Well I'm going to love everyone by going to bed now. So I guess I won't be back in 15 mins after all.

Good night to all.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

Not at all. A good point to always remember.

For the record, I'm really not trying to be petty. I have real concerns that need to take all the members of the board into consideration, which is why I opened up that Moderator thread on my concerns.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Sleep (from Valley of Vision)
BLESSED CREATOR,
Thou hast promised thy beloved sleep;
Give me restoring rest needful for tomorrow’s toil.
If dreams be mine, let them not be tinged with evil.
Let thy Spirit make my time of repose a blessed temple of his holy
presence.

May my frequent lying down make me familiar with death,
the bed I approach remind me of the grave,
the eyes I now close picture to me their final closing.
Keep me always ready, waiting for admittance to thy presence.
Weaken my attachment to earthly things.
May I hold life loosely in my hand,
knowing that I receive it on condition of its surrender;
As pain and suffering betoken transitory health,
may I not shrink from a death
that introduces me to the freshness of eternal youth.
I retire this night in full assurance of one day awaking with thee.
All glory for this precious hope,
for the gospel of grace,
for thine unspeakable gift of Jesus,
for the fellowship of the Trinity.
Withhold not thy mercies in the night season;
thy hand never wearies,
thy power needs no repose,
thine eye never sleeps.

Help me when I helpless lie,
when my conscience accuses me of sin,
when my mind is harassed by foreboding thoughts,
when my eyes are held awake by personal anxieties.
Show thyself to me as the God of all grace, love, and power;
thou hast a balm for every wound,
a solace for all anguish,
a remedy for every pain,
a peace for all disquietude.
Permit me to commit myself to thee awake or asleep.

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

We Aussies became accustomed to that in the second world war.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Don't know my history well enough on that one, but I'm sure that it involves an apology on my part.

I've enjoyed my dealings with BSEM over the years. (Bridgestone Earthmover Australia). Hopefully one of these days I might make it out that way. My arch-nemesis businesswise is also in Australia - Klinge. They make a very good tire tracking software that I compete with.

I was just being silly; no apology needed. Let me know if you're ever heading in our direction. Blessings!

I am finding it hard to say what I want to say. In some ways I see that Rich and Matthew have caught what I'm driving at. Scripturalism is only what this methodology is about. Scripturalism itself is the point of weakness, not the point of strength. The point of strength that is relied upon is the methodology which a thing apart from Scripturalism.

If this is what the moderators are discussing in their own threads, then it is worthy of note that, if FV has been excluded as an acceptable version of the Confessions, then surely this particular version of Scripturalism ought to be excluded as well.

I started this thread in order to make it clear that the Scripturalists defending their position were doing so unilaterally, on their own authority, and not on the authority of the Scriptures or the Confessional standards.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

Before gloves are taken off and a duel ensues, let's be careful. I know for a fact that both Sean and Anthony loathe the FV as un-Confessional and un-Scriptural and I don't feel comfortable as simply the Admin of a board making what is essentially an Ecclesiastical pronouncement. I also consider the FV to be re-defining key doctrines of the Confession while Scripturalism tends to be punctilious about matters indifferent that I imagine the Church will never definitively resolve.

I think what I'm trying to do is set up guidelines where it is appropriate to have these kinds of conversations. I don't think the discussion in philosophical or apologetic threads ought to be off limits but if somebody is in a theological forum and uses the word "know" or "knowledge" in a way that a Scripturalist takes issue with then the thread ought not be de-railed over semantics as happens far too often. That's where I'm trying to figure out where to go because many are tired of the rancor. One of the principles of liberty of conscience is that Christians ought not to be browbeat about adiophora. Until the Church decides that epistemic definitions are not adiophora then how a Christian uses the word know or knowledge is not a matter that his/her conscience ought to be pricked with.



I do agree with Chris that this thread is becoming far less than edifying. With God as my witness, I do not bear Sean or Anthony ill will. I wish sin were not in the world and did not cause us to be so divided here. I received an e-mail just the other day from a long time lurker about all these Scripturalist threads and how the Reformed seem to have it altogether but "...see how this divides...." That grieves me.

What I imagine is that if you and I were in a Church together and not talking about this debatable issue we would probably line up really closely on most issues. I know it makes you mad when I take on Scripturalism but I just don't see it. That said, just yesterday when I was teaching Sunday School I was talking about God being the fountainhead of knowledge and how liberals begin with themselves. One of the women piped in and said: "Yeah, liberals want religion to be rational...." I clarified and pointed out that our faith is rational and that when God says not to steal we know He means not to steal. Contrary, perhaps, to your perceptions, I'm not going out of my way to make things irrational and incoherent.

