The Padded Room

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.

146 thoughts on “The Padded Room

  1. Tim,

    I cited numerous Scripturalists who held to this position:

    SP: Man can only know what is directly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture.

    TF said he agreed with that. So, my contention is that he doesn’t know SP. John Robbins said there is either knowledge or opinion. it is my contention that SP is opinion, then.

    best,

    ~IMRJC

  2. Having read Sean Gerety’s latest reply I guess I’m to assume that he doesn’t want to (a) offer the exegesis supporting his *interpretation* of the verses he’s using in support of Scripturalism, or (b) doesn’t want to put forth the deductive argument from scriptural statements. I will thus assume his failure to interact is indicative of his inability to actually justify his own theory by its own standards.

  3. INRJC,

    The fact that zero define it in exactly those words is a trivial argument, and you surely know it.

    But, since you insist on seeing a more detailed deduction, try the following on for size. Please object at the appropriate place.

    Scripture says it is impossible for God to lie, and Scripture says that it is both possible for men to lie, and that men lie habitually. Scripture also says that it is possible for men to deceive themselves. Furthermore, Scripture tells us that the devil (who is the father of liars) can disguise himself as an angel of light.

    Accordingly, the only thing we can trust for absolute certainty is the Word of God, not men, not great preachers, not even an “angel from heaven.” We can even trust God more than we trust our own personal judgment.

    Ergo

    P

    QED

    Still dissatisfied? If so, on what ground? Which of the propositions is not properly deduced from Scripture? Or do you agree that all are properly deduced from Scripture, but you simply disagree that they establish P above?

    -Turretinfan

  4. TF,

    “The fact that zero define it in exactly those words is a trivial argument, and you surely know it.”

    Actually, no, it’s not. Surely you are aware that there are valid forms of the argument from authority. And, let’s not trivialize my statements. I never said that no one defines it in “exactly” those terms. You’re committing the fallacy of accent. Actually, no one defines it in those terms, and their definitions are actually *contradictory* to yours.

    “But, since you insist on seeing a more detailed deduction, try the following on for size. Please object at the appropriate place.”

    Oh, goody.

    1. “Scripture says it is impossible for God to lie, and Scripture says that it is both possible for men to lie, and that men lie habitually.”

    Granted. (But, not to be a stickler, you don’t know that Scripture says those things. I’ll let you pass, though.)

    2. “Scripture also says that it is possible for men to deceive themselves.”

    Granted. Like you, for instance.

    3. “Furthermore, Scripture tells us that the devil (who is the father of liars) can disguise himself as an angel of light.”

    Granted.

    4. “Accordingly, the only thing we can trust for absolute certainty is the Word of God, not men, not great preachers, not even an “angel from heaven.” We can even trust God more than we trust our own personal judgment.”

    Granted (though I’d say that there’s few other things we can know with certainty. Triangles have three angles, for example.)

    5. “Ergo

    P”

    Whoa, Nelly. Hold the horses.

    Let’s note what SP is:

    SP: Man can only know what is directly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture.”

    How does it follow from 1-5 that all knowledge is restricted to propositions of Scripture or those deducible from propositions of Scripture?

    It looks like a key unstated premise is:

    (*) Knowledge has an infallibilist constraint.

    This is proven by his claims that it is possible that we can be mistaken.

    Thus TF must believe that “if one can be mistaken about P, then one cannot know that P.” This is an unstated premise, and his argument must utilize it for SP to even begin to follow from the premises. The problem should be obvious, how could (*) be deduced from Scripture? Hence the argument as it is relies on extra-biblical epistemological assumptions.

    “Still dissatisfied? If so, on what ground? Which of the propositions is not properly deduced from Scripture?”

    Yes, I am. I don’t doubt Scripture says those things, I doubt where you take it. I also have shown that your argument rests upon a crucial unstated premise and I highly doubt that you can deduce (*) from Scripture. Furthermore, “SP” uses terms like “knowledge” and “deducible,” where are those concepts deduced from Scripture? And, since men are fallible, and can be mistaken, you take that to mean that they cannot know. But, Jesus says that men do know things they haven’t deduced from Scripture: e.g., summer is near based on the look of fig leaves. Moreover, when I know something like a basic belief about what i had for breakfast, you’d say that I can’t know that since I can’t deduce it from Scripture. But, I maintain that I do not need propositional evidence in favor of all my beliefs for them to be warranted. Where in your deduction was that established? Perhaps you think it was established because of the possibility that I could be mistaken. But I deny your infallibilist constraint and demand you deduce said constraint from Scripture. And, you could be mistaken too. Perhaps the Bible says that God cannot “fly” (not lie). How do you know it says God cannot lie? Because you read black squiggles on a page? Because you “presuppose” it? So what. Does mere presupposing mean that you’re right? You don’t know that the Bible says that God cannot lie, do you. Indeed, since you can’t deduce YOUR EXISTENCE from the Bible then you can’t know that YOU know anything!

    I’m afraid that your deduction just lead to more problems.

    ~INRJN

  5. INRJC,

    I’m disappointed.

    You wrote:

    It looks like a key unstated premise is:

    (*) Knowledge has an infallibilist constraint.

    This is proven by his claims that it is possible that we can be mistaken.

    No, like “triangle” we have assigned that meaning to the term definitionally.

    Obviously, yes, if you simply refuse to use that definition, so be it. We’re not suggesting that you are forced by Scripture to use that particular definition for the term “knowledge.”

    And, since you appear to grant that the conclusion follows from the premises, and the only premise you deny is the definition, your response is not a rebuttal.

    Furthermore, your complaint that:

    Yes, I am. I don’t doubt Scripture says those things, I doubt where you take it.

    That’s an inane criticism. If you agree that Scripture says those things, you’re wasting everyone’s time to ask for me to explain where Scripture says it.

    The remainder of your post centers around the definitions of terms, and thus is not worthy of any further response than the response above. If you want to define terms differently, of course you will arrive at a different conclusion.

    Bluntly put, if that’s your argument, that we should define terms differently to make you happy, who cares?

    -Turretinfan

  6. TF,

    You only have yourself to be dissapointed with:

    “No, like “triangle” we have assigned that meaning to the term definitionally.”

    Then you’ve shot yourself. But, furthermore, your case is disanalogous. Adding an infallibilist constraint on knowledge is unlike the triangle, I would think you should know this. And, why does NO ONE disagree with the definition for triangle whereas they do violently about the definition of knowledge.

    “Obviously, yes, if you simply refuse to use that definition, so be it. We’re not suggesting that you are forced by Scripture to use that particular definition for the term “knowledge.”

    You seem to be a bit obstuse. Since that claim is CENTRAL to your argument – it would not follow otherwise – and since you cannot deduce the infallibilist constraint from scripture, then you do not know SP. This has been shown in this thread. QED.

    “And, since you appear to grant that the conclusion follows from the premises, and the only premise you deny is the definition, your response is not a rebuttal.”

    Am I on Candid Camera? I stated that the conclousion uses an UNSTATED PREMISE. You cannot deduce that from Scripture. Hence, if you calim to “know” your position then you know at least ONE extra-biblical truth, namely – knowledge has an infallibilist constraint. But, since you could not know this if your theory were true, then you’ve refuted yourself since you claim to know that Scripturalism is the case.

