it is written, "GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."

Appears to me God gave man something besides knowledge.

Reformed theology teaches the importance of general revelation. There is bona fide knowledge outside of the Scriptures, of which the Scriptures themselves testify. There are external "notes" whereby the Scriptures manifest that they are the very Word of God (Larger Catechism, answer 4).

There you go. The Scriptures refute your empiricism so you turn to tradition. I don't deny that many in the Reformed tradition have been followers of Aquinas and Aristotle and not Augustine. You've provided another example of that tradition which still believes knowledge requires experience and that sensation plays a role in the acquisition of knowledge. As far as I'm concerned a central pillar of Reformed theology is that while tradition can be useful, Scripture ALONE is the final authority by which all tradition must be judged. I'm sorry but your appeal to "Reformed theology" doesn't provide you with much of a refuge.

The psalmist said; "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork." However, no man can arrive at this truth through a telescope, and while astronomy is useful, it is not a cognitive enterprise. How do we know the heavens declare the glory of God? Because the Scriptures tell us so that's how.

But now, who cannot see the obvious fallacy which is present in Sean's defence of Scripturalism? It is one thing to say knowledge requires the work of the Spirit. It is quite another to suggest that knowledge is *solely* the work of the Spirit. Actually, Sean involves himself in a contradiction -- one moment saying this work of the Spirit is "immediate," the next moment saying it is "through the Word." This is all part and parcel of the fallacious manner in which idealist Scripturalism presents itself.

Didn't you and I go over this before? I'm starting to have the experience of deja vu.

To know God, to come to know the truth, is to come to know something of what God knows. Have you forgotten John 16:13; Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

Notice the Spirit will lead God's people into all truth (and not just some - as if other truths were experientially discerned) and He does not speak on His own accord and apart from the revealed word (pretty much wiping out all claims to extra-biblical knowledge of the enthusiasts and other experience mongers).

I recall Luther had a good reply to those who came crying "the Spirit, the Spirit" divorced from the Word and who set up the kind of dichotomy you've attempted above. He said "my spirit slaps your spirit on the snout."

1 Cor 2:11b; Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

Thoughts are spiritually discerned and are not arrived at by some existential or "relational" experience. I think Edward's sermon A Divine and Supernatural Light, Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God, Shown to be Both Scriptural and Rational Doctrine might be helpful:

And this light and knowledge is always spoken of as immediately given of God, Matt. 11:25-27: "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son but the Father: neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Here this effect is ascribed alone to the arbitrary operation, and gift of God, bestowing this knowledge on whom he will, and distinguishing those with it, that have the least natural advantage or means for knowledge, even babes, when it is denied to the wise and prudent. And the imparting of the knowledge of God is here appropriated to the Son of God, as his sole prerogative. And again, 2 Cor. 4:6, "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ." This plainly shows, that there is such a thing as a discovery of the divine superlative glory and excellency of God and Christ, and that peculiar to the saints: and also, that it is as immediately from God, as light from the sun: and that it is the immediate effect of his power and will; for it is compared to God's creating the light by his powerful word in the beginning of the creation; and is said to be by the Spirit of the Lord, in the 18th verse of the preceding chapter. God is spoken of as giving the knowledge of Christ in conversion, as of what before was hidden and unseen in that. Gal. 1:15,16, "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me." The Scripture also speaks plainly of such a knowledge of the word of God, as has been described, as the immediate gift of God, Psalm 119:18: "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." What could the Psalmist mean when he begged of God to open his eyes? Was he ever blind? Might he not have resort to the law and see every word and sentence in it when he pleased? and what could he mean by those wondrous things? Was it the wonderful stories of the creation, and deluge, and Israel's passing through the Red Sea, and the like? Were not his eyes open to read these strange things when he would? Doubtless by wondrous things in God's law, he had respect to those distinguishing and wonderful excellencies, and marvellous manifestations of the divine perfections, and glory, that there was in the commands and doctrines of the word, and those works and counsels of God that were there revealed. So the Scripture speaks of a knowledge of God's dispensation, and covenant of mercy, and way of grace towards his people, as peculiar to the saints, and given only by God, Psalm 25:14: "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will show them his covenant."

