biblicalthought.com

Good post Mario, you guys are getting better and better.

I was nearly 50 years old when the Lord was pleased to save me and I can attest to 1Cr 1:18 “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” This was exactly how I felt and how I responded to someone whenever they tried to “talk Christian” around me.

Fast forward to the present and I can proclaim John 8:32 “And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free,” Amen and Amen! My faith grows stronger by the day especially seeing the trials and tribulations that the local church bodies endure just trying to teach the truth. It’s OK though because what the disruptor meant for destruction only strengthens the True Believers. Amen! Keep it up, all of you!

** Truth may be the question. But “Jesus” is not the answer **

Pilate’s question: “What is truth?” can be answered. But, “Jesus” or “Christ” is not a legitimate response. Besides you’re merely begging the question to use so-called scripture to support itself.

The writer of John’s belligerent account of Christ before Pilate contains exaggerated interpolation that not even the so-called synoptics dared fictionalize.

You need to read more widely. You’ll have to answer better than Jesus is claimed to have done when talking about himself as being the “truth.”

I refer you to Alfred Tarski’s semantic concept of truth. It requires no metaphysical presuppositions nor any epistemological viewpoint — really it is a definition of the relationship between (broadly speaking) a statement about the world and the state of nature to which it refers.

Sling around all the philosophical jargon you want. You don’t understand it. Apologetics is not a game for amateurs.

bipolar2

Bipolar,

Truth is the very question, and Jesus is in fact the answer. This is the exact point I will continue to stress that Christ is the answer. Begging the question is what you’re doing, according to your human reason.

First of all, the Scriptures are not one book. They are a compilation of 66 books, written by multiple authors, spanning a time of thousands of years.

The Scripture declares in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Man relying on his fallen intellect can never figure out the things God has planned for those who love Him. The burden of proof rests on you. God has spoken. He is there and He is not silent.

Bipolar, you will be the one that has to give a better answer than what you bring. Problem is, there is no other answer out there. This is why you are here now.

“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them, for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” Romans 1:18-26

What is a mathematician going to teach us about the Creator of the universe Bipolar?

“Tarski made extensive, basic contributions to the field of metamathematics, a branch of mathematical logic. His most important contribution to logic is the semantic method, a method that allows a more exacting study of formal scientific languages.” Columbia Encyclopedia

I refer you to the inspired Scriptures of God which warn you to flee from the wrath to come by repenting of your sins and turning to Jesus the Messiah as Lord.

You will have to read more narrowly Bipolar. Christ is the very embodiment of Truth! God of very God and man of very man! He lived the life we should have lived and died the death believers should have died.

You seem very bold, in your last statement,

“Sling around all the philosophical jargon you want. You don’t understand it. Apologetics is not a game for amateurs.”

It is you that needs to take heed to your own words. I don’t claim to understand it completely, and I’m not offended by being an amateur. Amateur I may be, but I am a Spirit filled amateur, more than that I am a soldier of the Cross and prepared to defend the faith at all costs!

Ultimately, it is not against my pathetic intellect you contend against, but against the very intellect/mind of Christ that is revealed in Scripture. It is that divine mind from which there is no creature hidden form His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. His word is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intention of the heart.

Let those who have issues with Messiah take heed to “do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, for His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!” Psalm 2

Let me know you thoughts……

Bipolar said:
“Sling around all the philosophical jargon you want. You don’t understand it. Apologetics is not a game for amateurs.”

I would at least have to agree with him on this point. The title of this post is “Epistemology and Truth”. I’m still waiting for you Mario to get to your epistemology. I am a calvinist dedicated to sola Scriptura and am not into natural theology. But I have had four formal university courses in epistemology and have done much reading in the area, both Christian and secular. If you are going to have epistemology in your title, if you are going to mention the four branches of philosophy, and if you are going to indeed “sling around” a bunch of “philosophical jargon” than please give us something more to talk about and work with than simply repeating what you read in a JBA journal article or a few of Morey’s natural theology CDs.

