Wednesday, April 29, 2009

You're dethpicable!

Sean Gerety has done a post in response to me and others:

http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/vantillian-shadow-boxing-round-one/

Cutting the dead wood, I’ll comment on his major claims:

But how can he possibly know this?…Beyond that, Manata has no way of knowing that the Bible contains even one “unarticulated equivocation on the part of the revealer.”

i) Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that this is an accurate description of Manata’s position. Let’s further assume, for the sake of argument, that this is, indeed, a consequence of Manata’s position.

So the basic objection is that we should reject Manata’s position if a consequence of his position is that Manata can’t know what the Bible says about this or that.

Now, assuming that this consequence is sufficient to invalidate Manata’s position, it’s equally sufficient to invalidate Sean’s position. If Scripturalism is true, then Sean can’t know a single thing about the Bible. He can’t know anything the Bible says. Indeed, he cannot knowingly distinguish a Bible from a Koran or Playboy magazine or Mad magazine.

ii) If the Bible is the only source of knowledge, then Sean can’t get past the subject/object duality. Scripture would be the object of knowledge, but the subject of knowledge (e.g. Sean) would be an extrabiblical entity. So how could an extrabiblical subject of knowledge ever come to know the biblical object of knowledge if the Bible is the only source of knowledge?

iii) He can’t learn what the Bible teaches through the use of his senses, for Scripturalism rejects the senses as a source of knowledge. The Bible is the only source of knowledge.

iv) He can’t learn what the Bible teaches through innate knowledge, in part because he has no innate knowledge of the Bible. We’re not born knowing what the Bible teaches.

Indeed, that would undermine the very notion of a public, historic revelation. God revealed himself through the medium of speakers and writers. The spoken word and the written word. And the written word is also the record of the spoken word.

It was revealed to Christians via prophets and Apostles. Bible writers.

v) And even if, for the sake of argument, the knowledge of Scripture were innate, Scripturalism would reject that mode of knowledge–for in that case, Scripture would not be the only source of knowledge. Rather, the knowledge of Scripture would be mediated by the innate knowledge of the human mind. The human mind would be the immediate source of knowledge, and not the word of God.

If that isn’t enough to show the absurdity and blasphemy entailed in defending the idea of Biblical paradox, shall we revisit some of the incredible nonsense — along with outright and open heresies — some of these men have defended all in the name of “biblical paradox”? It is no coincidence that virtually all defenders of the false gospel of the Federal Vision are self-professed Vantilians. It’s no surprise either that virtually all of the Federal Vision opponents that happen to be Vantilians remain utterly incapable of doing anything to stop it’s advance and instead call the FV men currently disturbing the church “our brothers in Christ.” I guess one good paradox deserves another.

Three problems with this claim:

i) If Scripturalism is true, then Sean is in no position to know what Van Tilians believe. He’s in no position to know what Federal Visionaries believe. He’s in no position to impute the views of the Federal Vision to any Van Tilians.

Sean is like a drunk who keeps swearing off the bottle, only to find himself back in the saloon a day later. In one breath he vigorously asserts the tenets of Scripturalism, but in the next breath he relapses into extrabiblical assertions.

It’s hard for him to keep up the Scripturalist act 24/7. He keeps forgetting his lines. He keeps reverting to the default position of extrabiblical knowledge.

ii) Does he have any evidence that Anderson endorses the Federal Vision? Does he have any evidence that Sudduth endorses the Federal Vision?

Both Manata and I are on record repudiating the Federal Vision.

iii) While we’re on the subject of “outright and open heresies,” what about Clark’s pantheistic idealism, when he reduces human beings to nothing more than divine ideas? What about Clark’s modalism, when he collapses the immanent Trinity into the economic Trinity (cf. The Incarnation, p55)?

Calling Manata out again on his sinful treatment of Clark, who was easily the most important Christian thinker of the last century.

Is that a fact? No. Not on Scripturalist grounds. Does Scripture explicitly or implicitly teach that Clark was easily the most important Christian thinker of the last century? Obviously not.

That is simply Sean’s opinion. And opinion which falls short of knowledge. An opinion that he can’t even probabilify.

For all he knows, Clark might just as well be the least important Christian thinker of the last century. For all he knows, Clark may not even be a Christian thinker. For all he knows, Clark may be a Scientologist.

If Scripturalism is true, these extrascriptural assertions fall short of knowledge. If Scripturalism is true, then you can’t even rank extrascriptural assertions according to probable degrees of truth.