I'm sorry Rev. Winzer, seeing that your entire epistemic framework fails to comport with Scripture at any one point, in my opinion you really need to go back to the drawing board.

Peace.

 

[Civbert]

How can opinion lead to knowledge? You have said the WHEN would only be an opinion. But it is WHEN they had eaten flesh and were filled with bread that they would know that the Lord is their God. I wish you would take the Scriptures seriously.

It doesn't. And for the third time my point is reinforced. Since experience only leads one to opinion - it can not give knowledge. Therefore the only way for them to know anything is God's Word and the Spirit. And this is explained in the next sentence that your comment's split.

Also, I do take Scripture seriously, my whole epistemic foundation is Scripture. I resent your assertion to the contrary. You are trying make points by making disparaging remarks.

Enlightening by the Spirit is an experience. It is an inward work of the Spirit of God. This shows yet another fallacy of your unscriptural scripturalism.

On the contrary, this shows that you should agree with my Scripturalism. If you had simply said the experience you are arguing for was the Word and Spirit - then you'd be in agreement with me. I just don't use the term experience that way because in normal discussions of epistemology experience refers to sensory perceptions and immages, not the work of the Sprite and Word.

You refuse to accept the literal import of any Scripture which conflicts with your philosophy. For the lesson of a parable to be true (the heavenly things), that which the parable relates must be true (the earthly things).

Do you accept the literal import of Scripture that speaks of God's hands and eyes? Some verses are supposed to be literal and some are metaphorical, and some are parable. In all cases, the truth, the spiritual knowledge, is not found in the literal interpretation but in understanding the meaning of the parallel truth. If you took parables as literally, then you will start finding all sorts of flaws and inconsistencies in the Word. Since I am a Scripturalist, I want to understand the truth the parable is pointing to.

 

[MW]

Because it provides further demonstration that seeing something out of the ordinary is not cognitive. The Scriptures tell us that those who witnessed the miracles of Christ inferred that He was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Even others inferred that Jesus was Satanic. And to think, all this from seeing something out of the ordinary.

Since you're not willing to believe the Scriptures seeing they completely refute your sensate and "relational" epistemology, I thought a magician might help.

Funny. But you are confusing a premise with a conclusion. They inferred the wrong thing. But you have acknowledged they got the premise right when you agreed the Scripture teaches they saw something out of the ordinary.

I only know what Jesus did was miraculous because the Scriptures say so. Same applies to you. No experience necessary.

Yes, but the people who saw Jesus' miracles, whom the Scriptures credit with having seen His miracles, did not have the Scriptures to tell them they saw His miracles. That is what you cannot cope with.

 

[MW]

Civbert, if I have caused you to resent something I said, I am sincerely sorry, but I regret to tell you that your hermeneutical method is unorthodox. Figurative language is undoubtedly used in Scripture, but the figures are only meaningful because they themselves have a literal signification. No, I do not believe God has human body parts; but human body parts function in a certain way, and these functions denote something when they are figuratively attributed to God. But you claim that the figures mean nothing.

God gives evidence for Himself to the Israelites time and again. He foretells certain things which are going to come to pass, and then tells them that WHEN these things have come to pass they will KNOW He is the Lord. Condition X leads to conclusion Y, yet according to your epistemology condition X is an opinion and conclusion Y is knowledge. Anyone who accepts the divine authority of the Scriptures could not possibly adopt your idealist Scripturalism with a good conscience. Your epistemology denies what God explicitly claims.

The parables are literal and speak of "earthly things" as our Lord told Nicodemus. Couched within these earthly things are heavenly lessons. It is these two things which your Scripturalism confuses. You deny to men a knowledge of earthly things because the Scriptures deny to them a knowledge of heavenly things without special revelation. Yet the Scriptures constantly chide unbelievers for knowing earthly things whilst being ignorant of heavenly things. Mt 16:3, "And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?"

 

[MW]

I don't deny that many in the Reformed tradition have been followers of Aquinas and Aristotle and not Augustine. You've provided another example of that tradition which still believes knowledge requires experience and that sensation plays a role in the acquisition of knowledge. As far as I'm concerned a central pillar of Reformed theology is that while tradition can be useful, Scripture ALONE is the final authority by which all tradition must be judged. I'm sorry but your appeal to "Reformed theology" doesn't provide you with much of a refuge.

