Here is the place to put discussions that are off-topic of an existing thread, yet perhaps worthwhile in their own right.
The name indicates that you can afford to “bump your head” here without as much consequence as usual. Also, the padding will provide a little bit of insulation so the potential “din” does not interfere with the focussed discussion going on in the other rooms.
Well, I have been having a conversation with Turretin fan on his blog (which I have just posted the latest on my blog). I would appreciate it if I could get some verification that what I am saying is really representative of Van Til. (I am not asking for back up in the argument — I just want to make sure I’m not giving Turretinfan the wrong impression and false ammo to other Clarkians. A simple yes or no would be sufficient.)
JonathanB (#17) — I’ll try to get the maestro to answer your question. But if you have time and inclination, it might be helpful for him (and me) if you could give a brief summary of T-fan’s thesis and your counter, here. It’s kinda hard to jump into the middle of someone else’s rather lengthy dialogue.
[Note to readers: in the following, when I refer to “T-fan’s definition” etc., that is meant as shorthand for “Jonathan’s statement of what T-fan’s definition is” without prejudice for or against T-fan’s agreement.]
Jonathan — excellent summary. Exactly what was needed. I’m generally on board with your presentation.
re debate 1:
a. I don’t think T-fan’s definition of proof will fly, unless it becomes a useless word. You could not present a “proof” in a book on geometry, since you don’t know if the reader will be persuaded. But if calling it “proof” only declares the author’s own persuasion, how wd that differ from him saying, “this is a sound argument”?
I think “proof” is a broader, not narrower concept than “sound argument.” That is, all sound arguments are proofs, but not all proofs are sound arguments. But this is more of a linguistic question, not a logical one.
b. A clarification wd be needed on the function of men already knowing God, and thus being persuaded. There is a difference between being persuaded of a conclusion, and of the argument to get there.
Suppose you are trying to prove to your conversation partner that 7+5=12. The premises all seem true, and the logic faultless; yet your partner is unpersuaded. Yet he grants that 7+5=12.
Then have you met T-fan’s standard of “proof”? I think not.
However, your comment I think is correct in the case of the transcendental argument, if the transcendental argument is an explication of both the form and the content of the sensus divinitatis; I am inclined to think this is so.
I’ll add a comment on debate #2 later.
I’m sure MB will also weigh in on this later in the week, though possibly on a different thread. We’re getting a bit off of Clark and science.
For what it’s worth my position is not “proof is persuasion of a sound argument.”
In fact, I would reject that definition for much the same reasons that TJH does.
This situation, however, illustrates the value of interacting with the author instead of the author’s critic.
A full discussion is available on my blog, and speaks for itself. I would, of course, welcome any comments from yourself, TJH, on my actual position presented there.
re the “second debate,” I too tend to see the adoption of “axioms” without a reason as mere fideism, and unable to oppose, say, a Muhammedan’s similar move. In my mind this is a serious defect of clarkism. The “reasons” we offer are of course resting on and dependant on the principium of revelation, are not self-attesting, and so on; therein lies the “circularity.” It is analogous to “proving” the validity of logic. This is the nature of what it means to have creaturely knowledge.
Anyway, I’m just the fill-in guy; I think the Meistersinger will weigh in on these matters soon; hold tight.
T-fan — your statement in (Clark on Science) #17, “The law of God encompasses sins of ignorance” — did you mean by that, that one is, or is not, held liable (sinful) for a violation of the law done from ignorance?
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
I meant that sins of ignorance are still sins, and (while less heinous) have the usual ramifications of sin.
Naturally, the substitutionary work of Christ prevents the elect from being held liable on the judgment day (from any and all sins).
I think that’s more or less the standard WCF explanation, and I assume you agree on that.
T-fan, I was going somewhere else with this. I was wondering if the “no empirically certain knowledge” thesis would have any ethical implications, say, if Adam had not fallen. It would seem, then, that it would always be possible to violate the law of God due to inescapable empirical uncertainty. Yet it would not be a “fall” in the self-conscious sense. Would this follow from your or Clark’s view?
I’m not sure where you’re going with this, but I’ll try to just answer the question.
We could imagine a scenario in which the serpent removes a fruit from the tree and mixes it in with the rest of the fruit Adam had already picked for the day.
The next morning before dawn, Adam just grabs a fruit off the top of the basket for a quick burst of morning energy — and the letter of the law is certainly violated.
It didn’t transpire that way, but I suppose it hypothetically could have. God, however, in His providence arranged for the fruit to be consumed with knowledge that it was the forbidden fruit.
I for one ask that the Clarkians deduce every single one of the statements they’ve made in this combox from Scripture, or else admit that they’re just offering their mere opinion.
I also find it funny that they say people have misunderstood Clark. I would ask that Clark’s “correct view” be deduced from Scripture, otherwise you all don’t know that Tim has “misunderstood” Clark, now do you? To say that presupposes that you *do* “understand” Clark, this implies that Tim et al do not and thus you must know that you do and they don’t. If you do know this, please deduce it. Otherwise, just admit that in your opinion Clark says X.
TF,
“Scripture tells us that the sun is hot (Isaiah 49:10 and James 1:11). Science says the same thing. Therefore, Science is right.”
Well, this presupposes that they were speaking literally. How do you *know* that the writers were? If you do, deduce this from Scripture. Secondly, how do you know that “science says this?” Can you deduce that from Scripture? Can’t get very far with simpleton valid syllogisms. Anyone can pump those out of the mental factory. Big deal.
All eagles are birds.
God is an eagle.
Therefore God is a bird.
See, valid syllogisms don’t really get you that far. If my premises are false, then so what I have a valid argument?
So, you need to deny Clark epistemology to argue for Clark’s epistemology.
That’s kind of like TAANC – transcendental argument against the non-existence of Clark.
Indeed, how do you even know Clark existed? Can it be deduced from Scripture?