Hence, one man’s opinion is no better than another man’s opinion.

And Robbins, who was Clark’s most able and best known defender, became the catalyst for another tired attack on Scripturalist epistemology.

If Robbins was his most able defender, then the case for Clark’s position weak indeed!

Now, I never claimed that one could know that Clark, Robbins, or even Manata exist.

If Scripturalism is true, then he can’t even know that Adam, Abraham, David, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John ever existed.

Heck, he can’t even know if Jesus ever existed. He may opine that Jesus existed, but his opinion is no better than the contrary opinion of Richard Carrier.

Frankly, since the word “exists” can be predicated on everything from hallucinations to Klingons, I would argue that everything exists. Regardless, perhaps “Gordon Clark” was the nom de plume of some ghost writer. I honestly have no way of knowing. Seeing that Paul Manata has posted under the name Tom Bombadil, perhaps Bombadil is really Manata or perhaps both are Steve Hays? The Internet is a funny place. Yet, somehow men like Hays and Manata think that if I cannot account for the existence of a given person apart from Scripture and can’t “know” they exist in the sense of a justified true belief, then any opinion I may have of these men, even if true, is therefore moot.

Frankly, Sean can’t even “give an account” of how he knows Scripture. For Scripturalism, Scripture is like a safe with all the right answers on the inside. But we lack the combination to open the safe.

I have to wonder if these men while claiming to be Christians (something I also cannot know, but can only presume) would agree that Scripture does in fact prohibit false witness along with slander in many places including Colossians 3:8; “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.”

Agree on what grounds? Scripturalist grounds? On Scripturalist grounds, we can’t say that Scripture prohibits false witness or slander. We can’t know what Scripture says because we can’t “give an account” of how we know that–if Scripturalism is true. We can’t give an empirical account of how we know that since Scripture rejects sense knowledge. And we can’t give an intuitive account of how we know that since we’re not born with a knowledge of Scripture.

For all we know, a la Scripturalism, Scripture commends and commands slander and false witness.

So, the question is, does Manata and Hays think Gordon Clark and John Robbins are men? Notice, the question is not do they know they are men? This is important, because Hays is correct, if Manata really thinks Clark is a fictional character, then he can’t libel Clark anymore than he can libel Tinkerbell.

On the other hand, Manata has given no indication that he thinks Clark is a fictional character, therefore if Manata thinks Clark was a man he is under the command of Scripture not to slander Clark (libel being just slander in written form) and is therefore guilty of sin.


Bracketing, for the moment, the pesky fact that, by his own admission, Sean can’t possibly know what he’s talking about, does this consequence actually follow from Scripture?

Suppose that Manata bore false witness against Daffy Duck. And suppose Manata happens to believe that Daffy Duck is a real, albeit ducky, person.

According to Scripture, has Manata sinned against Daffy Duck? Can you sin against a fictitious character?

Where does Scriptural explicitly or implicitly address the sin of slandering a fictitious character? Does a fictitious character have a reputation to protect?

In Scripture, bearing false witness is a judicial term. Would Scripture view Daffy Duck as a bona fide defendant in a court of law?

What if Manata compares Daffy Duck to a drug dealer? Is that a sin? Although Daffy Duck might regard that comparison as “dethpicable,” I don’t see that Biblical jurisprudence would convict Manata for defamation of animated characters.

However, I’ll grant you that Sean has opened my eyes to a very creative way of looking at Biblical jurisprudence. In future, I’ll be far more circumspect when I venture to opine about Tweety Bird or Pepé Le Pew.

I’d also add, in passing, that if Manata was actually under the impression that Daffy Duck is a real, albeit ducky person, then it seems to me that his delusion would be, at the very least, an extenuating circumstances if not, indeed, an exculpatory circumstance.

The argument would be simply:

Scripture teaches that slander/libel is sin

Manata slandered/libeled Clark

Manata sinned against Clark


Well, at the risk of being pedantic, there are three little problems with his three-step argument. Sean can’t prove the major premise. He can’t prove the minor premise. Hence, even if the conclusion follows from the premises, the argument is unsound.

But aside from the drab little fact that Sean’s three-step argument happens to be a misstep every step of the way, it’s a pretty impressive argument. Far be it from me to quibble over these niggling details.

Notice, it doesn’t matter if Manata or I know that Clark is a man or that he exists. If Manata thinks Clark is a man then he is required by Scripture to admit he sinned against Clark.