Sean, now you are playing the fanatic, pitting the reformed tradition against Scripture alone, when it is clear as day you are pitting the reformed tradtion's interpretation of Scripture against your own private interpretation. Vain man would be wise!

 

[Magma2]

Sean, now you are playing the fanatic, pitting the reformed tradition against Scripture alone, when it is clear as day you are pitting the reformed tradtion's interpretation of Scripture against your own private interpretation. Vain man would be wise!

Private interpretation? This from a man who hangs his entire empirical and "relational" epistemology on a demonstrably errant and literalistic interpretation of the metaphorical language used in Jeremiah and elsewhere and a misapplication and overextension of a PARABLE! Jesus was not teaching an empirical component to knowledge as you wrongly assert as you attempt to cram a parabolic analogy into that epistemic box you've imposed on Scripture. You even miss the irony in light of your professed empiricism found in the very passage where the Parable of the Fig Tree is found:

24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
25 "Behold, I have told you in advance.

Not only does it NOT follow that experiences are cognitive, much less a "requirement of knowledge," Jesus specifically warns his followers about the deceptions of false Christs who also contend that knowledge requires experience. How else could so many be so easily duped by their miraculous "signs and wonders" if they didn't believe, like you, that experience is a requirement for knowledge? Following experience is not the road or even an aid to knowledge, it's the road to destruction.

Finally, what I find vain is placing even Reformed tradition above the Scriptures. There is a church that shares your devotion to tradition, but it's not the Reformed one. This is the Reformed tradition:

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, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

I might add within that rubric of traditions of men:

All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both.

I'm sorry to say your appeal to tradition this time was no help to you at all.

In order not to

See you on another thread.


2 Cor 5:7; for we walk by faith, not by sight--

 

[Civbert]

Rev. Winzer.

... Figurative language is undoubtedly used in Scripture, but the figures are only meaningful because they themselves have a literal signification.

But the truth being conveyed is found in the what they point to. The parable itself is not to be taken literally. If fact, they are often fictional.

... No, I do not believe God has human body parts; but human body parts function in a certain way, and these functions denote something when they are figuratively attributed to God. But you claim that the figures mean nothing.

I made no such claim.

God gives evidence for Himself to the Israelites time and again. He foretells certain things which are going to come to pass, and then tells them that WHEN these things have come to pass they will KNOW He is the Lord. Condition X leads to conclusion Y, yet according to your epistemology condition X is an opinion and conclusion Y is knowledge.

I don't think you understood what I'm saying. Condition X is what God said. This is not an opinion.

... Anyone who accepts the divine authority of the Scriptures could not possibly adopt your idealist Scripturalism with a good conscience. Your epistemology denies what God explicitly claims.

I think you have it backwards. Anyone who adobts Scripturalism is simply making the Scriptures the foundation of epistemic justification. A Scripturalist makes God's explicet claims as foundational. What you are doing is trying to induce empiricism from Scripture. - but so far this has not worked out. No where does Scripture tell us it is insufficent for knowledge. In fact, the divines who athored the Westminster Confession of Faith said that that "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" (WCF 1:6).

Now where does it say knowledge requires experience?

Rev Winzer - if God had not first said what He was going to do, would they have known?

The parables are literal and speak of "earthly things" as our Lord told Nicodemus. Couched within these earthly things are heavenly lessons.

[bible] Joh 3:11-12[/bible]
Even "earthly things", for us to "know" them, most come from the Word.

More often the parables were stories that had no literal truth in themselves. The truth lay only with the ideas the parables pointed to.

... It is these two things which your Scripturalism confuses. You deny to men a knowledge of earthly things because the Scriptures deny to them a knowledge of heavenly things without special revelation.

Scripturalism recognizes the inherent fallacy of going from particulars to universals. It rejects empiricism - and embraces the truth that Scripture provides - "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" (WCF 1:6).

... Yet the Scriptures constantly chide unbelievers for knowing earthly things whilst being ignorant of heavenly things. Mt 16:3, "And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?"