JC,
Your conclusion proves the absurdity of trying to argue like a Van Tillian. Thank you for the demonstration.
Of course, I take the truth of Scripture as a presupposition. I can deduce that the sun’s heat is being described “literally” from Scripture.
I don’t have to claim to “know” what Science says – it is enough that you and I can agree that Science says that – i.e. that we take it as a given for the purposes of our conversation. In other words, for the sake of conversation, that too is a presupposition. Are you unwilling to accept that proposition as a presupposition for the conversation? If someone was, the conversation would shift, and the simple (not “simpletonâ€) syllogism would have to be put on hold.
The conclusion, of course, follows from the premises.
I don’t “know” Clark existed using Clark’s extremely high standard for knowledge, and I don’t need to. Simply showing that I don’t have the same level of confidence in Clark’s existence as I do in Christ’s is not equivalent to proving Clark’s non-existence.
One point you raised in your comments is true, but totally irrelevant: if the premises are false, then the logical conclusion is not necessarily true. That’s an accurate statement of logic, but totally irrelevant to the present conversation.
Dear Tim, Keith, and JC,
I’ve responded here), in a single, rather lengthy post to your collective responses.
Nevertheless, I took a temporary (DV) pass on your (Tim’s) request to deal specifically with Clark’s book.
There seems to be much glee associated with using Clark’s definition of “know” in the context of epistemology in other contexts.
Doing so produces absurd results: like that Clark does not”know” that he went to seminary or that Van Til opposed his ordination.
A similar absurd result is obtained by applying the Physics definition of “work” to the job of a librarian, and concluding that an excellent librarian does no work over the course of the year, because all the tomes are in the same position at the end of the year as they were at the beginning of the year.
Such games can amuse those with a sense of humor by relying on implicit equivocation. They can also confuse the witless, who will think upon such demonstration that Clark is looney and Physicists, deranged.
Reader Beware!
TF,
Unfortunately you missed gthe substance behind my comments and made some minor responses.
You also assume way too much. let’s look at your answer to 7:
I charged you with at least (a) holding a self-referentially incoherent position if you say that you *know* the Scripturalist package, and (b) at least complete agnosticism w/ regard to the Scripturalist package – thus leaving us wondering just *what* possible *positive* epistemic status it holds.
Now, you responded that the Scripturalist package is just *sola Scriptura.*
Sorry, no free lunches. I mean, you’re free to *define* sola Scriptura as meaning “nothing can be known by humans unless it is a proposition stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture,†but then I can just as easily *define* it, along with 99% of all the other reformers who have defined it as such, this way: Scripture is the *standard* of life, doctrine, practice.
Indeed, if *sola Scriptura* is defined as “all human knowledge is either directly stated in Scripture or able to be deduced from Scripture,†then I maintain that you cannot *know* that this is what sola Scriptura means!
The traditional reformed definition is:
WCF 1:X
“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
So, you don’t even appear to understand the traditional definition of *sola Scriptura,* but you also have, if you’re correct, given us a position which cannot be known.
This is one of the many problems of Scripturalism. It not only destroys things that are *paradigm instances* of knowledge (e.g., say memorial beliefs about having had eggs for breakfast), it rules *itself* out as an item of knowledge.
best,
John Calvin
JC,
The only things we can know with the highest confidence are the things that God himself reveals. That is the reason behind the use of Scripture as the supreme judge.
Once you’ve grasped that, the rest should fall into place for you, as long as you commit yourself to abandon your consistent implicit equivocation over the words know and knowledge.
So far, I don’t see you doing that.
JC wrote “I don’t see how I equivocate.”Therein seems to lie the problem.
I’ll give it one more, probably last, shot.
You implicitly conflate knowledge in the epistemic sense (i.e. things we know with absolute certainty) with knowledge in the ordinary sense (i.e. things that we reasonably believe to be true).
If you understand the difference, then your objection (a) is as silly as the criticism of the librarian for laziness, because she does not do work, (b) evaporates, (c) is a false statement, and (d) evaporates as well.
Since you don’t seem inclined to render your arguments univocal, I’m not inclined to treat them in much depth.
T-fan: But I think you set your opponent up to be charged with equivocation by your own highly idiosyncratic definition of knowledge, which yet does not prevent you from continuing to use the same word for opinion.
I think it would help to avoid misunderstanding if you would choose different terms for these different categories, then in the future stick with them. For example, you should say, (picking up on Cal-fan’s point [a]) “My uncertain opinion is that the only things we can know are the things that God himself reveals.” Adapting Cal-fan’s (c), you should say, “I have the uncertain opinion that Scripture teaches P, and also the uncertain opinion that if Scripture teaches P, then P can be known.”
And so forth.
(BTW somewhere you hastily assumed that Cal-fan is a vantillian; however, last time we heard from him, he was not vantillian. Always dangerous to assume!)
TF,
I don’t conflate the two and you have nowhere shown where I have.
What I have done is point out that on Clark’s system you can’t know very much, including the system’s own strictures on knowledge!
So, enter your two definition:
a) epistemic sense – things known with certainty.
b) ordinary sense – things reasonably believed to be true.
Now, despite the fact that I reject (a) as the “epistemic sense of” know. I’ve been meaning that sense – your sense; in that sense you don’t have *epistemic* warrant for Scripturalism.
Secondly, I don’t even understand (b). How does a Scripturalist say that he can “reasonably believe X is true?” What are the reasons? Scripturalists say, “induction is a fallacy.â” If I “reasonably” believe X am I justified (or warranted) in believing X? Then, if true, wouldn’t I “know” it? Most Scripturalists I’ve talked to hold to JTB.
Anyway, do you “know” that Scripturalism is the case in sense (a) or in sense (b)? I maintain that on *both* grounds you don’t “know” it.
I mean, sure, you can avoid the discussion by imputing to me all sorts of epistemic sins, but you’ve not really interacted in any substantive way with what I’ve said.