Notice, it doesn’t matter if Manata or I know that Daffy Duck is a duck or that he exists. If Manata thinks Daffy is a duck then he is required by Scripture to admit he sinned against Daffy.

Either that or explain how painting Clark as the philosphical equivalent of a crank dealer looking to create a bunch of strung out Scripturalist tweekers isn’t libel?

i) Maybe because it’s a figurative analogy. Sean has yet to show how Manata’s figurative analogy is even mistaken, much less deliberately and maliciously false. It’s undoubtedly provocative, but the Bible itself is chock-full of provocative metaphors (e.g. the whore of Babylon).

ii) BTW, it’s not as if John Robbins was this lamb-like figure whose commentary on his theological opponents resembled a Hallmark greeting card. Indeed, some of his opponents would say that Robbins libeled them.

All men are sinners.

Michael Sudduth is a man.

Therefore, Michael Sudduth is a sinner.

The syllogism is valid.


There are two little problems with this syllogism:

i) It’s deceptive to cast the argument in terms of a categorical syllogism. That takes the major and minor premises for granted, as if these were true. But Scripturalism is in no position to affirm the truth of either premise.

Hence, if the argument were true to the tenets of Scripturalism, it ought to be cast in terms of a hypothetical syllogism:

If all men are sinners,

And Michael Sudduth is a man,

Then Michael Sudduth is a sinner.

ii) Which brings us to the next point. A valid argument is not a sound argument. Validity is a necessary, but insufficient, condition of a sound argument.

Unless a Scripturalist can demonstrate the truth of the major and minor premises, the validity of the argument is irrelevant. Take a comparison:

If all ducks are sinners,

And Daffy is a duck,

Then Daffy Duck is a sinner.

The syllogism is valid.

Do you deny that Michael Sudduth is a man? If so, you have a problem.

No, Scripturalism has a problem with that claim. Scripturalism can’t prove from Scripture that all men are sinners, since Scripturalism can’t know what Scripture teaches. And it can’t know anything about Michael Sudduth.

It matters not that Scripture nowhere says that Michael Sudduth is a man. If you think you are a man, you are required by the syllogism to think that you are a sinner.

The syllogism remains valid however you arrived at the conclusion that Michael Sudduth is a man. If you happen to think you are an angel, Christ came to save sinners, not the righteous. You have excluded yourself from salvation. It matters not whether you have knowledge or true belief of the minor premise. The conclusion follows. The syllogism is valid.


i) The syllogism about Daffy Duck (see above) is valid too. What if a man happens to think he’s Daffy Duck? Is he thereby required to think he’s a talking duck?

ii) Does the Bible require me to hold false beliefs as long as they are validly derived from false premises? Is it my epistemic duty to believe a false conclusion if it’s a valid conclusion?

Seems to me that, according to Scripture, it’s my epistemic duty to recant a false belief.

To do that, Hays or Manata would have to show that the Scriptures really do teach insoluble paradoxes that are forever beyond the bar of human reason. This would admittedly render the Scriptures, taken in and of themselves and as the axiom or starting point for the Christian faith, contradictory and self refuting because we would know then at least some of Scripture is false. That’s because one side of any given contradiction must be, and not may be, false.

Several issues:

i) That’s not my position. My position is that we shouldn’t come to Scripture with an extrascriptural presumption regarding the presence or absence of revealed paradoxes. Rather, we should find out what God has revealed. Our posture is to listen and learn. Not superimpose an extrascriptural presumption on the nature of what God is permitted to tell us.

ii) Ironically, Sean’s a priori opposition to Scriptural paradox is a violation of Scripturalism itself. He is assuming, apart from Scripture, what it is possible for Scripture to disclose. Fitting Scripture with an extrascriptural muzzle.

iii) Sean is resorting to the same methodology as a Catholic apologist. Stipulate an unacceptable consequence. Then confabulate a religious epistemology to avoid the stipulative consequence.

iv) I myself am not a big fan of theological paradox. That said, there’s no antecedent objection to theological paradox.

v) Apropos (iv), before we get to the question of what is possible as a matter of revelation, we ought to ask what is possible as a matter of reality. Revelation is a revelation about reality. If reality is paradoxical, then it wouldn’t be surprising if revelation is paradoxical.

vi) Apropos (v), paradox is a common feature of human experience in science, mathematics, and logic. It often requires great ingenuity to resolve a prima facie paradox, and some prima facie paradoxes remain unresolved despite the best efforts of the best minds.