    “The remainder of your post centers around the definitions of terms, and thus is not worthy of any further response than the response above.”

    Whatever helps you slepp at night.

    “Bluntly put, if that’s your argument, that we should define terms differently to make you happy, who cares?”

    Bluntly put, I’ve shown that your position is self-referentially incoherent. That you can grasp this is no bad mark on my argument.

    I think you’ve shown above that you don’t care to seriously interact with the argument, and I’ve said my final response, and so i guess we’re done here. Thanks for your time.

    Blessings,

    ~INRJC

  7. FWIW,

    Mixing biblical (verses about God not lying, man being a liar, etc) with extra-biblical (infallibilist constraint) propositions is *exactly* what my post on the drug connections with Scripturalism was talking about. Turretin has proven my point. He pretends to have a “pure” product to push (e.g., Scripturalism), but when we look at it we find that it is “cut” with what Scripturalists would consider “battery acid” (e.g., extra-biblical propositions). They then market this mixture to an unsuspecting audience – usually white boys from the suburbs with no epistemological street smarts. Next thing you know, you have junkies committing “intellectual suicide” (e.g., I can’t know that I’m saved, I can’t know that I can know anything, I can’t know that I am a male or a female, I can’t know that my wife isn’t the same sex as myself, etc.,). So, my post on “Just Say No To Scripturalism” was very apropo, I’d say.

  8. INRJC,

    Ah, I see: you don’t want to argue against the position that Clarkians hold (namely “Man can only know what is directly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture,” where knowledge = absolute certainty) you want to argue against a position that nobody holds, namely that “Man can only know what is directly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture,” where knowlege = justified belief of a true datum.

    We call that the straw man argument. It happens when people refuse to treat a position on its own terms, instead preferring to go after another position that is an easier target.

    You’ve wasted our time, and weakened the Van Tillian case. Surely there are some arguments that are not so blatently abusive, not to mention disrespectful, but because you have been filling up space with a flurry of straw you’ve made it appear that this is the best that the followers of Van Til have to offer.

    No wonder Tim tried to dissociate you from Van Tillianism.

    -Turretinfan

  9. No, it wasn’t that. It was just that Cal-fan was laying into us last October on the TAG thread. Before last week, I hadn’t realized that there were “non-Tagster vantillians.”

    I think Cal-fan’s question is this: is the proposition “we can only KNOW what we learn from Scripture” itself something we KNOW, and if so, is it something we know from Scripture? If not, then the statement would seem to be paradoxical.

    Sean answered “yes” and Cal-fan countered that the exegesis supporting that “yes” was inadequate.

    T-fan, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you hedged a bit between sharing Sean’s “yes,” vs trying to rely on a different tack such as meta-logic or second-order statements or statements about a system that aren’t part of the system? Or, perhaps you are distinguishing between the personal motivation for an utterance vs the truth-criteria for the utterance; obviously, I’m not completely clear on your answer either.

  10. is the proposition “we can only KNOW what we learn from Scripture” itself something we KNOW, and if so, is it something we know from Scripture? If not, then the statement would seem to be paradoxical.

    Sean answered “yes” and Cal-fan countered that the exegesis supporting that “yes” was inadequate.

    Manata may think it inadequate, but so what? All that was necessary was for me to show that ALL in Col. 2:3 was universally distributive. There is nothing in the context that would limit the scope of the word ALL in reference to knowledge. Like I said, he’s like a typical Arminian who insists that ALL means ALL men head for head even after you explain that all per 1 Tim 2:4 has to do with classes of men. Only this time, the word is universally applicable and Christ is the source of all knowledge. There really isn’t much you can do with such a person. Pray that God will cause him to repent I suppose.

    Consequently, if he will not concede this point it is pointless to press on to any exegesis of the Confessional proof concerning sola Scriptura which extends to those things in and deduced from Scripture.

    Of course, if Manata was correct Scripturalism would be not so much paradoxical as self-refuting. This is why he cannot even concede a single exegetical point even if the Scriptures everywhere refute him. Besides, he can’t even provide an account for his own breakfast. Pathetic.

    As for me, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

  11. Sean,

    “Manata may think it inadequate, but so what? All that was necessary was for me to show that ALL in Col. 2:3 was universally distributive.”

    “All knowledge is hid in Christ” does not equal the claim “all knowledge must be explicitly stated in Scripture or deducible from Scripture.” If you think so, and it is not even close to being a prima facie reading of the text, then the burden is on you to ARGUE and DEFEND and EXEGETE your position. If your argument is: “nope, that’s what the verse means and I don’t need to justify my non-obvious reading which NO exegete in the history of the church has been able to see,” then I counter:

    “Jesus said we can KNOW things from our senses by saying that we observe fig trees and know summer is near.”

    Now, if you respond by asking me to back up my reading (and surely I’m on more sure ground than you because my version IS at least an obvious and prima facie reading of the text), my rejoinder will be: “I don’t care if you disagree. Simply showing that they “know” something not deducible from Scripture is enough for me.”

    You’ve been hoisted by your own petard.

  12. TF,

    If Tim doesn’t want me associated with the van Tillians how does that weaken my argument, the one you haven’t answered?

    My argument, again, in case you ever care to deal with it, is: You claim that you can only know (where ‘know’ is taken in the infallibilist sense) those propositions explicitly stated in Scripture or deducible from Scripture.” I claim that *that proposition* cannot be known *on its own terms.* I asked you to show it. You couldn’t. You tried to avoid the force of it by saying that you simply *define* knowledge to have an internalist constraint. Well, then, I simply *define* knowledge to be that which is by the senses. On top of that, since THE BIBLE doesn’t define knowledge this way, and since you (above) said humans can and often are mistaken, you *could be* mistaken about the infallibilist constraint and so, therefore, even on your own definitional account you can’t know that knowledge has an infallibilist constraint, on your own terms, again!

  13. Tim, here are a few Van Tillians that are not TAGsters:

    1) James Anderson, Ph.D.

    2) John Frame, Ph.D.

    3) Michael Horton, Ph.D.

    4) Richard Pratt, Ph.D.

    5) Scott Oliphint (I think?), Ph.D.

    6) Greg Welty, Ph.D.

    this list could be greatly lengthened.

    And, I define a “TAGster” as one who holds to the strong modal version of TAG (i.e., “the impossibility of the contrary of the three-in-one Jehovah God). I do not think all value in using a transcendental argument is gone.

  14. Tim,

    You wrote:

    I think Cal-fan’s question is this: is the proposition “we can only KNOW what we learn from Scripture” itself something we KNOW, and if so, is it something we know from Scripture? If not, then the statement would seem to be paradoxical.

    Sean answered “yes” and Cal-fan countered that the exegesis supporting that “yes” was inadequate.

    I thought the same thing, which is why I wrote number 47 as I did, and why I presented a short-form supporting exegesis in number 53.

    Manata or Hays or whoever INRJC is, had one major counter-argument, which was simply a semantics argument.

    That it was just a semantic argument can be readily seen from the supporting argument regarding how Jesus used the word.

    The semantic argument, however, is absurd. It’s already been admitted that Clarkians are using the word in an extreme form, not in the conventional sense. Furthermore, this present author has previously shown the interrelationship between the extreme form and the conventional form.