Again: The Scripturalist thesis either is self-referentially incoherent if one claims that he knows it. Or, it has no positive epistemic status – it can’t be known but one still believes it. And, it’s not “reasonably” believed to be true. It’s not stated in Scripture. No valid argument can be given. And, at best, you can try to develop an inductive case for it, but we all know what Clark thinks of that!
Tim,
I am a Van Tillian, just not a TAGster.
Dear JC,
I’m not a big fan of the term Scripturalist because I’m not sure what it is intended to mean. Please allow me a second to clarify, and then we’ll see where your criticism interacts with the position presented.
First, for the purposes of clarification, when I speak of knowing something with absolute certainty, rather than use the word know, I’ll use all caps (i.e. KNOW). If I don’t use all caps, I am using the term in accordance with its ordinary use.
Second, the fundamental presupposition of my point of view is that God has revealed Himself truthfully and clearly in Scripture. I KNOW this to be true.
Third, I KNOW from Scripture that reason and senses are generally (though not infallibly) trustworthy. Skipping several steps to be concise, I KNOW that I can reasonably believe things to be true – ergo – I KNOW I can know.
I invite you to link your criticism regarding incoherence/apositivity to the explanation above. I don’t see the connection, but perhaps I’ve overlooked something. Or perhaps my only objection to the criticism is that it sounds pejorative — I’ll wait and see what connection you make.
TF,
If your position is not that of Gordon Clark and John Robbins and Gary Crampton and Vincent Cheung and Sean Gerety, then I don’t have a critique – at least not one I want to spend time dealing with now:
**********
Robbins summarizes his and Clark’s position: “Epistemology: The Bible tells me so… Scripturalism does not mean, as some have objected, that we can know only the propositions of the Bible. We can know their logical implications as well… Now, most of what we colloquially call knowledge is actually opinion: We “know†that we are in Pennsylvania; we “know†that Clinton – either Bill or Hillary – is President of the United States, and so forth. Opinions can be true or false; we just don’t know which. History, except for revealed history, is opinion. Science is opinion. Archaeology is opinion. John Calvin said, “I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets.†Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth.
It may very well be that William Clinton is President of the United States, but I do not know how to prove it, nor, I suspect, do you. In truth, I do not know that he is President, I opine it.
**********
**********
Sean’s friend on the puritan board: “Yes, from a Scripturalist worldview, if a proposition can not be deduce from Scripture, then we can’t “know†if it’s true or false.â€
**********
**********
Gerety says knowledge is limited to: “that which can be known to Scripture and all those things necessarily deducible from Scripture.â€
**********
**********
Vincent Cheung: “â€All knowledge comes from biblical propositions and their necessary implicationsâ€
***********
Gary Crampton in his review of Reymond shows his disagreement: “And more than once he refers to knowledge being justified by means of history and experience (478, 678), whereas Scripture alone is the sole means of justifying knowledge,…â€
**********
And so TF, if you agree with the above, *then on those terms,* you don’t “know†Scripturalism. You only, following Robbins, “opine†it.
So, if you want to maintain your public disagreement with Robbins, Crampton, Cheung, Gerety, Gerety’s friend, et al., be my guest! As Sean said above, “you can’t pick your family.†So, if you’re saying they’re all wrong, then I don’t have a bone to pick with you. Perhaps Sean will have something to say.
Sean,
You says that this is the definition of sola Scriptura:
“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.â€
Okay, but this says NOTHING about knowing, say, that I had eggs for breakfast. It simply says that everything necessary THAT GOD HAS TO TELL US on matters of glorifying God, salvation, faith, and life, is “either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture.â€
Is it “necessary†that I know that I had eggs for breakfast? I don’t think so. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t know that! You can’t squeeze the Scripturalist juice out of the fruit of the confession that you’re trying to, not even with your juicer!
This section in the confession does not say that “all knowledge is either expressly set down in Scripture or deducible from it.”
I have asked for the claims like those I quoted above to be either expressly shown in Scripture or deduced from Scripture. You know, something like
(x)(Ax -> ~Bx)
Bc
Ac -> ~Bc
~Ac
that.
That’s what a deduction would look like. Just include plug in the instances.
So, either show me the Scripturalist package explicitly from, say, II Opinions 3:27, or show me the deductions from I and II Opinions.
If you can’t, then you don’t “know it.” It is, therefore, simply OPINED. That’s not MY conclusion, that was what ROBBINS said.
Blessings.
John Calvin
Paul Manata writes:
“Okay, but this says NOTHING about knowing, say, that I had eggs for breakfast. It simply says that everything necessary THAT GOD HAS TO TELL US on matters of glorifying God, salvation, faith, and life, is “either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture.â€
It is true, WCF 1:6 says nothing about knowing, unless of course how and what one can know pertains to glorifying God and all of life. Me thinks it does and very much so. The Scriptures also agree. Jesus said; “I am the way, the truth, and the life†and Paul (not Manata) adds, in Christ are hid ALL the treasures of knowledge. Who should we believe? Paul Manata, who is more concerned with knowing he had eggs for breakfast than with how a man might come to the knowledge of the truth? I’ll stick with the Scriptures which are a light in a very dark place and the Confession as an accurate summation of what the Scriptures teach.
FWIW I think I had Grape Nuts this morning. Or was that yesterday morning? Or did I skip breakfast entirely yesterday and had a bacon, egg and cheese biscuit from Burger King the day before? Sometimes the days all bleed together. However, God’s word is the same yesterday, today and forever, amen.
Paul Manata writes concerning knowing what he had for breakfast: “Is it “necessary†that I know that I had eggs for breakfast? I don’t think so. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t know that!â€
Indeed it does mean you “don’t know that†if you cannot provide a rational account for what you claim you know. Who are you that your mere assertion counts for anything? I thought the Creator/creature distinction had a special place in the hearts of all Vantilians? Evidently not yours. You say you had eggs, how do I know? Maybe you were dreaming? Maybe you’re lying? Maybe it is true? Maybe like me you had Grape Nuts instead and just forgot? By what method do you determine which thoughts that pop into your head are true and which are false? Can you appeal to Scripture to arbitrate such controversies in your own mind per WCF 1:10? I don’t see how? Or can we be content not knowing somethings in order that we might grab hold of what we can know and by God’s grace?