This chiding shows how lost empiricism is. Jesus chides them for claiming to have knowledge via earthly sign, but rejecting the true knowledge from heaven. They reject the truth for the illusion. [bible] mat 16:2-4[/bible]
Notice that Jesus does not actually credit them with knowing the future weather, but for knowing how to interpret evidence. They were doing weather forcasting. And epistemologically speaking, just like all weather forecasting, these are opinions!! No weatherman has epistemic justification in claiming to know if it will snow or rain tomorrow. The Pharisees did not "know" if the weather would be foul or fair.

Again, this is another verse that supports Scripturalism when you read it in context - and not snip out the small part that superficially seems contrary to Scripturalism.

 

[MW]

Private interpretation? This from a man who hangs his entire empirical and "relational" epistemology on a demonstrably errant and literalistic interpretation of the metaphorical language used in Jeremiah and elsewhere and a misapplication and overextension of a PARABLE!

Sean, you were the one who quoted Jeremiah; I simply corrected your misapplication. On the parable of the fig tree, your idealistic Scripturalism has been weighed in the balance of reformed hermeneutics and found wanting. Your epistemology destroys the very idea of a parabolic teaching and figures of speech, together with the biblical force of miracles, prophecies, and various other modes of revelation.

As for the rest of your post, it is not the reformed tradition against Scripture, but the reformed interpretation of Scripture against Sean's interpretation of Scripture. If you had eyes to see you would perceive that the passage of the Confession you have quoted applies as equally to your own fanatical opinions as to the tried and true reformed tradition.

 

[Civbert]

Sean, you were the one who quoted Jeremiah; I simply corrected your misapplication. On the parable of the fig tree, your idealistic Scripturalism has been weighed in the balance of reformed hermeneutics and found wanting. Your epistemology destroys the very idea of a parabolic teaching and figures of speech, together with the biblical force of miracles, prophecies, and various other modes of revelation.

As for the rest of your post, it is not the reformed tradition against Scripture, but the reformed interpretation of Scripture against Sean's interpretation of Scripture. If you had eyes to see you would perceive that the passage of the Confession you have quoted applies as equally to your own fanatical opinions as to the tried and true reformed tradition.

 

[MW]

Civbert, there is no doubt God said condition X would lead to conclusion Y. My point depends on it. Scripture asserts experience leads to knowledge. Being filled with flesh and manna in accord with God's Word leads to the conclusion that He is God. What you cannot manage, and seem constantly to evade, is the fact that they must KNOW that they have been filled with meat and manna in order to be led to the conclusion that the Lord is their God. God did not tell them that they had been filled, but that they would be filled. They had to know that they were filled as a necessary condition in order to be led to the conclusion.

As for your confused understanding of parabolic instruction, read the text of Scripture: Matt. 24:32, 33, "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." There is no LIKEWISE if verse 32 does not present a true state of affairs. And even if the state of verse 32 was merely fictional or imaginative, the objective lesson of verse 33 plainly teaches that SEEING what Christ had foretold is a precondition to KNOWING.

Concerning Matt. 16:24, the Lord Jesus explicitly says, "YE CAN DISCERN." No amount of sophistication can wrest His words to suit your epistemic nonsense.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm going to allow closing comments and then close this thread as it is not going anywhere.

Those who read my previous comments know that I'm sympathetic to Rev. Winzer's views here as I believe they are not only in harmony with Scripture but with our Reformed Confession that accurately summarize the teachings of the Scriptures.

I also believe this thread has been helpful in illuminating the Scripturalist presuppositions. Those who are persuaded of them will not be easily persuaded from them. I understand they believe they have Scriptural warrant. I obviously disagree. As I stated earlier, there is far too much loose material that has to be cut away. Summarizing Rev. Winzer's thoughts as merely empiricism is certainly an example to many that things are either ideally rational or they are completely empirical. Either all is deduced rationally or nothing is. It's an all or nothing game here. I've actually pointed many to this thread so they can see an example of where the epistemic presuppositions lead - denial of the obvious for the sake of the system.

My post will obviously invoke the ire of some of the Scripturalists here. I'm an unsophisticated hack after all. I know what the reaction will be. I've been told by you, Anthony, that you're proud of being predictable. In fact, you and Sean are both very predictable. You're actually more predictable in your reactions to things than those I've known for a long time. As a person who has to manage many personality types, I would actually find you two most manageable. I don't mean this in a pejorative way but it is ironic that those who place the least amount of stock in empirical observation are themselves most predictable as empirical subjects.