    But INRJC is not really here to interact with the arguments but to mock, by applying the extreme form to everyday life. Like a freshman physics student guffawing at his professor who claims the school librarian doesn’t do “work,” INRJC just demonstrates his inability to deal with specialized meanings of words that have conventional meanings.

    Surely there is a better Van Tillian argument than that.

    -Turretinfan

  15. Hi TF,

    Let’s be intellectually honest. I did (as you can note above) distinguish between the two forms (your a and b). Indeed, I even said that ON BOTH FORMS you don’t ‘know’ that Scripturalism is the case.

    At any rate, you agreed with Robbins et al. that man can only know things by deducing them from Scripture.

    I asked you to back this up.

    If you read your own posts above you’ll note that this is exactly what you’ve tried to do. You tried to show me the deduction from Scripture.. This shows that YOU THINK you know the Scripturalist Package in the “big sense” of “KNOW.” The “deduced or stated in Scripture” sense.

    Then what I did to your response, if you have been paying attention, is that I showed that you smuggled in an extra-biblical assumption about knowledge. You thus MIXED biblical and extra-biblical propositions (implied or otherwise) in your “deduction.”

    This extra-biblical assumption has not been deduced.

    Therefore you do not know that the Scripturalist Package (SP, above) is the case in the sense that you ORIGINALLY TRIED TO SHOW THAT YOU KNEW IT.

    That leaves your “other” view of knowledge left. Well, that is what John Robbins calls “opinion.” I know that Clarkians have distinguished between the epistemic status of the claims we hold. They bifurcate them into these two classes:

    a) Knowledge

    b) Opinion

    In (b) goes your “good assumptions” and your “edumacated guesses” and your “hunches” and your “estimations” and your “seems right to me” etc.

    Thus you’ve been reduced to saying that Scripturalism is the case… IN YOUR OPINION. Let’s read John Robbins again:

    **********

    ” “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.”

    **********

    And TF can add his own position to the above: “It may well be that Scripturalism is the case, but I do not know how to prove it, nor, I suspect, do you. In truth, I do not know that it is the case, I opine it.”

    So, since you’re now admitting that you don’t “know” that Scripturalism is the case in your “real” and “important” sense – the sense the Scripturalists use – then we only have your “other” sense left. That you defined has:

    b) “things reasonably believed to be true.”

    Edumacted guesses can fit in (b). Any way, we can try to dissect this one for you too. First, since you hold an infallibilist constraint on knowledge, you could be wrong about (b) and so, according to you, you don’t “know” it. But, perhaps you “reasonably” believe (b). If so, what is it to “reasonably believe” something? And, since you don’t “know” (sense a) the answer to that, I guess you “reasonably believe” it. So, what is it to reasonably believe something? Why should I believe, say, SP? What positive epistemic status does Scripturalism have? What reasons can you offer me to believe it? I reject the infallibilist constraint. Indeed, I find it almost self-refuting. Are you telling us that if you accept a bunch of unproven Scripturalist assumptions, then Scripturalism follows? Well, same with the theory of evolution. So, really, I mean, you’re free to believe in Scripturalism if you want to, but why do you tell other’s that they’re wrong because they don’t hold your unproven assumptions? I mean, is that what we do? We just “guess” and “define” our epistemological theories into existence and then tell other people that they’re straight from the Bible and if you deny them you’re denying God’s word? So, let’s be honest about this discussion, at least.

    ~INRJC

    P.S. You shouldn’t insult Steve Hays’ intelligence by saying that he may be me. :-D

  16. Honestly, I don’t find much wrong with Turretin’s basic argument (and I consider myself Van Tilian).

    As T-Fan has stated, “‘Man can only know what is directly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture,’ where knowledge = absolute certainty) you want to argue against a position that nobody holds, namely that ‘Man can only know what is directly stated in Scripture, or deducible from Scripture,’ where knowlege = justified belief of a true datum.”

    I recall Bahnsen once saying that he was more certain in propositions of the Bible than that toothpaste would come out of his toothpaste-tube in the morning (to paraphrase). This is what I had always taken to be the Van Tilian epistemology: that the word of God is that which is most certain. We can say we “know” other things but not with the same certainty as we can know God’s direct revelation.

    This seems to be a matter of common sense… If God appeared before you and said “the sun is hot” and a man stood before you and said “ice is cold” which would you be more certain about? Obviously, God’s statement, I should think.

    Now, one may wish to argue as Sproul once did, “but how do you know it was God that appeared before you and not some illusion?” Our answer is that this is our presupposition. If the Scripture is to be our ultimate authority then it can have no verification outside of itself… As T-Fan has already pointed out the question makes no more sense than what is taller than the tallest building.

    The guy who certainly isn’t John Calvin seems to want to know (by Tim’s reckoning), “is the proposition ‘we can only KNOW what we learn from Scripture’ itself something we KNOW, and if so, is it something we know from Scripture?”

    I fail to see the problem because the idea that we can know the Scripture is a presupposition of the concept of revelation… Like the game of basketball has contained within it the concept of game.

    The idea of Scripture is that God is communicating to man. Within this concept are several other “presuppositions.” A few of these presuppositions could be: (1) the sufficiency of language as a medium and (2) the ability of man’s cognitive faculty to apprehend the content within the revelation (granted, through God’s grace). Thus, as all of us in the padded room know, no belief stands independent of other beliefs and this includes our presuppositions.

    Therefore, it seems to me, to ask “how do you know you can only know with the greatest level of certainty what is stated in the Scripture” is to deny one of the presuppositions of the system itself. The question may arise, “when you bring up that objection, where are you standing?” You might say I’m pulling a TAG on the non-TAGster Van Tilian.

    On the other hand, maybe I’m off on a limb here and the Van Tilians and Clarkians are going to saw off my branch and throw me out of the padded room.

    -Augustine

  17. Again, let’s hi-light this passage in Robbins:

    “Now, most of what we colloquially call knowledge is actually opinion:

    But TF said:

    “It’s already been admitted that Clarkians are using the word in an extreme form, not in the conventional sense.”

    The “conventional sense” is what Robbins calls “opinion.” And, there is no “extreme form.” If that’s what “knowledge” is, then it’s not “extreme.”

    Anyway, does TF agree with Robbins? (I can cite other’s as well.) If so, then it’s as I said, Scripturalism is OPINION. TF actually spends time arguing and debating his mere opinion. Much like the ethical anti-realists. Much like the two kids in front of the ice cream parlor. “Chocolate is the best!” “Nuh-uh, Strawberry is the best!” “Is not!” “Is too!”

  18. After reading the guy who’s intelligence isn’t on par with Steve Hays response I would like to add that I would agree with the problems as he has pointed them out. What I was attempting to do in the above post is move the claim away from (a) and (b) into (c)… (c) being the presupposition.

    -Augustine

  19. “All knowledge is hid in Christ” does not equal the claim “all knowledge must be explicitly stated in Scripture or deducible from Scripture.” If you think so, and it is not even close to being a prima facie reading of the text,

    I’ve never said it was. What I intended to establish, and absent any counter argument that might refute my contention, is that ALL per Col. 2:3 is to be understood universally. Once that was agreed on, then we could move on to 2 Tim 3:16 and the universals which support the WCF’s doctrine of sola Scripture per WCF 1:6 and not 1:10 as you erroneously assert.