Further, it would be nice for a change if you could actually argue your position, explain more further your general claims, and respond to those that challenge you with more than merely quoting a few verses at them and threatening them with hell. Also, you told Bipolar, whom I do not know, that he seems very bold in his statement. Well, you sure seem pretty bold in ALL that you say here about epistemology and truth. I’m not even saying that I disagree really with anything you said, but my point is that you really offered nothing new here accept a generalized version of the things Morey says. Maybe you should get a little intro book on epistemology before you try to weigh in on such an immensely difficult subject.

[THIS USER HAS PROVIDED AN INVALID EMAIL ADDRESS - MODERATOR]

Jean,

I’d have to say the the fear of the LORD is definitely the beginning of knowledge.

Knowledge I would say is the ideas and concepts which are available in masses in the world which we live. The human mind has knowledge within that comprises the intellect of a person. Knowledge is available in limitless subjects!

There is though a knowledge the world has not understood, nor is it able to do so without divine revelation. Man which lies in darkness does not want to have anything to do with the God of Scripture.

Knowledge is ultimately understanding. A biblical view of knowledge would be understanding imparted to humanity from the very mind of God to inform humans what they should believe and how they should live. Biblical knowledge stresses the fact that humanity is dead in sin and on the way to eternal perdition, however, God has sent His Son into the world as a substitutionary sacrifice for His people.

The Greek identifies the words gnosis and epignosis.

epignosis is that knowledge which can be said to accompany salvation. It is a deep and meaningful, experiential understanding/knowledge. A knowledge that is true.

Gnosis is a knowledge which can be general and not necessarily an intimate knowledge; common knowledge. A basic understanding.

For example:

Ephesians 1:17 “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge (epignosis) of Him.” or

Ephesians 4:13 “until we all attain to the unity of he faith, and of the knowledge (epignosis) of the Son of God to a mature man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” or

Philippians 1:9 “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge (epignosis) and all discernment.”

Contrasted with

Ephesians 3:19

“and to know (ginosko) the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge (gnosis) that you may be filled up to the fullness of God.

1 Timothy 6:20 “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge (gnosis).

In 2 Peter 2:12, the word knowledge appears but is translated agnoeo which means to be ignorant, to not know.

“But these like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge (agnoeo), will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed.

It is interesting to note in this verse the word “know” is translated ginosko which means a personal knowledge of knowing someone intimately. In Spanish if we know someone personally, we’d say conosco (konosko: pronunciation). This would mean we know the person intimately.

There is also the word oida in the Greek which would mean in a sense to have heard of someone or be aware of them, but not knowing them personally. For example, I know (ginosko) my mother whom I love versus, I know (oida) George W. Bush, not personally, but am aware of who he is.

Definitely not a Greek Scholar yet, but striving to know the Scriptures and the Lord Jesus more and more!!!!!!

Christ came to make eternal life a certainty for the chosen/elect. In John 17:3, Christ was praying, “This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

From beginning to end, the Triune God reveals His knowledge to humanity. The eternal plan of God the Father accomplished at the cross by God the Son, and being worked out and applied by God the Holy Spirit, until the Lord Jesus returns again to judge the world! He does not come as a lamb. This time He comes as a lion to judge the sinners and cast those who are found to not be in union with Christ into the eternal fire to be tormented forever.

Hope this is of some help…..brothers feel free to chime in.

Calvin’s Knuckle:
Maybe it is a person like you this is intended for?

You speak as one who has it all figured out. So what is your purpose in posting your comments here? You don’t disagree with anything I said?

“I’m not even saying that I disagree really with anything you said, but my point is that you really offered nothing new here accept[except] a generalized version of the things Morey says.”

When you post your comments, do you do so to the glory of God? This is why biblicalthought exists! We labor to the glory of God! We understand that our labor in the Lord is not in vain. Our goal is to exalt Christ as Lord over all without compromise, by His grace.

I think i may have confused Calvin’s Knuckle with being bi-ploar. Sorry.