I’m just happy I found an unexpected compatriot in the fight against the FV heretics corrupting the simplicity of the Gospel like Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, Peter Leithart, just to name three top dogs among many. Maybe if Paul Manata would spend more time worrying about the truth of the Gospel under attack than his runny eggs, and had a epistemological reason for doing so, perhaps I could say the same for him.
Peace . . . or maybe not.
Sean,
With regards to 72. I notice AGAIN that you refuse to do what was asked of you. If you’re right, it should be no problem to show me the verse(s) or the logical deduction of your Scripturalist package. Instead you quote some verses, minus any serious exegesis, and simply proof text your way into the winners circle. Of course one of the problems is that you’ve nowhere exegeted Colossians 2 and shown that Paul’s specific response to the Gnostic heresy means “all knowledge is either deducible from Scripture, or explicitly stated.†And, it is not even close to being obvious that the phrase “All knowledge is hid in Christ†(whatever that means, oh, yeah, all means all, just like the Arminians always say) means, “All knowledge is either directly stated in Scripture or deducible from Scripture.†And, you’ve not shown any contradiction between knowing what I had for breakfast, though not deducible from Scripture, is not “hid†in Christ. I’d recommend some basic books in exegetical skills. This kind of reasoning is rather embarrassing for the Calvinists who are supposed to be the ones with the great logical and exegetical skills. Now, maybe in Roman Catholic circles the mere say-so of the pope is enough to force people to accept the interpretation, but you should know that Van Tillians are protestants, Sean. Just telling me that Colossians 2 means X doesn’t mean that Colossians 2 means X. You do recognize the difference, right? And, if you respond, please deduce *the meaning* of Colossians 2 from Scripture. If I don’t see the logical deduction of the *meaning,* then I will be forced to believe that you are merely *opining* its meaning and trying to force a mere unjustified *opinion* on me.
Another problem is your infallibilist constraint you’ve placed on knowledge. Unfortunately for you, this is another one of your doctrines which you cannot “deduce†from Scripture. So, your above strictures on knowledge render your constraints mere opinion. Tell me, Sean, why should I accept your mere opinions?
Lastly, in regards to #73, I’m afraid your eyes and your cognitive faculties – the area responsible for understanding other people’s language – are showing themselves to be quite unreliable; you’d bring a tear to Gordon’s eye for empirically demonstrating that our senses and our reasoning faculties are untrustworthy. For you see, Sean, I never said Crampton was not in agreement with Gerety. I said he shows his disagreement with Reymond. Robert, that is. I don’t know why you’d think Gary would mention you in his critique of Robert Reymond? Or, perhaps you were under the impression that Reymond mentions Gerety in his acclaimed systematic theology textbook? I don’t remember seeing that, but of course when he writes what appears to be the letters “B-A-V-I-N-C-K,” I could, due to my most unreliable eyesight, be confusing those letters for the reall letters: “G-E-R-E-T-Y?” Wow, big time, Sean Gerety is mentioned in Robert Reymond’s systematic theology text book. I mean, how would any of us know otherwise? I mean, you don’t even know that you exist, do you? You can’t deduce that from Scripture, can you? Perhaps you’re a robot, how would you know otherwise? And, since Christ only died for men, and you may be a robot, then you don’t know that Christ died for you, do you? And, if you say you can’t know, but can have assurance, the problem there is that only men can have assurance, and for all you know, you’re a cleverly constructed robot from Alpha Centauri.
Blessings,
John Calvin
Debate 1: T-Fan had been arguing that proof is persuasion of a sound argument. I was arguing that proof can simply be a sound argument but that I can accept his definition without compromising my thesis that God can be objectively proven because in a sense, all men know the God and therefore are persuaded of the truth of it (though they supress the truth in unrighteousness).
A second debate arose concerning circularity: I mentioned John Frame’s justification of certain kinds of circular arguments when it comes to one’s ultimate commitment. T-Fan rejects this as fallacious reasoning and believes that the presupposition (which he equates with an axiom) can only be asserted. I, in return, have argued that an assertion that cannot have self-attesting authority, by the nature of the fact that it is the ultimate authority, is an unfounded claim and is therefore arbitrary. T-fan has argued that an unfounded claim is better than a circular argument but I have argued that this is not true because we do not advocate the validity of all circles but only in relation to an ultimate commitment and that even then, the ultimate commitment must be verified transcendentally. Thus, this valid form of circularity does not reduce the whole system to allowing any kind of circular arguments where as T-fan’s allowing arbitrariness into his system has no guidlines to keep arbitrariness from taking over the entire system.
So that is the gist of the argument. Have I been misrepresenting Van Tilinism?
P.S. If anyone wishes to view the argument in full they can click on T-fan’s link in the first reply in this thread which leads to the first debate over the nature of proof. On his website you will find the second debate on circularity above the former. I have responded to the his criticism on my own blog and tried to post a link to it on his website but he has yet to publish the link… either way, one can simply click on my name at the bottom which will take you to the response I have posted.
TF,
And of course you don’t know that my conclusion proves the absurdity of trying to argue like a Van Tillian, do you? It’s just your mere opinion, isn’t it?
I see you *assert* that the sun’s heat is being spoken of literally, but you don’t know that, do you? Sure you can “presuppose it,†but whopp-dee-doo. Then I can prove God is a bird by “presupposing†that it is speaking literally? No. So, just “presupposing†anything willy-nilly is a bit unwise. And, of course you don’t even know that Scripture says “sun.†That word could be “oven,†and so your eyes are tricking you. How would you know otherwise?