    Since you will not conceded the universal import of Colossians, it is pointless to go around and around 2 Tim 3:16 with you as I’ve done on numerous occasions in the past. It is like trying to argue for particular atonement with someone how refuses to see that 1 Tim 2:6 applies to all classes of men and not all men head for head. If a person cannot grasp something so basic, there really isn’t much hope that they will progress to the next step.

    Of course, you cannot concede even this much ground, because to do so is devestating to your position. As Clark points out:

    “. . .one notes that the word all implies that science is neither wisdom nor knowledge. Knowledge, in its objective sens of truth, never changes. Science has always been changing , with an ever-increasing acceleration. There is no truth in physics and chemistry.”

    I don’t need to justify my non-obvious reading which NO exegete in the history of the church has been able to see,”

    I haven’t seen you provide any counter argument other than now which is an ad populum appeal to your imagined group of every exegete in history. Besides being fallacious, you didn’t canvas very far. Gill states:

    “. . . our highest wisdom and knowledge lies in knowing him, whom to know is life eternal; and the excellency of whose knowledge surpasses everything else; it is the greatest riches, and most valuable treasure; nor is there anything worth knowing but what is in Christ, all is laid up in him: and being said to be “hid” in him, shows the excellency of the wisdom and knowledge that is in him only valuable things being hid, or compared to hid treasure; that this cannot be had without knowing him . . . .”

    Comports very well with what I’ve said so far.

    then I counter:

    “Jesus said we can KNOW things from our senses by saying that we observe fig trees and know summer is near.”

    Yes, you could. You could also use Mat 16:2-4:

    “But He answered and said to them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.” And He left them, and went away.”

    Then we can discuss Jesus’ (valid) use of the ad hominem argument and perhaps you would see that Jesus was no empiricist.

  20. FYI per the Geneva study notes:

    Col 2:3 – In whom are hid all the treasures of (d) wisdom and knowledge.

    (d) There is no true wisdom outside of Christ.

    Even a quick google shows how lazy our friend Manata is who claims EVERY exegete disagrees. Seems not:

    2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.] Once again we see that Paul has emphasized knowledge, wisdom and understanding (see 1:9). But he points to Jesus Christ as being the source, not human philosophy (verse 8). This is also a statement to Jesus’ omniscience.

  21. Sean,

    ” nor is there anything worth knowing but what is in Christ, all is laid up in him: and being said to be “hid” in him,”

    Obviously doesn’t get what you want. You’re equivocating. I may know something that isn’t “worth” knowing.

    “Col 2:3 – In whom are hid all the treasures of (d) wisdom and knowledge.

    (d) There is no true wisdom outside of Christ.”

    Again, what does this mean. And, it’s clear that it doesn;t mean “all knowledge is stated or deduced from Scripture.” Heck, “scripture” isn’t even in the commenters notes.

    Furthermore, Sean, try this one on for size. G.H. Clark said,

    “”Therefore, since God is Truth, we shall define person…as a composite of truths…theologians will complain that this reduces the Trinity to one person…This objection is based on a blindness toward certain definite Scriptural information…I am referring to the complex of truths that form the Three Persons. Though they are equally omniscient, they do not all know the same truths. Neither the complex of truths we call the Father nor those we call the Spirit, has the proposition, “I was incarnated.” …The Father cannot say, “I walked from Jerusalem to Jericho.”

    G. Clark, The Incarnation (The Trinity Foundation 1988), 54-55.”

    Therefore, Sean, it follows by strict logic, according to Clark, that this knowlegde:

    (*) The Son proceeds from Me

    is not something Christ knows.

    Or, take this:

    (**) I know what it feels like to deny Jesus three times.

    Does Christ know that?

    Now, I normally wouldn’t do this but you’re the one who pressed the “ALL” means “ALL” and “NO EXCEPTIONS” here.

    Moreover, Jesus said, “No one knows tha day or hour, not even the Son.” So, you have A LOT of qualifying to do. It seems your calling me lazy was merely psychological projection.

    I said,

    “I don’t need to justify my non-obvious reading which NO exegete in the history of the church has been able to see,”

    Sean said,

    “I haven’t seen you provide any counter argument other than now which is an ad populum appeal to your imagined group of every exegete in history.”

    And Sean ALSO said in response to my claim that,

    “All knowledge is hid in Christ” does not equal the claim “all knowledge must be explicitly stated in Scripture or deducible from Scripture.” If you think so, and it is not even close to being a prima facie reading of the text,”

    He said,

    “I’ve never said it was.”

    So, he admits he hasn’t proven his case. He holds to a position even Gordon Clark wouldn’t. He uses sloppy exegesis. He msirepresents those he quotes, relying on equivocation. His anger and over-heated type-writting seems to be his way to make up for a weak and shoddy case.

    Have a nice 4th,

    INRJC

  22. Obviously doesn’t get what you want. You’re equivocating. I may know something that isn’t “worth” knowing.

    No equivocation at all. I want to know all the truth I can. Sorry you don’t. But I understand. As Clark said, “Knowledge, in its objective sense of truth, never changes.” You just want to know what you had for breakfast.

    I meet folks like you every day.

  23. (d) There is no true wisdom outside of Christ.”

    Again, what does this mean. And, it’s clear that it doesn;t mean “all knowledge is stated or deduced from Scripture.” Heck, “scripture” isn’t even in the commenters notes.

    What it means Manata, is that all knowledge (by parity of reasoning) is found in Christ. To know Christ is to know the Scriptures for in them we have “the mind of Christ” (or, at least a portion of it).

    OTOH, by logical necessity you’re position is clear, Christ’s mind, that is, Christ Himself, can be found apart from Scripture.

    Again, I meet folks like you every day.

  24. Furthermore, Sean, try this one on for size. G.H. Clark said,

    Keep reading Paul. You might begin with Clark’s book, The Trinity. He avoids all the irrational pitfalls Van Til stumbles on like asserting God is both three persons and one person.

  25. Seems like this is more about Clark and Van Til than actually having a coherent epistemology…

    – IMBA

  26. I’ve never said it was.”

    So, he admits he hasn’t proven his case. He holds to a position even Gordon Clark wouldn’t. He uses sloppy exegesis.

    Indeed I do admit it. Hardly the sign of failure you suppose. Not that I’m not happy to let you dream. ;) As I said, one step at a time. But since you are either resistant to even taking the first step, and for the reasons I’ve explained, or just incapable, I’m happy to let you sit where you are.

    In addition, my exegesis may even be sloppy, but it doesn’t follow that it is also wrong. Again, you reject for some unknown reason that the word ALL in Col. 2:3 is a universally distributive term and you evidently are incapable of providing a counter exegetical viewpoint that would limit the use of the word ALL to just certain types or classes of knowledge. Consequently, I’m happy to let my sloppy exegetical position stand and for you to sit where you are. :)

    Happy 4th to you too. :)

    BTW, if ya’ll get a chance watch (or read) this speech by presidential candidate Ron Paul, please do. When I heard it the lights went on.

    At one time I would probably have dismissed him as some conspiracy nut. Had I not read John Robbins’ piece on the problem of indexation and arguments for getting the gov’t out of the money business in Freedom and Capitalism I probably wouldn’t have already been primed.