The above are excerpts of a book I intend to write. Christian epistemology is one of my passions. For some reason, God laid that upon my heart.

Jean Cauvin

BiPolar2-

Love the name. I am just curious who has BiPolar1 and how many of you are there?

Anyways, while I am waiting for Tarski’s book, could you please enlighten me on what an argument that has” no metaphysical presuppositions nor any epistemological viewpoint ” looks like? Should this be our goal? Is this how you make your case when discussing something? Lastly, how does the following statement measure up to this standard:

“** Truth may be the question. But “Jesus” is not the answer **”

or for a better example:

“The writer of John’s belligerent account of Christ before Pilate contains exaggerated interpolation that not even the so-called synoptics dared fictionalize.”

I am eager to hear your answer. With or without the medication makes no difference to me. I am sure either one will be interesting.

Stephen made a funny

ID-10-T compliant

This is also a military form that is used for the new guy on ship or in the Battalian to get to know some of the command. He is sent around asking people for this form and it usually takes about 2 hours to fill out.

I really enjoy Epistemology it brings Gods knowladge out in great ways, what are some books you would reccomend on this issue, I wonder if Jean would reccomend the same, Im curious to see how or if dispensationalism affects ones epistomology.

Mario said to Jean:
“Knowledge I would say is the ideas and concepts which are available in masses in the world which we live. The human mind has knowledge within that comprises the intellect of a person. Knowledge is available in limitless subjects!”

CK says:
This is indeed the issue: “Knowledge…is…?” Mario seems to have some confusion here and offers different ideas about what he thinks knowledge is. This is inconsistent and thus not very helpful. Contra DarrinB, I do not and never claimed to have it figured out; rather, what I called for was two things: first, a bit more than these general claims that “knowledge is Jesus” or “knowledge comes from God” etc.; and second, that there be a bit more humility on such a difficult topic as epistemology. But let us examine more closely what Mario thinks knowledge “is”.

Knowledge is [sic]: “the ideas and concepts which are available in masses in the world which we live.” I do not even know what that means because it does not tell us anything. There is a difference between “ideas” and “concepts” in philosophy. I’m confused, just because people have “ideas” and “concepts” from the “world in which we live,” do those all constitute “knowledge”? Again, he says that “the human mind has knowledge within that comprises the intellect of a person.” What does this mean? Are you referring to innate ideas that we are born with in opposition to empiricism? Are you referring to intuition that we have? But then you say that “knowledge is available in limitless subjects!” So is this knowledge gained from “limitless subjects” gained from empirical experience in the world? I’m confused and just seeking clarity. But Mario offers a further definition on what knowledge is to help clarify what he means.

Again Mario says to Jean:
“Knowledge is ultimately understanding. A biblical view of knowledge would be understanding imparted to humanity from the very mind of God to inform humans what they should believe and how they should live. Biblical knowledge stresses the fact that humanity is dead in sin and on the way to eternal perdition, however, God has sent His Son into the world as a substitutionary sacrifice for His people.

CK says:
Again, this does not help us much. “Knowledge is ultimately understanding.” But is that what “knowledge” is? Understanding of what? The traditional view of knowledge is that it is true, justified belief (tjb). Others like Plantiga have added a fourth condition such as warrant. Knowledge is thus far more than just “understanding”. Is it possible for a person to “understand” something but not “know” it? Yes. A person can understand the claims of Joseph Smith that there were these huge ancient civilizations spoken of in the book of Mormon, but they can’t say they “know” it because such claims are not true. Again, a person can understand the claims that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but they do not know it because they do not believe it. Again, a person can understand that they guessed the right numbers in the raffle, but they do not know it because their guess is not justified. Thus “Knowledge is ultimately understanding” does not even scratch the surface in helping us “understand” what knowledge “is”.
But Mario goes on to say: “A biblical view of knowledge would be understanding imparted to humanity from the very mind of God to inform humans what they should believe and how they should live.”