I will finally end with a few summarizing points for onlookers:

1. Notice the conflation of all language here: a thing is only known if it is rationally deduced from Scripture. Everything else is an opinion. An example of some things that are all opinions:

Sweet Potato Ice Cream tastes good.
Sushi is delicious.
Abraham Lincoln was a good President.
My wife's name is Sonya.
Ingestion of 1 gram of Plutonium will kill you.
When my car runs out of gas, the engine will stop.

Who, when they run out of gas, has merely an "opinion" that they need to go to the gas station? This is what idealism leads to.

{Uh oh! I'm an empericist now. I wear the Scarlet E.}

2. Westminster Divines are drug through the mud and said to be influenced too much by Aristotle and Aquinas. Of course, where they might be quoted in part to support a presupposition they are just fine.

The poor WCF Divines: they're both maligned and extolled when they either don't fit a system or are said to support it. They're even assumed to be rational earlier in the same thread so I'm having trouble figuring out when they were Aquinian and when they were Clarkian. Reminds me of some in the FV who play both sides of the fence and claim to be Confessional.

3. I encourage all to read about the difference between solo-Scriptura and sola-Scriptura to determine whether the apologists here are consistent with the Reformed expression of the latter.

 

[Civbert]

.. I know what the reaction will be. I've been told by you, Anthony, that you're proud of being predictable. .

I'm curious now what your prediction of my response will be. Go ahead and write my closing remarks and I'll add or correct them. If you understand my position, and you fairly represent it, I will be very pleased and have nothing further to add.

And please, don't say "I knew you were going to say that".

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm curious now what your prediction of my response will be. Go ahead and write my closing remarks and I'll add or correct them. If you understand my position, and you fairly represent it, I will be very pleased and have nothing further to add.

OK, if I had to guess, I would say you would write this:

As I was reading your closing comments, Rich, I was cut to the heart! I am now fully persuaded to turn from my errant Scripturalist ways!

You may now edit my prediction and provide your closing comments.

 

[Civbert]

Closing Remarks

I think some of the problem I've found in arguing about epistemology comes down to people not really talking about the same thing. Maybe this comes from ignorance, or simply because people are working off of different presuppositions. As a Presuppositionalist, I tend to think this is more the case.

When I am speaking about epistemology, I have a very specific definition of knowledge in mind. I am not using the term to mean "things we are certain about", but things which we have a epistemic justification for believing true. An epistemology is a theory of knowledge. When we start thinking in-depth about our worldview - our philosophy - we need to answer questions like "how do I know" and "what is knowledge" and "why". These question can not be dismissed with pat answers like "seeing is believing" or I just know. Now you can live your whole life as a functional human being without addressing those questions, but you are still function under assumptions that answer them by implication.

So when we speak of epistemology - it is not asking simply what we a sure about, but what is true and believed and justified. Simple certainty applies to "if my car runs out of gas, the engine will stop". What is debatable, is if knowledge applies here. Can we know the future? Can we conclude that all crows are black because we have observed 10,000 black crows - or a lifetime of crows. Can one induce universal truths from particular occurrences. Plato tried to answer this over a thousands of years ago.

Another question is if knowledge is personal or impersonal. What I mean is this, can one person know A, and another person know not-A. This is personal knowledge. But if knowledge is truth, then can someone know something that is in-fact, false. One the other hand, if we say that knowledge is universal truths, it becomes much harder to justify knowing it. If we say the knowledge is just what one is reasonable certain about (like when I cross this bridge, it will not collapse), then knowledge is no longer universal. People can "know" contradictory things.

Also, if knowledge is truth, what is true. Not only do we need to understand what truth means - beyond a metaphor - but we need to say how we know a truth from an falsehood. Is the color blue true or false? Can we "know" the color blue? How do we justify this knowledge?

There are many difficult questions to answer if one is to have a cogent and rational epistemology. But we can always reject "rational" as being "rationalism" or idealistic. I suppose one could argue that knowledge is more than what we can think cogently about. We can do as some and embrace mysticism. But this rejection of rational knowledge is self defeating. If we can not speak of knowledge in terms of cogent ideas, then we can not give a logical defense truth. It's a mystery. And speaking of logic, who says the laws of logic are universal? In the eastern philosophies, they don't believe reality is so "black and white". To them, truth is a matter of grays.