    It’s a little long, but you can either watch it or read it in light of passages like Prov 20:10; Differing weights and differing measures, Both of them are abominable to the LORD. Or this passage: Deu 25:14-16: “You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. You shall have a full and just weight; you shall have a full and just measure, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the LORD your God.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

    It’s appropriate listening or reading for the 4th even if you’re British.

    Sean

  27. Seems like this is more about Clark and Van Til than actually having a coherent epistemology…

    Unfortunately, that is ALWAYS the case with Manata. I can’t even make it beyond the first step with him.
    Which is weird, seeing he just realized that VT was wrong and TAG indefensible. One would have thought under such circumstances even Manata might be willing to open his mind a little and consider an alternative view. But, I learned a long time ago Manata is the special kind of ideologue.

  28. Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but he asked me to answer a question concerning limiting knowledge to Scripture and its necessary inferences. I started to do that per Col. 2:3 and aside from one quote from Clark explaining why perhaps Manata is unwilling to accept the meaning of this verse, I haven’t mentioned the man. FWIW, I’m just defending the position of the WCF concerning sola Scriptura which is sufficient and authoritative for all of life (see WCF 1.6).

  29. Sean, I’ve not mentioned Van Til once. Nothing in my critique depends on me being a Van Tillian. In fact, since it’s a reductio, all I’m using are *Scripturalist* assumptions.

    If you read my posts you’ll note that they’re 99% substance, while yours are 99% rhetoric.

    I understand you’ve given your life for the cause of Clark, so I expect the same from you every time. I don’t think I’ll disagree with the proverb that, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” You see, you don’t *want* Clark to be wrong. You’d have to eat too much crow, and you just can’t do that.

    I’ll leave the convo as I leave all our other ones. The debate is public for all to read. I’m fine with what I wrote, and I’ll assume Sean is confident in his defense. The reader can decide.

  30. IMBA (number 66), you seem to be thinking along the same lines I was thinking, although the final bit (about turning the tables on the critic) is not necessarily where I would go.

    INRJC (number 65),

    Your assertion:

    And TF can add his own position to the above: “It may well be that Scripturalism is the case, but I do not know how to prove it, nor, I suspect, do you. In truth, I do not know that it is the case, I opine it.”

    So, since you’re now admitting that you don’t “know” that Scripturalism is the case in your “real” and “important” sense – the sense the Scripturalists use – then we only have your “other” sense left.

    is false.

    I have consistently asserted that I “know” Scripturalism in the strong sense. I have also proved that Scripture teaches Scripturalism.

    So, likewise, your comment:

    Anyway, does TF agree with Robbins? (I can cite other’s as well.) If so, then it’s as I said, Scripturalism is OPINION. TF actually spends time arguing and debating his mere opinion. Much like the ethical anti-realists. Much like the two kids in front of the ice cream parlor. “Chocolate is the best!” “Nuh-uh, Strawberry is the best!” “Is not!” “Is too!”

    Is also false.

    Within Robbins’ definitions, Scripturalism itself is KNOWLEDGE, not OPINION.

    If it were just opinion (not admitted), that would still not necessarily be a rebuttal that would lead to a new epistemic system. There is, however, no reason to go down that path.

    -Turretinfan

  31. All,

    See my problem here?

    TF states,

    “I have consistently asserted that I “know” Scripturalism in the strong sense. I have also proved that Scripture teaches Scripturalism.”

    The above suffices to show Tim and ~Augustine that TF holds to a self-referentially incoherent position. He thinks he knows a claim that doesn’t meet his own standards of knowledge.

    If so, deduce the infallibilist constraint. If not, then your “argument” assumes premises not deduced from the Bible.

    Here was your deduction a stated a bit more formally:

    P1. God is infallible.
    P2. The Bible is God’s infallible revelation.
    P3. God controls all things
    P4. Man is fallible.
    P5. Man’s sensations are fallible.
    P6. Man’s intuitions are fallible.
    C. Therefore, all knowledge comes from biblical propositions and their necessary implications.

    But as I’ve pointed out above, you at least need something like this:

    P7. Knowledge is gained only from infallible sources.

    Can (7) be deduced from Scripture?

    Furthermore, I doubt your original premises can be shown on your assumptions. I don’t doubt that they’re true, I doubt you can deduce all of them. For example, can P5 be deduced from Scripture? If so, can the information in those premises be deduced? And, at best, are the only arguments for them *inductive* ones? That is, *a few* people had fallible senses, therefore *all* people do?

    Really, Scripturalism is a shoddy philosophy. All you’ve been doing TF is wasting our time by seeing how many posts you can make which appear to answer me but are really nothing more than cop-outs in the disguise of “rejoinders.”

    Take Care,

    INRJC

  32. [This comment was originally posted under “Stereotypes”. —FW]

    While your observation that Christ told us to bring the good news of the Gospel to ‘all nations’ is versically correct, you then jump to the wrong theological conclusion, in assuming that the ‘to ethne’ (the ‘ethnos’) of the original Greek ( and the knowledge that the Apostles, as mere men, saw the ‘world’ as confined to the boundaries of the Roman Empire, i,e, Caucasoid Europe) or the ‘world’ of Christ’s Great Commission, actually MEANT the entire world, sphrerical ball, etc. of modern ‘all the world.’

    For, to follow that logic, it would mean that if ALL the ‘nations’ of the ‘world’ did NOT hear the Gospel, then God is a) a liar (may it never be!) or b) not omnipotent! Yet, the hottentots or some Austro-Tasmanian tribe died BEFORE hearing the gospel, if historical memory serves…

    If God, in clearly delineating the fact that Adam is the ‘father’ of the Elect race, and that the hebrew tongue cleary shows that ‘a-dam’ means, “rosy, fair, able to blush,” (cf. Strong’s) and that King David was described as ‘fair of face, and ruddy’ (possibly even ‘red-headed’ – a trait known to be ‘ethnically’ Celtic!), etc. then -what RIGHT have we to confuse a false egalitarian Universalism of the soul (all men will be saved) with a false ‘anti-incarnationalism’ of the Body as well (all races are to be ’saved’- i,.e., Christian’!!

    IF Jews are ‘cunning’, and Negroes are ’slow, stupid, bestial, like innocent children,’ etc. (just a FEW of the statements I have read on this sort of forum, and in many books over the years) why would it not ALSO be correct to make the ’stereotype’ viable, that Christianity is ‘the white man’s religion,’ and just leave the rest of bipedal humanoids to their idols, etc.!?

    I find it fascinating that, so close to our national holiday of independence, the explicitly RACIAL nature of the Declaration, and the Constitution, which so many ‘reformed’ aver has it’s roots in both Magna Charta and the Bible, that we do not see, before our eyes, the EXCLUSIVELY RACIAL NATURE OF THE INCARNATION! If Christ is truly the Son of God (and I believe He is, may He be forever praised!) HE IS the ETHNIC HEIR to the Davidic line-a clearly, DIVINELY ELECTED ETHNICITY!