CK says:
So are you advocating a form of Clarkian Scripturalism? But you have already advocated knowledge can be gained via empirical observation or intuition. I’m confused. But then Mario goes into man’s depravity (crucial to biblical epistemology no doubt) and then the substitutionary sacrifice. Ok, but I would like to see a little bit of development of what this all means. It is so general that it means virtually nothing. And don’t get made at me, I’m not the one who wrote an article on epistemology and truth.

The Greek identifies the words gnosis and epignosis.

Mario says:
epignosis is that knowledge which can be said to accompany salvation. It is a deep and meaningful, experiential understanding/knowledge. A knowledge that is true.

Gnosis is a knowledge which can be general and not necessarily an intimate knowledge; common knowledge. A basic understanding.

CK says:
If you read his verses again on this you will see that there is some inconsistency in these definitions if not contradictions. Did you do an exhaustive study of these words used? Are you sure there is no interchangeability used? More is on the way…

Mario says to Knuckle:
“When you post your comments, do you do so to the glory of God? This is why biblicalthought exists! We labor to the glory of God! We understand that our labor in the Lord is not in vain. Our goal is to exalt Christ as Lord over all without compromise, by His grace.”

CK:
Huh? What on earth would give you the impression that my comments are not done to the glory of God? This is so infantile to jump to this idea (which is no knowledge because it is not true). I challenge you on a few things and ask you to develop a bit further what you are talking about and you fly off and ask if I comment according to the glory of God! Is that what you do when people disagree with you or with Morey? You immediately question their motives and whether they live for the glory of God? How in the world can you have a rational and fair and civil dialogue with anyone if you think like that? Is THAT emotional and insecure thinking really in line with Scripture and bringing glory to God?

CK,

Instead of hounding the poor guy, why don’t you contribute to the conversation. Reveal your means of episteomology via the normative dependents along with its equality to other categories.

I have not done this yet so give it a shot.

Leave Mario alone. Go pick on Luigi.

Jean Cauvin

I am a student of the bible and will continue to be! I am not discouraged in the least bit! This just encourages me to press ahead stronger! There is much to be learned in this great faith of ours!

CK,

I will continue to press ahead strong in the faith! Your comments give me greater zeal to press ahead strong! In the Scripture, the Lord never said I had to have deep reasoning to do God’s work! It just makes me see by God’s grace, how much more I have to study, it shall be a life long endeavor! In and of myself, I am insufficient, but, my sufficiency is in my Lord Jesus Christ!

Tell us about you though, who do you study under? Where do you attend church? Who is your pastor?

Julie,

It is interesting. all the boast of philosophical brilliance, and yet they use fake email addresses and hide behind names??? You’d think they’d be comfortable with who they really are.

The questions rest on you CK….

A better question to ask, according to Hebrews 13:17 is, who shepherds over your soul? It is not a question of the pastor’s popularity, but of who you submit to as your shepherd, who watches over your soul?

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for )they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.” Hebrews 13:17

Lay down Calvin’s Knuckle. What is your real name? If you’re going to recommend books, ha bout it?

Mario,

You are right, no body has written an exhaustive work on epistemology yet. The best person I believe that could have written on it recently was Bahnsen (but he died). Though Bahnsen had some questionable traits, it would have been interesting. These books do cover epistemology in fracture form via modes of thought throughout. Especially Schaeffer’s with aesthetics (which is a dependent category of epistemology).

The person qualifed to do this would have to be an expert on this subject. Sadly, nobody in the Body of Christ today is qualified anymore to write on it. Morey knows a great deal on the subject, but this is not his study of expertise.

Jean Cauvin

CK:

Please do not place me together with you on this issue. I ask if Mario (or others) would be able to go deeper, but it is one thing to ask for more depth, another to berate and attack them as being simpletons. They may very well be, but you have not proven it, and even if so, your response is NOT edifying. Mario here is not writing a book or a scholarly article on Epistemology, and does NOT claim to be doing so.

My current epistemological stand is some form of Scripturalism, and as such I think that to point people back to Sola Scriptura is the way to go. Or are you going to say that we are smarter than Jesus in our epistemology? Likewise, how can you not contradict Scripture in 1 Cor. 1:18-31 if you posit any other epistemological theory other than Scripturalism?