So, no free lunches. I want to know how the Clarkian doesn’t commit epistemological suicide every time he opens his mouth. Your saying “just grant me that I know what the Bible says,†sems like the evolutionist asking me to grant him that “life evolved from non-life just once,†and then he’ll show me how everything else follows. Like Tim said above, “of where one cannot speak, one should be silent.â€
You don’t know Clark existed, and you don’t know he had a high standard of knowledge, either. That’s another mere opinion. Also, you don’t know that you don’t need to know. So that was another opinion. A mere assertion. Why do you expect “Van Tillians†to grant you your unjustified opinions? Is it because it’s “absurd†to reason like us so you think you can pass assertions on as substantive answers and we won’t “get it†because we’re “absurd.â€
You don’t know that Clark existed, that’s right. But, you also don;t know that eh should have been ordained because you don’t know if he was a man. You don;t even know if you’re a man, how much more then do you not know that Clark is?
I mean, you don’t even know that Scripturalism is the case! If all knowledge is either found in Scripture, or able to be deduced from Scripture, then since *that proposition* cannot be deduced from Scripture, you don’t know it! So, the Scripturalist can’t even know his own Scripturalist package. Thus it looks like you have in-house problems in your backyard that needf cleaning before you tell me to clean up my own backyard.
TF,
“The only things we can know with the highest confidence are the things that God himself reveals. That is the reason behind the use of Scripture as the supreme judge.”
(a) Unfortunately for you, you don’t ‘know’ what you just said.
(b) Even if this is granted, you’ve pretty much destroyed Clark (or, perhaps more correctly, his contemporary followers). Even granting what you said, you seem to allow for extra-biblical knowledge, but that knowledge is not known as “confidently” as other things.
(c) Even with Scripture, you don’t really *know,* with that “high degree of confidence” that it says what you think. You simply dogmatically posit that it means X, but since you can’t deduce the *meaning* then you don;t have a “high degree of confidence” in knowledge that it means what you think it means.
(d) The reason for Scripture as judge is that Gid is always right and so we should never have a philosophy, religious view, ethical view, etc., that is in conflict with Scripture. That does not translate to “there is no extra-biblcail knowlegde.”
“Once you’ve grasped that, the rest should fall into place for you, as long as you commit yourself to abandon your consistent implicit equivocation over the words “know†and “knowledge.—
I don’t see how I equivocate. I have only used the term the same throughout. That is, the Clarkian has told me that “Knowledge consists of propositions either directly stated in Scripture, or else beliefs deduced from Scripture; all else is unjustified opinion.” That’s a direct quote from fellow Clarkian, Vincent Cheung. And so I take 8that* definition and maintain that your belief in Scripturalism is “unjustified opinion.”
I didn’t know that Clarkians had different kinds of knowledge, epistemologically speaking. Are you saying that I can have epistemic knowledge of what I ate for breakfast this morning? If so, I commend you, you’d be the first Clarkian to grant me that.
In other words, I think you set yourself up to be taken equivocally, and you should really assume the burden to explain your position in a way that reduces the chance of confusing your two very different uses of the same word.
A funny thing happened to me on the way to Doug Wilson’s blog. There I was tussling away with the FVer’s over there and who is right there next to me with saber unfurled, but Tim Harris. THE TIM HARRIS!
Now how odd is that! It’s like a good ex-Vantilian friend of mine used to say while he was still a Van Tilian; “you can’t pick your family members.” Attacks on the gospel have a funny way of demonstrating who your real brothers and sisters are.
So, my two-cents at this point (seeing that Tim and I have called a truce). My very strong guess is JC above is none other than Paul Manata. What was that old saying about a duck? Not that it wasn’t obvious from the first post, but the “I am a Van Tillian, just not a TAGster” really clinched it. I could of course be wrong (which is no sweat, I’m a Scripturalist after all), but if I were to hazard a guess . . . .
Regardless, JC wrongly cites WCF X:X as defining sola Scriptura.
He writes: “The traditional reformed definition is: WCF 1:X.”
Yet, 1:X has to do with the finality of Scripture in arbitrating between parties in controversies, disputes over councils, opinions of “ancient writes,” etc. Not really a definition of sola Scriptura, but I can see why he would cite this portion of the Confession in support of his view since, in isolation, it would seem to permit the advancement and acceptance of knowledge from other sources apart from Scripture.
However, I would submit sola Scriptura is defined in WCF I:VI:
I:6. The Sufficiency of Scripture
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.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are
revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human
actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word,
which are always to be observed.
I can see why JC Manata would not want this to function as a definition for sola Scriptura because it sounds very much like something Gordon Clark would espouse and defend as the centerpiece of his epistemic and philosophic framework. Not surprising, it is and Clark refers to his view as an application of “The Westminster Principle” and he very much has WCF 1:6 in mind (see http://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=1)
For the Confession, and for Clark, the authoritative sufficiency of Scripture extends to “all things necessary for [God’s] own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life” — nothing is excluded — and the principle of sola scriptura is not limited in authority or scope to some narrow “religious” sphere or as a referee in religious disputes, though the Scriptures are that as well. After all, are we not commanded to take *every* thought captive to the obedience of Christ, which would include our many opinions including our scientific ones.
Interestingly, the whole verse reads; “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ . . . .” Who could possibly deny that modern science, arguably above all else, has exalted itself against the knowledge of God? Surely there have been other challengers in the past and are even some today, but I would argue few have been as successful as the claims made by modern science.
I would also like to note, the real John Calvin who is the father of “Reformed tradition” wrote: “I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets.” Again, a view Clark very much endorsed.
Finally, just for the record, I believe the name Scripturalist was coined by Dr. Robbins. At one time Clark called his own view dogmatism among other things. I recall Clark saying somewhere that he didn’t really care what someone called his system, provided they correctly understood what he meant. Scriptualism was chosen to avoid some of the connotations associated with labels like dogmatism.
Sean,
Good call!