    Then why not believe the Scriptures when it says that He (christ) will ’save HIS PEOPLE from THEIR sins.” Matt. 1:21 If we Caucasoid Europeans ARE that people (cf. Belloc’s “Europe is the Faith, the faith, Europe”) it would make our foreign policy SO much easier, if we saw all non-whites (including the Edomitic Khazarians- i.e., the “jews”) as ‘goyim’ and us as ‘Elect.’ Why are we so afraid to take St. John, St. Paul, St. Peter, indeed, the ENTIRE NT, at face (literally!) value, when it says that WE are ‘a chosen RACE, a HOLY PRIESTHOOD, etc.’ and be content that ‘I thank thee, Lord, that I am a [at the VERY LEAST, a ’spiritual’] Jew, when we all KNOW that ‘those who say they are Jews, and are not,’ [Rev. 2:8,9] ARE NOT!

    It is time we abandoned the OTHER stereotype not taught by Christendom, but by the deicides, that the non-white, non-European ‘is my brother’. God has a people, he fashioned them clearly to be a ‘light [skin?] unto the gentiles,’ and, when we attempt to divorce Christianity from her European, WHITE Foundations, we no longer have the Christianity of the Councils, the Fathers, and the Apostles, but an amalgam, a ‘false faith.’

    Amen, and Amen!

  33. If you read my posts you’ll note that they’re 99% substance, while yours are 99% rhetoric.

    LOL :) What a hoot! And this coming from a man who compares one of the most important Christian thinkers in the twentieth century on his shameful blog with a crystal meth dealer!

    Let’s review. So far you have failed to interact AT ALL with Col. 2:3 except to call my exegesis “sloppy” and make a blind ad populum appeal. Why? Because you and I both know that one little word destroys the heart of your entire argument.

    It’s really not that complicated and something a child could understand.

    Per Col. 2:3 we learn ALL knowledge is hid in Christ and Paul per 1 Cor. 2:16b tells us in Scripture we have the mind of Christ.

    Per WCF 1:6 and its supporting verses, specifically 2 Tim 3:16,17, in addition to numerous examples of valid inferences drawn from Scripture (see Mat. 12:18ff for a wonderful example), we learn that Scripture consists of not only those propositions specifically given but all necessary inferences as well. After all, the Scriptures cannot be broken, except I suppose in the mind of a Vantilian like you who thinks affirming biblical incoherence is a mark religious sophistication and piety. (Those interested should see Manata’s ongoing defense of the idea of the so-called insoluble paradoxes of Scripture, commonly called contradictions, at his blog site).

    Contrary to the white-noise coming from your posts, and comparing spiritual things with spiritual, the conclusion therefore follows that knowledge consists of all things found in Scripture and their valid inferences.

    A simple biblical and Confessional position you continue to reject in disbelief.

    Like I said early on, since you will not even grant that all knowledge is hid in Christ despite the clear, expressed and unequivocal teaching of Scripture, there really isn’t much sense in trying to deal with a man like you.

    But if you want to continue to think your posts are 99% substance, I certainly don’t want to disturb your delusion. =8-)

  34. Several problems seem to be going on here. On one hand, there is confusion over the use of the word “knowledge” and “know.” In one sense, TF has not denied that one can know propositions outside of Scripture. ~Calvin has replied with John Robbins quote stating that non-Scripture “knowledge” is “opinion” but it would seem that TF is giving “opinion” the same properties as “knowledge” with a lesser degree of certainty.

    Surely, we could all agree that we know some things more certainly than we know other things. Therefore, who cares if I want to call that which I am most certain about “Blark” (or knowledge) and all of that which I am less certain about “Flarp” (or opinion). As long as we understand that opinion is “justified belief of a true datum” what makes the difference? We are speaking about the same cake we are just cutting it a little differently. Still, I don’t see this as helpful since it obviously is unorthodox and adds confusion to the mix.

    Therefore, ~Calvin, P7. would have to say something like “Only absolute certainty is gained from infallible sources.” In which case your objection is pushed back to what Tim phrased earlier as “is the proposition ‘we can only KNOW [with highest degree of certainty] what we learn from Scripture’ itself something we KNOW [with highest degree of certainty], and if so, is it something we know [with highest degree of certainty] from Scripture?”

    This leads us to another confusion. Though TF is claiming that only Scripture provides the highest degree of certainty I doubt that he would claim that he apprehends all of what Scripture has to say with the highest degree of certainty (am I wrong?). TF may admit that it is *possible* that he is mistaken about his view of eschatology… yet this does not defeat his Scripturalist position (as I have caste it) because if TF’s position of eschatology is going to be demonstrated as fallible then it must be done so from Scripture itself. John Frame concedes the same point in his book ‘Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.’ Man is fallible but the Scripture is not, therefore, “those corrections may be made only on the basis of a deeper understanding of Scripture, not on the basis of some other kind of knowledge” (p. 45).

    At this point it is tempting to push try and push the fallibalist claim over the edge of skepticism by asking such things as “how do you ever know you can interpret John 3:16 correctly?” However, this denies the points contained within the presupposition of Scripture itself (as I pointed out in an earlier reply). Perhaps this means that “fallibalism” is taken with a different connotation than usual as well. After all, when the non-Christian says he is a fallibalist he means something different than the Christian. The Christian recognizes his fallibility but also the constraining power of God on the fallibility.

    At this point, I’m just throwing crap out there to see what works. You might say im taking full advantage of the padded room.

    -IMBA

  35. Tim,
    Perhaps you would consider creating padded rooms by category. That way we don’t get too cluttered in the posts.(i.e. Apologetics Padded Room, Politics Padded Room, Miscellaneous Padded Room, etc.)

  36. It is time we abandoned the OTHER stereotype not taught by Christendom, but by the deicides, that the non-white, non-European ‘is my brother’.

    Wow. Really wacky stuff.

    Needless to say, seeing what this portion of the blog is reserved for, I’m now offended that our discussion on the limits of biblical epistemology was moved to the “padded room.” I should have known better.

  37. Seriously… how can black people be “bestial,” and “like innocent children” at the same time? That doesn’t even make sense.

  38. INRJC,

    Your new argument, namely that I need something close to:

    P7. Knowledge is gained only from infallible sources.

    Is a little different (at least in the sound of it to my ears) from your previous argument.

    But let me ask you to explain whether something close to P7 is escapable in light of the foregoing, and given the “strong sense” definition of knowledge.

    In other words, given that the type of knowledge we are asking for is what you would conventionally call infallible knowledge, can infallible knowledge come from a fallible source.

    We’ll call that hypothetical rebuttal position 1:

    HR1 = Infallible knowledge can come from a fallible source. (where “infallible” is redundant if we are using Robbins’ definition)

    Do you believe that Scripture and deductions from Scripture teach HR1, permit HR1, or deny HR1 (or, lest I be accused of improper dichotomoy, some other option to be named)?

    -Turretinfan

    P.S. Oh yes, and as to:

    “I have consistently asserted that I “know” Scripturalism in the strong sense. I have also proved that Scripture teaches Scripturalism.”

    The above suffices to show Tim and ~Augustine that TF holds to a self-referentially incoherent position. He thinks he knows a claim that doesn’t meet his own standards of knowledge.

    You seem to need to get your prescription (for corrective lenses) changed. Your continued misrepresentation is so gross as to be bizarre if not for some error of sight on your part.

    -Turretinfan

  39. [This comment was originally posted under “911 Nut-Balls”. –FW]

    MRB,

    Your satire does not address the argument presented. Your satire speak volumes – about its author. I’m done discussing this topic with you, which I suppose was the goal of your dishonorable work.