With regards to the enquiry of your name and pastor, I think that it is not that it is relevant, but that there should be some accountability involved, especially since you have supposedly given an invalid email address. At my blog for example, I have disallowed all annonymous commenters because of this issue. Yes, it is still possible to masquerade as someone else by creating a once-off ID/Email address etc, but at least such a move minimizes such occurances.

As it is, I do hope that you will behave more civilly here. Question if you want, but please don’t attack them; they are neither heretics nor apostates.

Daniel -

I am just having a hard time trying to understand how you guys (and gals) think over here. I am not attacking Mario and trying to make him look like a simpleton. Like you said, maybe he is, maybe his is not. What are you talking about with this business of we are smarter than Jesus? C’mon man. I guess I am just not used to this kind of reasoning you all are giving me and the tactics of instantly going ad hominem and asking for things like my pastor’s name when someone disagrees or challenges you. As far as Scripturalims goes, I would just encourage you to read the massive critique (and in my view refutation) of that school of thought done by Aquascum (who holds a legitimately earned PhD in philosophy from Oxford). I think he utterly undid that school. He is addressing specifically Vincent Chueng’s version of Scripturalism. G. Clark never really developed it but Cheung did. But I still respect you because at least you show some famililarity with the subject. However, I must point out that you have committed the logical fallacy of begging the question by assuming the truth of your position before you have proven it by just mentioning 1 Cor. 1:18-31. Maybe you can draw out an actual argument from this for your position rather than just mention a verse.

Thank you Daniel for agreeing with me that my name and my pastor is “not relevant” to this discussion. What, are you going to call my pastor up Mario and tell on me? You going to tell him that I was mean to you? What happened to the rihno skin? What do you mean accountability? This is a dinky little blog. Daniel you hope that I will behave more civil here? I just don’t get it folks. Can you maybe show me or quote me thus far and show where I have not been civil? Mr. Morey can get away with amazing comments and antics, but when anyone else even tries to show a little boldness toward you all or issue a challenge (heck, just a request for more explanation), you can’t handle it. I think there is an inconsistency lurking here somewhere.

Now to Mario -
Mario you said that I am really being infantile and junior high and that I need to drop my philosphic jargon and just answer your question. Listen brother, Daniel already agreed with me that it is not relevant to this topic. Further, I told you that if you can show me the relevance between epistemology and who I am under, then I will tell you. Why are you so desparate that I answer this question? Again, I feel embarrased for you that you have to go there. And back to Daniel, thus far I am really the only one here except for Jean who has in any way added anything to this conversation or broadened it with new ideas. It seems to me like this is more of a pat-each-other-on-the-back club than a “biblical thought” dialogue. As I have been reading posts from here, this is what I see so far. Stephen has had to practically beg people to come on and leave comments. Then the comments that do come in are too often of two forms. 1) they are “ada boys” by people just saying “good job keep it up” etc. 2) when anyone diagrees with you all you just attack them and go all ad hominem and even go so low as to demand they tell you all who there pastor is and where they go to church. Those who challenge you or disagree with are actually the ones who get attacked and called all sorts of names like heretics and apostates etc. C’mon boys.

Now to get back on track and ad some more ideas to this topic, Mr. Morey has expanded on what a biblical epistemology should look like in a Table Talk series (I believe #`1, disk 1). He says that it should be viewed from creation, fall, and redemption. Now this is good and helpful. But he does little after that to develop it any further and answer some of the most serious questions. He is really addressing or attacking natural theology more than developing a revealed epistemology, but at least he gave us some helpful perameters to work from. I have heard a lot of Mr. Morey’s audio lectures and from what I can tell he does not really know too much about epistemological issues. But i could be wrong. That is just my impression as one who has a background in philosophy.

I don’t know if I will come back to this blog because of the things I have said so far. You guys should spend more time on places like the Puritan Board and the Triablog (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/) to see how “civil” and rational dialogues take place.