If this post is not by the same person that is posting under the pseudonym “John Calvin,” above, I’d encourage JC to get in touch with Manata, since they appear so like-minded.
Quick question for Manata:
Gary Crampton in his review of Reymond shows his disagreement: “And more than once he refers to knowledge being justified by means of history and experience (478, 678), whereas Scripture alone is the sole means of justifying knowledge,…â€
Sounds like Crampton is very much in agreement with Gerety here. Am I missing something? Sounds to me like Gary and Gerety are on the same page.
Yes (to #24), Sean and I found ourselves, willy nilly, fighting on the same side. I learned something about internet communications — the ease of mistaking tone — through it all. (Let everyone learn from our mistake.) And his passionate denial of my inferences convinced me beyond all doubt that the error (if error it was) was inadvertant.
Let me also add my 2 cents on this cloak-and-dagger stuff about “who is the real ‘John Calvin.'”
First, I do dislike the use as alias of a name that will commonly be looked to as an authority in our circles. It only adds to confusion since one then has to say “John Calvin (the person using this alias) is wrong when he says…” or “John Calvin (the real one) said…”
So Cal-fan, consider changing your moniker; though I am not going to do anything more about it than plead.
Now, on the other hand, why this excitement about outing the real man? This foursome has two clarkians and two vantillians. One guy from each team uses an alias, and one uses his real name. I would prefer that everyone use his real name, but if you don’t, I assume you have a good reason. So why all the cloak-and-dagger exposure?
I’ve often wondered about this to. Why an alias? If you want a fantasy life, go to secondlife.com. Calvin and Turretin are dead; if one wants to honor them, then they may perpetuate their teachings and emulate their best traits. But they should do as real persons with real names. I make it a point not to interact with folks who hide their real identity. It’s immature, and cheap.
Ouch. That’s a little too harsh. I was trying to thread the needle more subtly on both sides.
JC,
None of the quotations you provided conflicts with my own presentation of Clark’s position. If you cannot see that, no wonder you continue make the same inflammatory and demonstrably fallacious arguments.
-Turretinfan
Now, on the other hand, why this excitement about outing the real man?
I don’t know if I would call it excitement, but Manata obsessive and clear hatred of all things Clark are well know. TFan’s link gives a good example of Manata comparing Clark to a meth dealer and those who agree with Clark, pushers. He also pridefully and repentantly defends his defamation of good Christian men as somehow being completely warranted. Not warranted by Scripture of course, but that never stops Manata.
Consequently, I think it is important recognize who this mock John Calvin really is. He is not a man to be taken seriously, even if he appears under the cloak and name of the Prince of Theologians, John Calvin.
Joshua,
I, for one, try to limit my interaction with folks who use ad hominem arguments to pointing out those arguments.
-Turretinfan
“He also pridefully and repentantly defends”
That should have been unrepentantly. Sorry.
All,
Despite the fine and flattering comments you’ve made about me, I see no interaction with what I’ve written. I’ll chalk that up to my senses not being reliable and assume this “padded room” is a treasure trove of Clarkian responses to my repeated argumentation. If only I could see!
~I’m Not Really John Calvin
P.S. For all the Clarkians know, no one uses their real name. Sean Gerety could be Bill Cosby for all he knows.
Clarification… by “all” I did not mean Tim or Joshua.
Best,
~I’m Not Really John Calvin (INRJC, hereafter)
INRJC,
Your complaint: “I see no interaction with what I’ve written,” is the result of a problem of cognition, not sensation.
It’s also a particularly hollow complaint when you openly refuse to interact with what I wrote.
-Turretinfan
TF,
I threw down the last challenge, TF. I laid out my complaint. You didn’t respond to my last post. It’s pretty obvious. There’s “knowledge” and “opinion.” As John Robbins says. If you don’t know that Scripturalism is the case, then you opine it. Now, how does one “know” something (and I’m not talking abotu a “hunch” or a “good bet” or an “edumacated guess” or whatever else falls in sense (b))? Well, pretty simply, according to Robbins et al. one only knows a proposition P if one can either find P stated directly in Scripture, or P must be deducible from Scriptural propositions. Okay, got it. Now, how about this proposition, the Scripturalist Package:
SP: Man can only know what is directly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture.
So, pretty simply, you either know SP or you don’t. If not, okay. But what positive epistemic status does Scripturalism claim, then? if so, then show me the verse which says SP, or deduce SP from verses.
Thus, the only acceptable response either looks like this:
II Opinion 3:27 says […]
Or,
II Opinion 3:27 says […]
hence,
{insert logical deduction}
Therefore, SP.
I didn’t make these rules, TF. Don’t get upset with me. These are Robbins’ rules. Gerety’s rules. Crampton’s rules. Cheung’s rules. Clark’s (perhaps) rules. *Your* rules. These are not my rules, they’re your guys’.
So, following Robbins, does SP lie in the camp of “opinion” or in the camp of “knowledge?”
~INRJC
Hi Sean,
“It becomes hard to keep humoring a man who refuses to interact with the Scriptures or even recognize their epistemological import.”
I have no problem with the Scripture. I have a problem with what YOU SAY it means. So, since YOU made the positive assertion that it means something that is not clear to me (or any commentator I’ve ever read), then I would think that you would have the burden to provide the exegetical argument.
“You’re weak exegetical argument appears to be that since Col. 2:3 was written in response to the Gnostic heresy it’s application is limited to just this controversy and this is simply unacceptable.”
I didn’t offer an exegetical argument. I’m not the one trying to make the case that a verse says X. And, I never said it was *limited* to the Gnostic heresy, Sean. I started out giving the immediate context of the passage. For me, I don’t think Paul had in mind “P is not knowledge if it is not in Scripture or deducible from Scripture.” If you think that’s what he meant, well I’m ready for the argument.