Definitions are often the heart of disagreements. People like to think their definitions are true and other's are false. The problem with this is definitions are tautologies (if you assume logic), and it is more important to be consistent with your definitions, then have the "right" definitions. I define knowledge as "justified true belief" and justification as being deduced from a-priori truths (or justified by immediate enlightenment from God). But others will argue that I am literally wrong. The problem is that being wrong or right does not apply. There is not single definition of "knowledge" or "car" or "optimism". The issue is not a matter of right or wrong but of good or bad. A bad definition will not get the job done. Maybe it's self defeating or too vague. Maybe it contradicts how you use other terms. The point is to be specific and be consistent. And understand how other people are using terms. Ask them to define their terms, and be ready to define your's. Only then you can defend them as good and useful and coherent.

Do our terms have to conform to Scripture? Yes and no. Of course, when we are reading Scripture, we need to understand the terms as they are meant. Only then can you reason correctly. But when we are speaking about Scripture, or about philosophy, we want terms that we understand and are clear. We don't need to restrict ourselves to using only the words found in the Bible or even exactly as they are used in the Bible. Scripture doesn't use terms univocally throughout the text. And we can invent knew terms that help us explain our thoughts. Read any theologian to see examples. You won't find "archetypal" or "etypal" in the bible. These terms were invented to help explain some ideas about the relationship between God and man. These are certainly extra-biblical in that the ideas are not explicit in Scripture. So to is the idea of the Trinity. What matters is being clear, and avoiding equivocating.

Scripturalism is an answer to the questions of philosophy. It is not an answer to how we "know if our car is going to need gas tomorrow". That is a different beast all together. It answers the question of epistemic justification. So by definition, there are some things it will justify as knowledge, and other's will not. Other epistemology's will, by definition, produce a different knowledge set. By empiricism, one can know that a tree is brown, and man evolved from apes. It will say we can truly "know" how far it is to the moon, and how old the universe is. It can tell us what we had for dinner, and that there is no God. These are all equally valid bits of empirical knowledge. On the other hand Scripturalism can not justify what we had for dinner, but it will justify that God created the world, and Jesus died for the sins of the elect, and even that 2 + 2 = 4. It will tell you how best to love your neighbor - but not which color looks best on you. It doesn't justify knowing that George Bush is president, but it will justify David was the king of Israel.

The point is, that different epistemologies will justify different answers to what we can know. But we can not prove epistemologies based on the knowledge they justify. Effectively, it matters little that Scripturalism won't justify knowing where the best price of tomato soup will be found, it also doesn't justify that walking on water is impossible. I know Jesus walked on water, and, although this is based on epistemic opinion, I'll still go to Safeway for tomato soup.

I'd love to edit this down and clean it up, but for now, I'll spell check it and wait for other opportunities to discuss these issues. Hopefully, people can keep things a little less personal and more rational. Me, I have a great deal of respect for things that are rational. Rationalism I can't abide.

And please read those articles on Wikipedia about epistemology and empiricism and rationalism. That will help you with the background information you need to keep things philosophical.

 

[MW]

Scripturalism is an answer to the questions of philosophy.

Hence from the outset it fails to truly represent the Scripture of truth, because Scripture is an answer to the questions of sin and salvation -- relational issues, not rational ones. The problem with idealist philosophy in general is its insistence that man must become like God, whereas the Bible teaches salvation is a reality because God became man. God does not require man to become something that he is not, or deny what man essentially is. By becoming man our Lord Jesus Christ declared there was something true and valuable about the human state which should remain unchanged. Hence throughout the Scriptures man is addressed in his own thoughts without calling into question his natural ability to know. His problem is moral, not rational. Idealism seeks to make men what they are not, whereas the Bible teaches the true integrity of humanity to consist in a dependence on what they can never be. Idealist scripturalism takes it place with all of the other man made systems which claim to know the way to truth, whereas holy Scripture is a Sovereign revelation of God to man which is the truth and not merely a means to it.