I am now pushing the “submit” button for this comment because not only do I submit to my elders, I also submit to the button to get you all to think a little.

Last shot there Calvin’s Knuckle. You want to talk philosophy? Be straight forward. You can’t slander and gossip and attempt to do the Lord’s work at the same time my young Jedi friend. Decide what it is you want to do. Lead a cluster of gossips, be a philosopher, do the Lord’s work? Make up your mind. You were right that day when you said that philosophy was driving you to the point of losing you faith, remember? I pray the Lord teaches you humility and causes you to repent of your sins.

One last time…tell everyone who you are and what church you belong to. This is not an attack on you, just a simple request for you to stop with your immature behavior, the fake cycling of names, and identify yourself.

Tell us about your “background” in philosophy……

How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! BUT, his delight is in the law of the LORD and in His law he meditates day and night.

He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in its season and its leaf does not wither; and whatever he does, he prospers.

The wicked are not so, but they are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

Colossians 2:3-8 infallibly states that “All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ.”

“Note (in this passage) that he says all wisdom and knowledge is deposited in the person of Christ—whether it be about the War of 1812, water’s chemical composition, the literature of Shakespeare, or the laws of logic! Every academic pursuit and every thought must be related to Jesus Christ, for Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. (John 14:6) To avoid Christ in your thought at any point, then, is to be misled, untruthful and spiritually dead. To put aside your Christian commitments when it comes to defending the faith or sending your children to school is willfully to steer away from the only path to wisdom and truth found in Christ. It is not the end or outcome of knowledge to fear the Lord; it is the beginning of knowledge to reverence Him (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10).”

(Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, pages 4-5)

(HT: Slice)

Reformed Mama the epistemologist,

“…turned the conversation back to the word of God.”

It’s (by grace) the Christian thing to do!

Hi Daniel,

Your last sentence is completely ambiguous and stange. Everybody has an epistemology whether it is systemized is one thing.

Every Christian has to have a epistemology to understand Scripture. And some of that episteomology is required to be in tact for one to be saved (e.g. sola fide, sola scriptura).

If an epistemology leads you away from Scripture then it is not epistemology since knowledge is never negated while maintaing the substance of knowledge thereof. The only result of knowledge negated, is falsehood asserted.

Jean Cauvin

Hi Daniel,

Epistemology consists not only of the means of how we know what we know, but it is also the system of knowledge as a whole. This would not only include the method behind the premises, but also the conclusion itself.

Thus in John 8:24 is a knowledge/truth statement that is required for salvation. And the method or principle behind knowing that knowledge cannot be altered. There is only one way to know anything. The conclusion cannot be reached with an improper method of knowing.

Thus an example of John 8:24 is known only by one means. No other epistemology will get you the conclusion that is required for knowledge.

Thus knowledge and the means of knowledge cannot be separated or divided because they are a unit or a whole.

This could be expounded on synonymously with invalid and sound and the laws of logic. If I need to reiterate those laws I wil. The point is that epistemology should be looked at as a whole in all its parts to knowledge.

Revealed revelation is the only means of epistemological method to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. Any other means, is false.

Jean Cauvin

“You have only stated that spiritual knowledge is by revelation alone, but all sides of the epistemological divide that believe in Scripture believe that.”

Daniel, when you say all sides agree, do you include natural law theorists, natural theology proponents, etc?

“Rather, the question is then ask as to how we come to know this revelation. Can we know this revelation apart from the realibility of the senses, of which we are dependent on them to understand the words of Scripture? Or is it through some mystical fashion working independently of the senses? Or through vigorous thinking and study that the Scriptural truths are revealed?”

In regards to knowing, I would say that there are different ways (empirical, rational, etc.). But I hold to the distinction referred to in the WCF (1.5) that affirms that our “full persuasion” and “assurance” of the infallible truth “is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”

The Divines acknowledged that the necessity of the illumination of the Holy Spirit for the full persuasion of God’s revelation supersedes empirical experiences, rationality or Right Reason, even logic (see 1.5). All other arguments fall short, they said. The inward work of the Holy Spirit is essential to man’s full acceptance of Scripture as God’s Word, thus no man can accept its authority apart from this “epistemological” essential.