This phenomenon figures in some very abstract disciplines, where pure reason reigns supreme.

vii) Apropos (vi), if reality confronts us with a variety of prima facie paradoxes, then there’s no prior expectation that revelation would be devoid of prima facie paradoxes since revelation is a revelation of reality–albeit a partial revelation thereof.

viii) The obvious reason for this impression is that reality is far more complex than the human mind. It seems to me that paradox is a predictable result of a finite mind that’s attempting to grasp an object of knowledge that’s far more complex than the subject of knowledge.

ix) By contrast, the mind of God is infinitely more complex than mundane reality, while abstract objects are isometric with his own mental complexity. Hence, what is paradoxical for the human mind would not be paradoxical for the divine mind.

x) This doesn’t begin to mean the paradoxical teachings of Scripture, if there are any, are false. Sean is equivocating. A prima facie paradox is not the same thing as an actual contradiction.

ix) Finally, even if, for the sake of argument, we grant the presence of insoluble, prima facie paradoxes in Scripture, what practical difficulty does that actually pose? Even if we can’t grasp how the relata interrelate, we can grasp and affirm each relatum. For example, we can know what it means for Jesus to have a human nature and a divine nature, even if we can’t exactly put the two together.

Perhaps if men like Manata, Anderson and Hays spent more time trying to solve any of the remaining the so-called “paradoxes of Scripture,” rather than attributing them to “an unarticulated equivocation on the part of the revealer,” they might actually contribute something worthwhile to Christ’s church.

A few more issues:

i) While it’s flattering to be classed with Anderson, I’m a Lilliputian to his Gulliver.

ii) As for Manata, it’s only a matter of time before he leaves me in the dust. In fact, I often have to dust off my windshield as I try to play catch up.

iii) I’ve actually spent a fair amount of time on alleged contradictions. Unlike Sean, I don’t talk about it–I do it.

iv) Sean is just a poseur. He plays the role of a Christian rationalist, yet something is missing: he’s long on rhetoric, but short on reasons.

Indeed, he’s the flipside of Hitchens and Dawkins. One is struck by the gaping chasm between the intellectual pretension and the intellectual performance. A wealth of rhetorical flourishes to camouflage the poverty of argumentation.

Sean keeps harping on Manata’s alleged slander because that’s a face-saving device. Since Sean can’t actually argue for his position, he covers his ignominious retreat with show of moral outrage.

If the traditional formulations need improvement then they should be revised in the light of Scripture.

To revise the confessions in light of Scripture, you’d have to be in a position to know both the confessions and the Scriptures. Scripturalism denies the possibility of knowing either.

17 comments:

  1. Pardon the small intrusion by a lurker...

    For Scripturalism, Scripture is like a safe with all the right answers on the inside. But we lack the combination to open the safe.Why is God left out of this setup? Isn't he the Prime Mover for a Christian? I believe He is for a Scripturalist.

    When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
    They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets
    [a list of assertions that cannot all be true without embracing paradox]."
    "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
    Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
    Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this
    [true information from inside the safe] was not revealed to you by man [who finds the safe analogy an irresolvable paradox...providing certain falsification...at convenient times], but by my Father in heaven [the one who owns both the safe and the combination to the safe] (Matt 16:13-17).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Does Sean hold to a divine illumination psychology of belief like Cheung? Or has he rejected that aspect of Clarkianism?


    Steve said..
    Notice, it doesn’t matter if Manata or I know that Daffy Duck is a duck or that he exists. If Manata thinks Daffy is a duck then he is required by Scripture to admit he sinned against Daffy.
    But didn't Clark say that everything exists? Then doesn't it follow that Daffy Duck does exist? If Paul slandered Daffy Duck, wouldn't it be sin EVEN IF Paul didn't think/believe that Daffy Duck exists?

    Sean said on his blog...

    It is no coincidence that virtually all defenders of the false gospel of the Federal Vision are self-professed Vantilians.
    But what's the causal relationship (if any) between the two? Especially since Clarkians like to point out the problems of induction. Clarkians would rightly conclude that the following reasoning is fallacious. If blackness is a necessary attribute of being a scarcrow, then all scarcrows we encounter will be black. All scarcrows I have encounted have been black, therefore it is the case that blackness is a necessary attribute of scarcrows.