We're on the same page theologically but I just can't get your epistemology because I believe it does not comport with the Scriptures. Since the Church has not decided to settle the matter of controversy I hope you can allow me the liberty to view matters otherwise. I'm allowing you such liberty but the only reason I beat you up is that you tend to go into so many threads outside of epistemic discussions and insist on your definitions and so I have to challenge you in this regard.

No, you're wrong Rev. Winzer. Clark's Scripturalism simply does not uphold your interpretation of "light of nature" as affirming anything like the Natural Theology and Empiricism you subscribe to. I view your interpretative slant both foreign to the WCF and Reformed tradition. Calvin for example said that men have a sense of the divine, but denied that men know God apart from the Scripture. Here are a few relevant quotes from the Institutes. 1:6-8:

Ideas about God or even a sense of God is not what Calvin calls "actual knowledge" of God. For that the Scriptures are necessary and without substitute or addition. Neither Calvin nor the Confession contradicts Scripture which states that the world through its wisdom did not come to know God. Even Van Til called the kind of Natural Theology you advocate "anti-Christian," so you can't really place all of your disdain on Clark's Scripturalism alone. There are plenty of people who disagree with you.

The other use of "light of nature" have already been mentioned concerning things indifferent and to equate this with JTB is again to confuse apples with oranges. But I think it is clear that your epistemology is neither necessarily Reformed or even very coherent.

As for the Scriptures being written, no one has denied anything of the sort. You should at least attempt to follow the arguments already presented. I will refer you to the citation provided by J.P. Moreland (not a Scripturalist) in one of these threads around here started by Rich. As I said to another of Clark's critics on another thread; For Clark, and hopefully for all Christians, belief in truth is not the result of analyzing marks on a page in a black book called the Bible, it is the gift of God. There is no empirical component to knowledge. Unfortunately, my hope sometimes appears to be wishful thinking at least when it comes to some.

__________________
Sean Gerety
Member
Calvary Presbyterian, PCA
Norfolk, VA

“I don't really like disconcerting people. Although often when I try to be normal I disconcert anyway." Robert Wyatt

Wrong again. The light of nature is not cognitive. People have opinions about things indifferent like when church should start, how long sermons should be, etc. and people are at liberty to decide such things for themselves. If you think the Confessional phrase "light of nature" refers to extra-biblical knowledge and some cognitive power of nature then you should prove it.

Yet, as Anthony has repeatedly stated, this IS Clark's position. Read Intro to Christian Phil and you will see his entire arguments against the idea that knowledge requires experience and that written sentences are the same as propositions. See J.P. Morland's discussion already provided and he's not a "Clarkian" by any stretch. Propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences and, as such, they are spiritually and not empirically discerned. Jesus said the very words he spoke "are spirit and they are life."

If the epistemology advanced does not comport with Scripture then you should be able to demonstrate this. That would be the brotherly thing to do, don't you think?

I have never suggested that you can't beg the question or even beat us up with impunity. I would prefer if you didn't do either, but, hey, I understand a lot of this is new to you.

I would like my opponents to please define truth?

I'll get the ball rolling. I would define truth as whatever God thinks and for no other reason than He thinks it.

That's precisely what I've been trying to do.

More Scripturalist conflations! I know that I have previously quoted Calvin's statement to the effect that men do but open their eyes and they see God -- natural theology. It is quite clear from the section quoted by Magma2 that Calvin is speaking about "saving" knowledge of God.

I did. There are opinions and practices "contrary to the light of nature," 20:4. "The light of nature showeth there is a God," 21:1. Sins are aggravated when committed against the light of nature, LC 151. The mystical light of the Scripturalist cannot account for these propositions.

It could have been the US President's position, but if his name is not brought into the discussion it is irrelevant.

See the archetype/ectype thread. God does not think propositionally; as ALL reformed divines teach, God does not reason consequentially. The conceptualisation of truth is decreed by God so creatures might be blessed in Him.

Then Rich where are the biblical passages complete with sound exegesis in support of your position and refuting mine?

I asked for a definition not some nondescript reference to an old thread. I didn't ask whether God reasons consequentially or sequentially or whether creatures might bless Him, etc., etc.

If you can't answer the question, please don't respond with more irrelevancies. I asked for a simple definition. I take it that in your case it was asking too much.