This obviously divides all epistemologies into two groups (Vantillian antithesis) and should (must?) be acknowledged as such (by Christians) so that the distinction between the “two” can be consistently applied to all epistemologies (shared or competing). This will aid in detailing presuppositions of belief and unbelief present in all epistemologies – something I think is essential in developing a truly Christian epistemology.

Jean,

First principle: Scripture.

Apart from Scripture, man is left to his “natural” perception of (metaphysical) reality and will interpret himself, the world around him, and all of the interrelationships involved via uninformed and unenlightened presuppositions of (unregenerate) unbelief.

Jean,

Deductive - Universal.

Would you fall under the “verificationist” or ???

I have been called a type of realist.

Daniel,

The distinction in WCF 1.5 I referred to was the Divines affirmation of the inward work of the Holy Spirit as the ultimate or final proof that Scripture is the Word of God and is therefore fully authoritative as such. They acknowledged that there may be many different persuasive arguments, but ultimately it is the Holy Spirit bearing witness. I tend to have an emphasis of this interwoven throughout most of my thought, so I brought it into the discussion early. It was not to imply that it was not held by the majority of Reformed thought.

Your abortion scenario:

Are you asking if the foundation is the senses or the Holy Spirit?

Are you an Empiricist?

Hi Daniel,

The question is a morals/ethics question since it has to do with whether abortion is right or wrong. As an adherent to what is considered a form of divine command theory, I would commend the person for going to Scripture to get God’s perspective on the issue with the intention of forming one’s thoughts after His. As you have mentioned, logical deduction would be required in the application of revelation, and the correct conclusion would be that abortion is wrong since it is murder and God’s commands forbid murder as well as include consequences for violating His command not to do it.

This would certainly include a certain level of trust in one’s senses in order to decipher the revelation which is in propositional form. But these senses are never to be the origin of morals. Rather, they are to function as servants to revelation – revelation being the Origin. Since the senses are fallible, they are not to be fully trusted. As a Scripturalist though, you should say that the fact that they are fallible should not be the reason for not trusting them, Scripture should be. Since Scripture says not to bear one’s full weight upon one’s own understanding but to rather trust in the Lord with all of yourself, acknowledging Him in all ways – and that in doing so He will make straight your paths (Prov. 3:5-6), then that would serve as the major premise from which the minor would follow. Scripture says not to A. A implies B. And so on…

Regarding your specific question, according to your abortion scenario, the part of the process in question seems to be between Scripture and conclusion that abortion is wrong. You have laid out the following process:

First he goes to Scripture.
Then he applies Scriptural principles.
Thus he deduces the conclusion that abortion is wrong.

If your question is attempting to investigate how he knows that he has deduced correctly, then an evaluation of his logic would be required. This would answer your question regarding his perception of the Holy Spirit’s prompting and whether or not it is errant. A true hearing would entail valid logic since the premise is infallible and inerrant.

How right or wrong am I?

Jean:

How so? Don’t they all point back to Sola Scriptura at some point or another, since they are in fact reformed?

Stephen:

That was part of what I was getting at, but I was thinking more of the reading of Scripture. Thus, while all that you have said is true, the question still is on the realibility of the senses. Yes, of course, as a Scripturalist, I can say that “the fact that they [the senses] are fallible should not be the reason for not trusting them”, but that is something which is further downstream of the reasoning process.

The abortion scenario is just meant to be an example of an issue whereby we must make a judgment concerning God’s Truth on an issue, therefore necessitating study of the Scriptures (for those who have not faced the issue before yet). Thus, abortion per se is irrelevant. The basic issue is that in reading the Scriptures to know what God says about [any particular issue or doctrine], you use your senses in so doing. Therefore, it could be the case whereby if your senses (ie sight) deceive you, you will come out with error instead of truth while ‘reading’ the Scriptures, and therefore you could believe in error while believing it is the Truth.