    Well, just because all Federal Visionists are Van Tillians, it doesn't follow that Van Tillianism is a necessary condition for being Federal Visionist (though, even Sean would agree that it's not a sufficient condition). Just because there might possibly be a proclivity for holding to FVism if one is a Van Tillian, doesn't necessarily mean that a consistent Van Tillian must hold to FVism.

    Besides, Scripturalists cannot inductively verify if all FVists are Van Tillians. Maybe there are some FVists who aren't Van Tillians.

    ReplyDelete
  3. axisoflogos, see Aquascum's response to Vincent Cheung (http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/).

    Do you also hold to occasionalism as Cheung does? If so, then God is also the prime mover of all non-Christians. Do you believe that God immediately causes the beliefs of non-Christians and Christians? If so, what epistemic advantage does the Christian Scripturalist have over the non-Christian?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Steve. I'm not going to interact with your post here or even now. After all, why would you want to waste your time interacting with an "ignoramus." I'll save us both some time and respond to you on my own blog, God willing and time permitting.

    However, I did want to just let you know what a real encouragement your post is. I am actually impressed and even excited by your feeble grasp of Clark's views, much less his Scripturalism. I feared you might actually have even one good argument. Frankly, I find it hard to believe you've actually read any of Clark's books, including the one you actually took the time to cite.

    I mean, how anyone could mistake Clark discussion you cite in the Incarnation with Sabellianism would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. So, thank you for that and your other comments. You've helped me considerably.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just because there might possibly be a proclivity for holding to FVism if one is a Van Tillian, doesn't necessarily mean that a consistent Van Tillian must hold to FVism.I would agree. I would also argue that a consistent Vantilian has no epistemic reason for opposing the contradictory notions entailed in the FV's false gospel.

    Frankly, most Vantilian opponents of the FV don't even consider it a false gospel, just a confused one. Which makes sense since John Frame in his defense of Van Til said that the apparent contradictions of Scripture extend even to the doctrine of justification. No wonder these men call charlatans and frauds like Doug Wilson their "brother in Christ." The crippling affects of Vantilianism are all around.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sean, you forgot to add "...in my mere unjustified opinion" after everything you said.

    Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't take offense to the "slander" in the drunk analogy. Did Steve know you were Irish?

    Don't worry, if you want to make an analogy to maffiosa or pizza making when you respond to me, I won't contact your elders.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK, I couldn't resist:

    Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't take offense to the "slander" in the drunk analogy. Did Steve know you were Irish?We Irish have been taking that kind of abuse for years. Nothing a little dram can't cure. =8-)

    Don't worry, if you want to make an analogy to maffiosa or pizza making when you respond to me, I won't contact your elders.Well, that's a relief. After all, you Ginny's didn't remain part of the underclass as long as the Irish, so it's nice that you'll cut me some slack. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  8. This would be fun, however, you don't know that you're Irish. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. AXISOFLOGOS SAID:

    “Why is God left out of this setup? Isn't he the Prime Mover for a Christian? I believe He is for a Scripturalist.”

    According to Scripturalism, the only source of knowledge about God is found in Scripture. But that pushes the problem back a step. How does a Scripturalist know what Scripture says?

    “[True information from inside the safe]”

    Once again, you beg the question of how you, as a Scripturalist, know what Scripture says. You reject sense knowledge as a way of knowing what Scripture says. And you can’t very well argue that the knowledge of Scripture is innate. Were you born knowing Genesis–Revelation?

    So you’re still standing outside the safe. Try again.

    If you go Cheung’s route, you have a new set of problems. To name a few:

    i) Scripture doesn’t teach occasionalism.

    ii) If occasionalism were true, God would be the source of truth and error alike.

    iii) If the source of your knowledge is divine illumination via occasionalism, then Scripture is not your only source of knowledge. Indeed, Scripture would be superfluous at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hello Annoyed Pinoy:

    see Aquascum's response to Vincent Cheung (http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/)I think I reviewed this information several years ago along with discussions at the The PuritanBoard. If you could be more specific to my comment, I will review again per your recommendation.

    Do you also hold to occasionalism as Cheung does?I am trying to relearn many things about my faith to align more closely with God's specific revelation rather than vagueness. My goal is to align with "what is Christianity" rather than what is Calvinism, Scripturalism, Occasionalism, etc. Labels are convenient, but my purpose in interacting was not to defend a label but to explore a percieved weakness in an argument.