At any rate, let’s say you’re correct. I just don’t see it. It’s not obvious to me. So, since YOU, not me, YOU, have made the claim that you cannot know P unless P is either explicitly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture, and you apparently think Col. 2 and II Tim. 3 are teaching this proposition:
SP: Man can only know what is directly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture.
then I’m asking you to make your case. I have not read that interpretation in any commentary. it is not immediately obvious. It seems to contradict other passages. So, Sean, from my perspective all you’ve done is simply *told* me that it means what you say it is. Why should I accept your say-so?
So, if it means what you say, and you know it means this, surely you should be able to deduce the meaning for all to see, right? It should be publicly checkable, right? Put forth the deductive argument that shows that those verses mean what you want them to mean.
I think I’ve asked this three times now. Why are the Scripturalists so afraid to put their money where their mouth is?
Blessings, Sean
~INRJC
P.S. You said,
“Regardless, it is a trivial point that Crampton is in disagreement with Reymond who views history as a source of knowledge. Perhaps Reymond should read Clark’s monograph on historiography. You should read it too, perhaps then you wouldn’t say such silly things.”
Sean, my quote had nothing to do with his disagreement with Reymond. I was giving the context of his reply. So, you’ve now misunderstood what I wrote, you’ve also misunderstood the purpose of posting it. I was simply showing that Crampton agreed with the others. He did this by disagreeing with Reymond. I wasn’t trying to use Reymond’s name to make any points. Anyway, you’re majoring on the minors.
P.P.S. Despite the obvious fallacious attacks – like trying to undermine my argument here by saying that I don’t spend enough time defending the gospel against FV people – you should know that I publicly, and in person, defending the gospel at the last SCCCS conference. I was publicly laughed at and ridiculed by more than a few of the conference speakers for my comments. This should be on the tapes and so is public knowledge. I have also engaged in numerous private email conversations dealing with this issue. And, I am studying it in more detail so as to either engage an FV adherent in a public debate or put something more substantive out on line. Anyway, I just want to make sure that you are a bit inconsistent since you claimed above that science always derives its conclusions deductively, but here you are dressing your posts in all sorts of informal fallacies. What’s the difference between your posts and the findings of science, then?
INRJC — Just a quick point of clarification. I believe T-fan identified “fundamental presupposition” as a second source of capital-K knowledge, when in #23, 3rd paragraph, he says, “Second, the fundamental presupposition of my point of view is that God has revealed Himself truthfully and clearly in Scripture. I KNOW this to be true.” Whether this is intended as a second source or not I will let him be the one to clarify.
I notice AGAIN that you refuse to do what was asked of you. If you’re right, it should be no problem to show me the verse(s) or the logical deduction of your Scripturalist package.
It becomes hard to keep humoring a man who refuses to interact with the Scriptures or even recognize their epistemological import. You’re weak exegetical argument appears to be that since Col. 2:3 was written in response to the Gnostic heresy it’s application is limited to just this controversy and this is simply unacceptable. That’s like arguing Paul’s letter to the Galatians has no application to the FV controversy because Paul was addressing his anathema’s to the Judiazers. Yet, Paul in verse 4 states; “I say this in order that no one may delude you with persuasive argument.” It would follow that Paul is limiting true knowledge (see v. 2) to those things hid in and made known by Christ and is not limited to any mere refutation of Gnosticism.
Further, in verse 8 Paul commands Christians to, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” Now, I admit, I am hard pressed to see how the belief in the supposed cognitive nature of science does not violate Paul’s command? Certainly, if the conclusions of science are the result of demonstrably fallacious arguments as Clark, Popper, Russell and others have so clearly demonstrated, then it’s hard for me to see how this isn’t, at the very least, an “empty deception.” I think the onus is on those who claim truth is the end result of scientific inquiry to demonstrate their contention and simply pointing or alluding to how well science “works” will not suffice.
Consequently, to compare the universal application of the word “all” in Col. 2:3 to the misreading of Arminians whose knees jerk every time they see the word “all” is simply disingenuous and begs the question. What you would have to do is show per the passage WHY the word “all†is not to be understood universally distributive. That is how I would reply to an Arminian. Perhaps you just call them names?
As to the question of limiting the question of the truth that can be known to Scripture and those things necessarily or soundly deduced from them, the Confession cites 2 Tim. 3:16-17. The key words in those verses are ALL, DOCTRINE, EVERY and PERFECT. Perhaps more, but since you are having such trouble seeing that ALL in Col. 2:3 is a universally distributive term, I hardly think it’s worth my time playing ring-around-the-rosie again with you on this passage. While you hate proof-texting, the Divines at Westminster had no problem citing 2 Tim as proof 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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.â€
I’ll stick with the Divines. :)
And, you’ve not shown any contradiction between knowing what I had for breakfast, though not deducible from Scripture, is not “hid” in Christ.
I didn’t see you demonstrate how you know what you had for breakfast at all? I’ve seen you make assertions, but you’ve provided no account for what you claim to know at all.
Perhaps if you could demonstrate how you know might go a long way in disproving what Paul said in Col. 2:3. Not only that, you would also disprove the Trinity Foundation’s motto that God’s Word alone is the Word of God. Since God is all truth and you assert truth can be known by some unspecified means apart from Scripture, then you must possess God’s Word by means other than God’s propositional revelation alone. I would like to learn this method. Will I have to be “slain in the Spirit” and receive special revelation, or do you have something more mundane in mind?
Another problem is your infallibilist constraint you’ve placed on knowledge.
I haven’t argued for certainty at all. You must be arguing against someone else. I would say, Lord I believe, help me thou mine unbelief.
I’m afraid your eyes and your cognitive faculties – the area responsible for understanding other people’s language – are showing themselves to be quite unreliable; you’d bring a tear to Gordon’s eye for empirically demonstrating that our senses and our reasoning faculties are untrustworthy. For you see, Sean, I never said Crampton was not in agreement with Gerety. I said he shows his disagreement with Reymond.