As for me, I think that the reason why we should believe in our senses while reading Scripture is because the Spirit who works through Scripture informs us that it is reliable when we do so. Therefore, epitstemologically, the process of knowing is Scripture Holy Spirit -> Senses -> Bible (Physical) -> Reason -> Truth. Just wondering, does this make sense?

Jean:

I was thinking only of those with a reformed epistemology, not reformed people with thomist/natural theology epistemology like R.C. Sproul. I was therefore thinking more of Clark vs.Van Till.

It can be said that many people today, never stop to examine the thoughts that run in our minds and shape how we view life and what we believe about how to live life. Epistemology has everything to do with a method by which we as humans understand what is “real” or true. Let us look at a very brief overview of philosophy. Philosophy can be divided into four basic sections or branches.
1. Metaphysics: This branch of philosophy deals with the nature of being or reality.
2. Epistemology: The method by which we understand what is real or true; how we know what is true.
3. Ethics: Has to do with contrasting between what is right and wrong and good versus evil.
4. Aesthetics: Has to do with beauty. Why is something beautiful as opposed to ugly?
Response: Obviously these four spheres of philosophical inquiry are not the bare strata of what philosophy is qua philosophy. For some reason we have forgotten to mention philosophical logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, phenomenology, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of mathematics [1].
How does a human being determine truth in light of these four branches of philosophy? Let us begin by how the human cannot. By human reason alone, man has never arrived at truth or solved the “problem” of how to “arrive” at truth. It must be noted that man is not a determiner of truth, but a receiver of it. In the world, truth is relative. One man’s truth is another man’s lie.
Response: Ok, this affirmation is clearly false, unless the interlocutor means something altogether different from the normal use of word “alone.” There are a great many instances of a priori knowledge. For example, take a mature cognizer C who comes to believe the following propositions by way of reason along:
(1) The inference rule modus ponens is true.
(2) 2+2 = 4
(3) a = a if and only if a = a
These are obvious counter-examples to the claim that human cognizers have not come to know truths by way of reason alone.
Second, the claim that we as human persons have not formed consential scholarly conclusions about how to arrive at truth is wrong headed. Human persons are within their epistemic rights in affirming mathematical propositions about which they have arrived at the truth of such propositions by way of reason alone. We are also epistemically justified in believing metaphysical truths like (3), and we arrive at the truth of three by way of logical inferences and dedeuctions. The same can be said about proposition (1) above
There is no absolute standard of measurement for what truth is. How does humanity then decipher the ultimate meaning of life? Why is the world in such turmoil? Why are the times getting worse? Because man in and of himself cannot arrive at a solution for fallen humanity.
Response: Again, we human cognizers have some very good ways of arriving at the knowledge of truth (see the above argumentation).
Truth then must be divinely revealed by God to His people.
Response: I don’t see any motivation for accepting this proposition if we come to know about the truth at least by the ways I specified.

Footnote:
[1] There are even more areas and subfields of philosophy.

I’ll comment. First, a question: are you a believer?

What do you mean by that?

“Morey would not consider me a Christian, because of my theological views.”

Such as?

“He is much, much, much to [sic] exclusive.”

In what ways?

“I think his behavior and views are rather cultic.”

Compared to what?

This is part of the problem. Somehow you think that a response to my original post is relevant the question of whether or not I am a believer. Look, what I affirmed in that post could be true, or false irrespective of whether or not I am a believer or not.

So this question is irrelevant for our discussion. I do not want to discuss my soteriology, bibliology etc. I want to discuss directly, theological prolegomena and views about philosophy’s relationship to theology, hence my initial post. So lets stop with the red herrings and discuss the issues I raised.

Red herring again. Lets discuss the issues I raised. No I don’t think Morey, or anyone who likes Robert Morey would call me a “beliver”.

CGWEAVER,

We raised the issues here, you came to contend against them. You’ve got to put the red herring down. Tell us why you “don’t think,” we’d call you a believer?