    If so, then God is also the prime mover of all non-Christians.Yes, I would agree with this statement. I think people who visit Triablogue are well-versed in Scripture so I will not list all the references here, but assume familiarity even with disagreement.

    Do you believe that God immediately causes the beliefs of non-Christians and Christians?I might want to squirm around the word "immediately" in the statement, but I understand that is part of the language used in Occasionalism. Attributing full sovereignty to God, knowing that "...in [Christ] all things hold together..." (Col 1:17), the agency to create and hold the creation together is active, so God's immediacy in all things would be implied.

    If so, what epistemic advantage does the Christian Scripturalist have over the non-Christian?What epistemic advantage do the Elect hold over the non-Elect? "...The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God" (John 8:47). If my salvation is all because of God's activity, my pride in myself for being so wise as to "choose God" is replaced by humility - and many other things. "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom...but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me..." (Jer 9:22-24).

    Thanks for interacting with me.

    Hello Steve:

    According to Scripturalism, the only source of knowledge about God is found in Scripture. But that pushes the problem back a step. How does a Scripturalist know what Scripture says?How does one "become" Elect through their own effort? I think this is a fair retort.

    Once again, you beg the question of how you, as a Scripturalist, know what Scripture says. You reject sense knowledge as a way of knowing what Scripture says. And you can’t very well argue that the knowledge of Scripture is innate. Were you born knowing Genesis–Revelation?

    So you’re still standing outside the safe. Try again.
    Once again, I do not see allowance for God's agency in your argument. Is being of the Elect before the foundations of the world innate? How would I sense it?

    "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me" (John 15:26).

    If God has given his Spirit to the Christian, does the Christian not partake of the combination to the safe and "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" inside?

    If you go Cheung’s route, you have a new set of problems. To name a few:

    i) Scripture doesn’t teach occasionalism.
    Looks like a plain assertion here but I am still evaluating the wider dialog in progress...feel free to cite your argument specifically...

    ii) If occasionalism were true, God would be the source of truth and error alike.What is God not the cause of? Is Satan a source of error? Where did he come from? Is God still soverign over Satan's activity, or did God lose control? Was God soverign over Pharaoh's activity "...but I have raised you up for this very purpose..." (Ex 9:16)? Was Pharaoh in error for refusing God's command through Moses?

    iii) If the source of your knowledge is divine illumination via occasionalism, then Scripture is not your only source of knowledge. Indeed, Scripture would be superfluous at that point.If God is active at every point of my salvation, why not knowledge acquisition? If divine illumination is from God, and Scripture is from God, and God uses the occassion of my reading Scripture to provide knowledge that Scripture is not superfluous but central, why would I accept an argument that Scripture is unnecessary? What are the implications of Romans 9:17: "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh...[restatement of Ex 9:16]"?

    I may be missing some subtlety of your point (iii) so please restate or cite.

    Thanks for interacting with me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ax:

    Since you said God directly causes all of the false beliefs within Christendom, and given that there are many different doctrinal positions, and given that only one can be correct, it follows God directly causes a lot more false beliefs than true ones. What reason, may I ask, do you believe you've won the "divinity lottter?" (Consider that when you answer, your reasons will be beiefs that God gave you, the probability that they are correct will also be low.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve:

    For what my own opinion is worth, I don't view Cheung as consistent with Clark.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  13. Axisoflogos,

    You were asked how you could know Scripture. To cite Scripture verses seems to me like a massive begging of the question.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve wrote: "I'm not a big fan of theological paradox, but I disagree with (i). There is no obvious reason that God could not communicate truth to us without paradox–provided that reality is sufficiently simple that the human mind can grasp it as is."

    That's not quite a statement that disagrees with my (i). It does expose something about the way I had constructed my thoughts - namely that I've phrased them in the form "there is no strong reason to think 'x'" to which, perhaps, an adequate initial rebuttal could take the form "there is no strong reason to think 'not x'." Under those conditions, one has to go back to the issue of what our default position should be.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  15. AXISOFLOGOS SAID:

    “How does one ‘become’ Elect through their own effort? I think this is a fair retort.”

    If you’re defending Scripturalism, then that comparison is not a fair retort. If, a la Scripturalism, Scripture is the source of knowledge, then how does a Scripturalist come to know Scripture.

    To say he doesn’t know Scripture by his own effort is not responsive to the issue at hand.

    “Once again, I do not see allowance for God's agency in your argument. Is being of the Elect before the foundations of the world innate? How would I sense it?”