Fair enough. Of course what one thinks they see and what is actually there is often two different things. Providing an account even for the latter is also extremely problematic as even a cursory reading of Clark will reveal. But why read Clark, Empiricism has historically ended in skepticism, not knowledge. But, thanks for pointing that out and seeing is not believing. Our eyes often deceive us. That could be the case here, or perhaps your writing skills could be improved? That’s why Christians are commanded to live by belief in the propositions of Scripture and not by sight.
Regardless, it is a trivial point that Crampton is in disagreement with Reymond who views history as a source of knowledge. Perhaps Reymond should read Clark’s monograph on historiography. You should read it too, perhaps then you wouldn’t say such silly things.
At any rate, let’s say you’re correct. I just don’t see it. It’s not obvious to me.
I suppose so what and who cares? FWIW I’ve explained that 1 Tim 2:4 is in reference to classes or sorts of men to include even kings and rulers and not all men universally distributive. Sometimes they don’t see it either? Not much more I can do. Consequently, I’ve explained why ALL in Col. 2:3 is a universally distributive term and I fail to see anything in the context of the verse or the entire chapter or letter for that matter which would restrict the use of ALL to only a specific class or types of knowledge, say, knowledge of salvation, or pertaining to religious matters.
Interestingly, Paul’s admonition is against being taken in by “philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.†Needless to say, even in Paul’s day, epistemology was very much a concern of philosophy. So, seeing you have no counter argument, my exegesis stands.
and you apparently think Col. 2 and II Tim. 3 are teaching this proposition:
SP: Man can only know what is directly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture.
That’s the position of the Confession writers as per 2 Tim. Col. 2 is just additional support to the great job already done by the Divines. If you think the Confession writers are wrong and 2 Tim does not pertain to “The whole counsel of God concerning ALL things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and LIFE” then let’s see your argument. This is sola Scriptura. I admit I can see why the application of this principle is an affront to your own epistemic framework, but that’s the problem of your epistemology. You should rethink your position.
P.P.S. Despite the obvious fallacious attacks – like trying to undermine my argument here by saying that I don’t spend enough time defending the gospel against FV people . . . What’s the difference between your posts and the findings of science, then?
Absolutely none. Thanks for making my point and for defending the gospel.
INRJC,
Let’s see if you can follow this flow.
P = “Man can only know what is directly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture.”
P is deducible from Scripture, and the proof is essentially the same as that of Sola Scriptura.
Are you following?
Your counterargument appears to be that you disagree with the Scripture proof, or that you are not satisfied that a Scripture proof has been offered.
-Turretinfan
Tim #44,
There is one source of knowledge, God.
-Turretinfan
I wrote:
if the conclusions of science are the result of demonstrably fallacious arguments as Clark, Popper, Russell and others have so clearly demonstrated, then it’s hard for me to see how this isn’t, at the very least, an “empty deception.†I think the onus is on those who claim truth is the end result of scientific inquiry to demonstrate their contention and simply pointing or alluding to how well science “works†will not suffice.
I just want to be clear that my objection is directed only at those who think science is a means by which the truth can be known, that it has a cognitive function. My arguments have not been directed at those who believe science is useful and/or is an application of the creation mandate to subdue the earth. I think science can be an absolutely good thing, but if one wants to known the truth they must, with TFan, look to God alone who alone is the Lord God of Truth. OTOH science is an absolutely bad thing if it is raised up against the knowledge of God as it all too often is.
FWIW most thoughtful atheists I’ve met on line and in person (particularly scientists – i.e., men who actually make their living in the sciences), don’t believe science discovers truth. Rather science operates on the basis of “working models” that may or may not be true, but for them the question of truth is irrelevant. Actually, the very idea of truth seems to be an affront to them.
The only ones that seem to think science arrives at truth are Christians. For example, the folks over at Answers in Genesis. They do a great job, but they oversell what science actually does. Another example would be a Nightline debate I saw recently between atheists and the “Way of the Master” guys. The Christians were under the impression that science proves things and the atheists were happy to let them go down that path only to rip them apart. It’s not that the atheists had proofs either, but they didn’t need any nor did they let on concerning their own impotency.
Anyway, just wanted to make sure I was clear. Thanks.
TF,
“INRJC,
Let’s see if you can follow this flow.
P = “Man can only know what is directly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture.â€
(*) P is deducible from Scripture, and the proof is essentially the same as that of Sola Scriptura.
Are you following?
Your counterargument appears to be that you disagree with the Scripture proof, or that you are not satisfied that a Scripture proof has been offered.
-Turretinfan”
Notice the (*)? Deduce it. And, I have at least 10 different books on sola Scriptura on my bookshelf. NOT ONE. Zero. Zilch. Nadda. The empty set. No, there is not one, that defines sola Scriptura as: “man can only know what is deducible from Scripture, or explicitly stated in Scripture.”
Now, since you’re obviously offering a strange and obscure definition of sola Scriptura, the burden is on you to offer this “proof.” You cannot say it is the “same proof” as that of sola Scriptura, because when I go and pick two or three random books off my shelf, not of them define sola Scriptura in that way. Furthermore, given passages like Matt. 24:32 et al., the Bible doesn’t even define sola Scriptura in your way. Now, maybe I’m wrong about all this, granted. So, what you need to do is stop asserting and get on with the proof. Lay it out. Number the premises. Let’s see it. Surely you can do this for you’re the one who makes such grandious claims about deducing things. So, let’s quit wasting each other’s time and let us all see your deduction. If you have a verse in mind, supply an actual *argument* and *exegesis* to go behind the verse. The verses you use are not obvious supporters of your position to me or 99% of all the commentators in the world. I saw on your blog that you made an “exegetical challenge.” So, I’m assuming you can do this, no? If you know your position you should be able to either find it explicitly stated in the Bible, or you should be able to offer the deductive argument from scriptural propositions. if you can’t do this, just say-so. We can then spend out time in a more productive manor.
Blessings,
~IMRJC