    Tim,

    The alleged molten steel issue and the analysis of the collapse of WTC7 are both interesting issues that warrant further investigation. The analysis of the collapses of WTC7 is ongoing, we’ll see what happens.

    I have serious doubts about the reliability of the molten steel accounts. It would be nice for the government to respond to those allegations (beyond the explanation provided for what appears to be molten metal in the video of the collapse of the twin towers.

    The refusal to accept the government’s account of the results of the stock trading evidence requires expanding the conspiracy to include yet another government agency, the SEC (whose job it is to investigate insider trading).

    The explanation provided is reasonable, even if skeptics would like to see more support for the explanation.

    The skeptics have a lot of questions, but consistently, and in the main, those questions have been reasonably answered.

    Short of a desire to imagine that our government is out to get us, I don’t see any reason to continue the skepticism. Do you?

    -Turretinfan

  40. More bad form.
    If you’re not going to leave my comments in their original, unedited form, just delete them wholesale from your website. You don’t have permission to copy and move posts, and I have tolerated it enough already.
    -Turretinfan

  41. T-fan (#90) — you say, “the explanation provided is reasonable,” but I listed several reasons why it was not. Why insult us by assuming an al Qaeda perp when that is one of the questions? Why not list the # of stock options instead of saying “95% of them”? It is just as easy. But everything is slippery, evasive, deceptive, tricky.

    It almost seems as though on your view they could just announce “we have investigated all aspects of the govt’s story about 9/11 and found everything in order.” Why bother with reports and 900 page books at all?

    If we are simply to trust their conclusions, no matter how poorly substantiated, then just say that that’s what you rest on. Don’t pretend like the detailed arguments are actually germane.

  42. TF,

    This slight of hand and equivocating is getting boring. That is, there’s knowledge, but not knowledge, it’s just colloquial use for edumacted guess, yada yada.

    Let’s be precise. We have

    a) knwoledge

    b) opinion.

    In (b) go your edumacted guesses, your rational believings, your hunches, etc.

    In (a) goes all and only those propositions that are explicitly stated in or deducible from Scripture.

    With me so far? This way we don’t need to say, it’s knowledge, but not *knowledge.* It’s knowledge but not KNOWLEDGE. it’s knowledge but not the colloquial use. So confusing and sloppy.

    That is, when terms are properly defined, ambiguity and equivocations removed, we do not call that knowledge which is not in Scripture or deducible from Scripture.

    Now, we have TF’s Scripturalis Package:

    SP: All knowledge is either stated in or deducible from Scripture.

    Does TF ‘know’ SP is sense (a) or sense (b)?

    If sense (b) then I don’t care to have the discussion. I’m satisfied that that sufficies to show the demise of Scripturalist epistemology.

    If sense (a), then deduce it.

    Now, TF thinks he has deduced it. But, he has not since an unstated premise that is crucial to the argument cannot, say I, be deduced from Scripture.

    So, as it stands, TF doesn’t know (sense a) SP.

    Gerety,

    Still waiting for the exegesis and the deduction. You must either not know how to do exegesis or must not know how do write up a formal proof. Which is it?

    And, I refuted your argument from Col. Remember, you said ALL means ALL and no expetions.

    I responded:

    Furthermore, Sean, try this one on for size. G.H. Clark said,

    “”Therefore, since God is Truth, we shall define person…as a composite of truths…theologians will complain that this reduces the Trinity to one person…This objection is based on a blindness toward certain definite Scriptural information…I am referring to the complex of truths that form the Three Persons. Though they are equally omniscient, they do not all know the same truths. Neither the complex of truths we call the Father nor those we call the Spirit, has the proposition, “I was incarnated.” …The Father cannot say, “I walked from Jerusalem to Jericho.”

    G. Clark, The Incarnation (The Trinity Foundation 1988), 54-55.”

    Therefore, Sean, it follows by strict logic, according to Clark, that this knowlegde:

    (*) The Son proceeds from Me

    is not something Christ knows.

    Or, take this:

    (**) I know what it feels like to deny Jesus three times.

    Does Christ know that?

    Now, I normally wouldn’t do this but you’re the one who pressed the “ALL” means “ALL” and “NO EXCEPTIONS” here.

    Moreover, Jesus said, “No one knows tha day or hour, not even the Son.” So, you have A LOT of qualifying to do. It seems your calling me lazy was merely psychological projection.

    So far this has not been rebutted. As it stands Gerety is just posting to save face.

    Best,

    ~INRJC

    I then replied:

  43. Still waiting for the exegesis and the deduction. You must either not know how to do exegesis or must not know how do write up a formal proof. Which is it?

    Are you going to ask me when am I going to stop beating my wife next? The exegesis was done and in light of no serious challenge from you or anyone else, it stands. How can you expect to move on to a formal proof when you reject the major premise? In Christ are hid ALL the treasures of knowledge.

    The context in no way limits Paul’s discussion to a refutation of Gnosticism as you foolishly asserted. Quite the reverse as I have already demonstrated. If that wasn’t embarrassing enough to discredit your impotent and laughable attack on Clark’s Scripturalism and your inability to rightly divide God’s Word, your constant and shameful smearing of your opponents only makes you look increasingly desperate and, frankly, foolish.

    I can see why Dr. Robbins would have nothing to do with you – even after your feigned and self-serving “apology” to him and after you took down an offensive and libelous blog only to subsequently replace it with others even more offensive and libelous.

    I’m honestly starting to feel sorry for you Paul. I don’t think you’re well.

    Therefore, Sean, it follows by strict logic, according to Clark, that this knowlegde:

    (*) The Son proceeds from Me

    is not something Christ knows.

    You must be joking. I thought this is where you were going, but I really couldn’t believe even you could be that ridiculous. I realize there is nothing too low for you. Your gross libel of Christian men like Drs. Clark and Robbins, who are in every way your superior, really is boundless.

    Is your argument now that Gordon Clark was some species of Arian? I won’t say this is as pathetic as your shameful attack on Clark and others who share his position as “crank heads,” but do you actually think that Clark denied the omniscience of Christ in The Incarnation or was the material just beyond your capability and reasoning skills. Which is it?

  44. Hi Sean,

    Okay, got it. Col. 2 means that no one can know anything unless the find it in Scripture or deduce it, because you say-so. Got it.

    Isn’t this just a case of *you* resorting to ridicule rather than argumentation? The arguments are out there. Where’s your response to them? To not interact with my claims, but engage in mere emotional outbursts, simply asserting how stupid I am, is not a response, it’s ridicule.

    We have unsubstantiated, unargued, emotive rhetoric.

    I’ll just quote what another one of your interlocutors told you, it matches my sentiments,

    “There’s something of a pattern here in Gerety’s puerile attacks:

    1. He never cites any sources.
    2. He engages in lavish, vitriolic rhetoric.
    3. He attacks people personally.
    4. He has a superiority complex.
    5. He never gives a single argument.

    In short, he deals with intellectual disputes in a childish, unsophisticated, uninformed, unchristian manner. I think this will be my last time to respond to him.”

    Blessings!

    ~INRJC

    P.S. No, Clark was not a Arian, he was a neo-nestorian. Even you push the whole “Christ was two persons” argument.