    Where did you acquire your knowledge of divine agency? From reading the Bible? But if you reject sense knowledge, then you didn’t acquire your knowledge of divine agency from reading the Bible. Yet, according to Scripturalism, Scripture is the only source of knowledge.

    What’s your alternative mode of knowing Scripture consistent with Scripturalism?

    “If God has given his Spirit to the Christian, does the Christian not partake of the combination to the safe and ‘all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" inside’?”

    How did you acquire your knowledge of Jn 15:26? From reading the English Bible? But if Scripture is the only source of knowledge, then how did you acquire your knowledge of English? And how did you get Jn 15:26 into your mind? From reading words on the printed page? But Scripturalism rejects sense knowledge.

    Were you born with a knowledge of English? I don’t think so. Were you born with a knowledge of Jn 15:26? I don’t think so.

    Are you claiming that the Holy Spirit is a source of knowledge? But in that case, Scripture is not the only source of knowledge–contrary to Scripturalism.

    “Looks like a plain assertion here but I am still evaluating the wider dialog in progress...feel free to cite your argument specifically...”

    i) I’ve argued that in the past. Click on the Aquascum files.

    ii) And the burden of proof is not on me. The onus lies on the Scripturalist to show that Scripture teaches occasionalism.

    “What is God not the cause of?”

    I see you’re missing the point. The point is what you can know. Even if occasionalism were God’s mechanism for communicating information to human beings, that would include misinformation. Therefore, you can’t appeal to occasionalism to ground knowledge. So, once again, how does a Scripturalist know Scripture?

    “Was God soverign over Pharaoh's activity "...but I have raised you up for this very purpose..." (Ex 9:16)?”

    You don’t get it, do you? You’re not entitled to quote Scripture when the very question at issue is how a Scripturalist can know Scripture. According to Scripturalism, you don’t know something unless you can give an account of how you know it. So, if you’re going to defend Scripturalism from Scripture, you first need to give an account of how a Scripturalist can know Scripture.

    “If God is active at every point of my salvation, why not knowledge acquisition?”

    Which assumes what you need to prove.

    “If divine illumination is from God, and Scripture is from God, and God uses the occassion of my reading Scripture to provide knowledge that Scripture is not superfluous but central, why would I accept an argument that Scripture is unnecessary?”

    Once again, you miss the point. According to Scripturalism, Scripture is the only source of knowledge. If, by contrast, occasionalism is an additional source of knowledge, then Scripture is not the only source of knowledge–in which event, Scripturalism is false.

    “What are the implications of Romans 9:17: ‘For the Scripture says to Pharaoh...[restatement of Ex 9:16]’?”

    “Implications”? Where did you get your grasp of logic? From Scripture?

    Throughout this exchange you’ve been taking many things for granted which are excluded by Scripturalism. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hello NINJA,

    Since you said God directly causes all of the false beliefs within Christendom, and given that there are many different doctrinal positions, and given that only one can be correct, it follows God directly causes a lot more false beliefs than true ones.Yes. If it takes God's direct intervention to cause the unregenrate-me to accept any belief in him, what does it imply when he withholds intervention from another.

    What reason, may I ask, do you believe you've won the "divinity lottter?"He is the lottter, I am the clay. No? It sounded right.

    Maybe because I'm so obviously bright? Uh-oh, I started hearing the swell of thousands of keystrokes raining down from the Blogoshpere. I'll settle for my good looks as temporarily unassailable proof of divine approval. Getting my blog post to format correctly this time could be confirming evidence.

    Seriously, I don't think there is anything coming from me that generates my own saving faith. I have come so far from my point of origin, and I expect there will be additional conceptual turns before my terminus.

    (Consider that when you answer, your reasons will be beiefs that God gave you, the probability that they are correct will also be low.)Ninja, I pondered whether you might be a Universalist or Athiest from your questions. I don't think you really meant to suggest that, by my position, only one systematic and correctly-formed view can produce a saving faith - that only one, precise doctrinal statement can grant the divine lottery ticket? If that is the hypothetical, God will just keep the winning lottery ticket...probably in Steve's safe.

    Thanks for interacting with me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hello STEVE (et al),

    All these logic challenges and my previous post didn't format as I wished. Now I'm left with only my good looks as a sign of divine approval.

    I have been pointed twice to the work in the Aquascum files. I will revist before rejoining.

    Thanks for interacting with me. It has been strangely encouraging.

    ReplyDelete