    Here’s some quotes from Gerety,

    “The Son is defined as a person of the Trinity and this person is united to a fully human what? Nature? Christ is fully man and fully God. Aren’t we considered persons as men? We are not considered natures. Gordon Clark brings up these questions in The Incarnation and yes, I know that Nestorianism is/was considered a heresy, but I think he was onto something.”

    And,

    “seem to have problems affirming the divine person is still a real person in the Incarnation, but the human person is nowhere to be found. What we really have is a divine person and an impersonal human nature.”

    See, Sean and Clark are nestorians.

    Anyway, Sean has not dealt with me reductio from Clark where we read that “Christ” does NOT know some propositions, and so it is hard to see how ALL, and no exceptions, ‘knowledge’ is “deposited” in him.

    P.P.S This is my last response here. I’d like to thank the Clarkians for their help again. As I always say, they do more harm to Scripturalism then I could ever do.

  45. P.P.P.S. LOL, notice that Sean thinks that knowledge of first person indexicals is something known by God. Sean, “omniscience” has never been defined, at least by those philosophically competant, as knowing EVERYTHING there possibly is to know. But, that’s where your forced with you ‘all means all and no exceptions” line of argument. Go pick up a philosophy of religion text and see how that sophomoric view gets sliced and diced by theistic and non-theistc philosophers alike.

  46. simply asserting how stupid I am, is not a response, it’s ridicule . . .

    See, Sean and Clark are nestorians.

    You’re wrong again Paul. It wasn’t ridicule.

  47. “omniscience” has never been defined, at least by those philosophically competant, as knowing EVERYTHING there possibly is to know . . . Go pick up a philosophy of religion text and see how that sophomoric view gets sliced and diced by theistic and non-theistc philosophers alike.

    You’ve been spending too much time reading open-theists again Paul.

    Omniscience: In philosophy and theology it means the complete and perfect knowledge of God, of Himself and of all other beings, past, present, and future, or merely possible, as well as all their activities, real or possible, including the future free actions of human beings. — J.J.R.

    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.

    I’ll pray for you Paul.

  48. “Omniscience: In philosophy and theology it means the complete and perfect knowledge of God, of Himself and of all other beings, past, present, and future, or merely possible, as well as all their activities, real or possible, including the future free actions of human beings. — J.J.R.”

    I agree.

    Your quote in response to what I said shows just how serious to take you.

    And, again, your own Clark blows you out of the water:

    “Though they are equally omniscient, they do not all know the same truths. Neither the complex of truths we call the Father nor those we call the Spirit, has the proposition, “I was incarnated.” …The Father cannot say, “I walked from Jerusalem to Jericho.”

    G. Clark, The Incarnation (The Trinity Foundation 1988), 54-55.”

    Now, since you’re not into paradoxes, and Clark isn’t into Van Tillian double speak, I take it he means what he said in the bolded part.

    So, G.H. Clark has told us that not all the omniscience persons KNOW ALL THE SAME TRUTHS!

    There are some things God doesn’t know. Here, specifically, is the problem of indexicals.

    What I know when I know that

    1. I am making sinning against God.

    is an indexical fact that no one else can know. At most, what someone else can know is that

    2. ~John Calvin is sinning against God.

    or perhaps, pointing to me, that

    3. ~John Calvin is sinning against God.

    God may know (2) or (3), but not (1).

    Now an omniscient being knows everything that can be known. But since I am not omniscient, there is at least one proposition that I know — (1) — that is not known by any other knower, including an omniscient knower, or, God.

    No being knows every indexical and non-indexical fact. This is why philosophers have *qualified* their definition of omniscience so as to escape these problems.

    This isn’t so strange, right? Is God “omnipotent?” So he can do ANYTHING, AND NO EXCEPTIONS? He can lie? He can make a square circle? He can make a rock to big he can’t lift it? No, that’s not right. And when I qualify omnipotent in that way is my “soul” in danger? Is Sean Gerety going to “pray for me?”

    So, it’s not *prima facie* absurd to do what I did to omniscince the same type of things I do to God’s other attributes. Now, I understand the fundamentalist, Appalachian Mountain, Pentecostal snake-dancing Christian doesn’t make this distinctions. he dons his overalls and his straw hats, and marches his “aww shucks” theology down to the local college and tells people to believe in God because “bad things are a comin’. For zample, God’s gonna send people to the firey pit where tha debil will poke them with pitchforks.”

    So, take that for what it’s worth, Gerety. A free lesson. And, I’d be careful about using prayer as a kind of Argumentum ad Metum, or baculum, or perhaps circumstantial ad hominem, or maybe those and more wrapped into one.

    Take Care, and the best to you and yours,

    INRJC

    P.S. This really was my last reply! :-D

  49. Let’s all hope this time that it really is Manata’s last reply because it is clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, yet thinks he can fool the unwitting with philosophic jargon.

    So, G.H. Clark has told us that not all the omniscience persons KNOW ALL THE SAME TRUTHS!

    There are some things God doesn’t know. Here, specifically, is the problem of indexicals.

    Another great example of Paul Manata not heeding the Apostle Paul’s stern admonition: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception. . . .”

    Any honest and fair, not to mention competent reading of Clark, would see that Clark’s distinguishing between first person and third person propositions is a semantic shift that doesn’t alter that which is known. For example:

    Paul Manata claims to know:

    1. I am making sinning against God.

    Like when he libels Christians by scurrilously referring to them crank dealers, falsely accuses them of Nestorianism, or publicly claims his elders need “spankings” on his blog. God knows this too. Notice the knower changed, but the meaning remains the same: Paul Manta is sinning against God when he libels and falsely accuses other Christians. Paul seems to forget that a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. Replacing “I am sinning . . .” with “Paul Manata is sinning. . .” did not alter the meaning of the proposition, but rather moved from the first person subjective to a third person objective.

    Joel Parkinson who IS an honest, fair AND competent reader of Clark observes:

    “Thus the subjective thoughts of the three divine Persons and their objective knowledge are not one and the same even though they are both all-encompassing. The Father does not think, “I will or have died on a cross,” nor does he think, “I will or do indwell Christians.” Only the Son can think the former and the latter is unique to the Holy Spirit. But all three know “the Son will die or has died on a cross,” and “the Holy Spirit will or does indwell Christians.” So the subjective thoughts distinguish the Persons even though their objective knowledge is shared and complete.

    . . . We therefore conclude that the concept of the intellectual triunity of God helps to show the coherence of the Trinity. On the one hand, there are three subjective thoughts in the Godhead which cannot be reduced to one personality. One the other hand, there is one common objective body of knowledge to the three Persons. The omniscient content of this shared knowledge uniquely renders the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit indivisible. If they are indivisible, then they are one God. Yet we have not confounded the Persons.” http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=70

    Finally, notice what an awful pickle Manata has gotten himself into through his empty and deceptive use of contemporary analytical and philosophic jargon:

    Now an omniscient being knows everything that can be known. But since I am not omniscient, there is at least one proposition that I know — (1) — that is not known by any other knower, including an omniscient knower, or, God.

    Can a denial of omniscience be any clearer.

    1. An omniscient being knows everything that can be known.

    2. There is at least one proposition God doesn’t know.

    :. God is not an omniscient being.

    QED

    Goodbye Paul. For the record, I wasn’t being facetious in the least. I will be praying for you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *