Epistemology...what is you belief based on?

[earl40]

Add bookmark

• #58

Not wanting to hijack further on another post I offer this.

BayouHuguenot said:
I don't see how it would be morally binding. You haven't given any reason why there would be some deontic operator within the belief system. Paul told the Thessalonians to test and evaluate prophecies. That meant they weren't automatically false or correct.

And that isn't really how epistemology works. Whether I have satisfied all epistemic duties for a personal belief is irrelevant whether I believe someone else is morally obligated in believing what I believe.

I believe I have a wallet in my back pocket. I have reasonably good evidence for the belief. I don't see how the man in the street is morally obligated to also believe I have a wallet in my back pocket.

Now, if I have because x miracle, you are obligated to change your life, that is a completely different claim. But no one is making that claim.
Click to expand...

For starters I believe when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians he was speaking to them before the cannon was closed. In no way would this apply to today. Also if God Spoke to a person today, and gave someone a prophecy, you would be obligated to believe it. Now your problem is that if you believe in the continuation of the gifts today, your obligation to believe such prophecy may be based on a lucky guess that prophet gave. In other words, let us say a "prophet" says a certain event will take place and it does. Do you start believing every prophesy that person utters like, Jesus and the biblical prophets, which were totally trustworthy? If you answer "no" and they latter utter a false prophesy do you stone them?

My point is our life is based on the scriptures alone and to allow the continuation of the gifts allows all kinds of heresy into the church. I say this with certainty in that the perfect has come and as scripture says these gifts will pass. This is my "epistemology".

 

[RamistThomist]

My point is our life is based on the scriptures alone

Do you mean in terms of ultimate authority or only authority? The Reformed held the first but passionately rejected the second. If you mean the former, then I have no disagreement.

I say this with certainty in that the perfect has come and as scripture says these gifts will pass.

Do you have perfect knowledge? Do you know everything? That's the problem with saying the canon is the perfect. Do the only things, the only things that remain today are faith, hope, and love? That doesn't seem right. Even Macarthur came to reject that position and Gaffin completely dismisses it.

Now your problem is that if you believe in the continuation of the gifts today, your obligation to believe such prophecy may be based on a lucky guess that prophet gave.

You still haven't proved I am under any obligation. You just keep saying that.

I can make it even worse: Antichrist will deceive by signs and wonders, but on your gloss Christians are obligated to believe these signs and wonders. That doesn't seem to wash.

 

[earl40]

Do you mean in terms of ultimate authority or only authority? The Reformed held the first but passionately rejected the second. If you mean the former, then I have no disagreement.


Do you have perfect knowledge? Do you know everything? That's the problem with saying the canon is the perfect. Do the only things, the only things that remain today are faith, hope, and love? That doesn't seem right. Even Macarthur came to reject that position and Gaffin completely dismisses it.


You still haven't proved I am under any obligation. You just keep saying that.

I can make it even worse: Antichrist will deceive by signs and wonders, but on your gloss Christians are obligated to believe these signs and wonders. That doesn't seem to wash.

Ultimate authority not only. As per my point on the ultimate authority of scripture which says these signs will pass one need not to look for any further prophesy based on the epistemological "ultimate" spoken Word of God. Also so far as being under obligation you have to choose what gift is being given today if you believe the gifts have not passed. This is a tenuous belief because of the example I gave above.

 

[RamistThomist]

As per my point on the ultimate authority of scripture which says these signs will pass one need not to look for any further prophesy

You are begging the question on when they will pass. Perhaps they did in the first century, but you cannot prove that based on the 1 Corinthians passage, as it proves too much. Most cessationist scholars realize that, which is why they reject the idea that the perfect = the canon.

Also so far as being under obligation you have to choose what gift is being given today if you believe the gifts have not passed.

I don't know what this means. It's not clear what my being obliged has to do with choosing which gifts have or haven't passed today (which actually wasn't a specific argument I made).

 

[retroGRAD3]

You are begging the question on when they will pass. Perhaps they did in the first century, but you cannot prove that based on the 1 Corinthians passage, as it proves too much. Most cessationist scholars realize that, which is why they reject the idea that the perfect = the canon.


I don't know what this means. It's not clear what my being obliged has to do with choosing which gifts have or haven't passed today (which actually wasn't a specific argument I made).

I have been following your discussions and getting a lesson in logic. Jacob I wanted to ask, and sorry if I missed this, what is your position on this matter? Are you a continuationist, cessationist, or somewhere in the middle? I see the argumentation lesson being given (and I am finding it helpful for my own use of argumentation), but I wasn't sure if that was the goal of the conversation or you are actually defending your own view as well.

 

[Taylor]

I have been following your discussions and getting a lesson in logic. Jacob I wanted to ask, and sorry if I missed this, what is your position on this matter? Are you a continuationist, cessationist, or somewhere in the middle? I see the argumentation lesson being given (and I am finding it helpful for my own use of argumentation), but I wasn't sure if that was the goal of the conversation or you are actually defending your own view as well.

Since I was involved in that conversation, as well, I would also like to clarify my own position in the following points:

1) The speaking with tongues was a manifestation of real human languages spoken by those who had no prior knowledge of them. This includes both Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14. They do not appear to me to have been ecstatic speech, since that would be nothing all that spectacular.

2) Tongues, interpretation, and prophecy, as far as I can tell, as a matter of historical fact died away fairly quickly after the days of the Apostles. And I find it illogical to assert that it was due to unbelief, given the great faith of the Church during that time. Rather, I believe it was because the apostolic witness (i.e., Scripture) had been completed, so there was no further need for apostolic confirmation of the turn of the ages. I do not make this argument from "the perfect" in 1 Cor. 13:10, but rather just from what is in my opinion a common-sense reading of the flow of redemptive history and the apparent use of these gifts themselves. That seems reasonable to me.

3) These particular manifestations served a particular and historically-confined (i.e., non-repeating) redemptive purpose, much like Pentecost itself.

4) Therefore, we should not expect to see these things in our everyday Christian lives, or really ever. This is not because God is unable, or even that he is unwilling, but simply because, as I read Scripture, I see no exegetical, biblical-theological, or historical reason why he would.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have been following your discussions and getting a lesson in logic. Jacob I wanted to ask, and sorry if I missed this, what is your position on this matter? Are you a continuationist, cessationist, or somewhere in the middle? I see the argumentation lesson being given (and I am finding it helpful for my own use of argumentation), but I wasn't sure if that was the goal of the conversation or you are actually defending your own view as well.

Somewhere in the middle. I share cessationists' concerns about random weirdos "getting a word." That said, I have rarely (ever?) seen cessationists besides Waldron and White even attempt to tackle Michael L. Brown. Most cessationists would rather refute Benny Hinn than work through the tough scholarship. As I have said before, Vern Poythress's article is the best thing on the subject.

Further, my own views on prophecy and revelation:
1) I'm generally skeptical and cautious when someone tells me "God told me to tell you something." My own view on prophecy, especially as it is actually used in Greek, is simply knowledge of what you couldn't naturally have access to. There is no logical connection between affirming this and "Oh, so you now think you are the 67th book of the Bible?"

2) "revelation" in Scripture never means "the full bible/canon." It means "unveiling." That ties in nicely with my above view of prophecy.

Poythress article

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

by Vern S. Poythress [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission. pdf here.] Abstract The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visio…

frame-poythress.org

Brown/Waldron debate analyzed

Brown v. Waldron

I'm going to venture some off-the-cuff comments on the debate between Sam Waldron and Michael Brown. It's difficult to comment on a 90 min...

triablogue.blogspot.com

Postmortem on the Waldron/Brown debate

This is a sequel to my previous post on the Waldron/Brown debate. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/11/brown-v-waldron.html I'v...

triablogue.blogspot.com

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is another problem with trying to tie in a specific epistemology with something like the supernatural. Let's say I have a dream about a future event and it comes true. It's not immediately clear how to classify this. Is it authoritative? Authority usually implies something like a command, yet there is no command being given. Is it infallible? Again, that's the wrong category, as there probably isn't any proposition involved.

The above argument was perfected by the late Steve Hays.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I'm looking forward to watching the debate with waldron. I have seen the white one already. I have watched a few between white and him, I always learn a lot. I also have enjoyed when they team up as well.

 

[iainduguid]

Those interested in exploring the middle ground between (cautious) continuationism and cessationism might find my article "What Kind of Prophecy Continues? Defining the Differences between Continuationism and Cessationism" in Redeeming the Life of the Mind, the Festschrift for Vern Poythress. Essentially, I argue that both Gaffin and Grudem end up in the wrong place because they are almost exclusively looking at the NT data, without seeing it in the context of the OT. Sober continuationists affirm that there is no more "Thus says the Lord" prophecy today, and Reformed people have frequently used the language of "prophecy" to talk about some things that still happen - Dick Gaffin affirms "the prophethood of all believers" though he doesn't explain what he means by that, the classic Puritan view was that preaching was "prophesying", and every major conservative Presbyterian denomination requires candidates for ordination to affirm that God has called them to that ministry. I think the OT material helps us to make sense out of all of that (at least in terms of prophecy), in a way that doesn't force us to pigeonhole all of the NT data as "Prophecy" (Gaffin) or "prophecy" (Grudem).

 

[Eyedoc84]

Since I was involved in that conversation, as well, I would also like to clarify my own position in the following points:

1) The speaking with tongues was a manifestation of real human languages spoken by those who had no prior knowledge of them. This includes both Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14. They do not appear to me to have been ecstatic speech, since that would be nothing all that spectacular.

2) Tongues, interpretation, and prophecy, as far as I can tell, as a matter of historical fact died away fairly quickly after the days of the Apostles. And I find it illogical to assert that it was due to unbelief, given the great faith of the Church during that time. Rather, I believe it was because the apostolic witness (i.e., Scripture) had been completed, so there was no further need for apostolic confirmation of the turn of the ages. I do not make this argument from "the perfect" in 1 Cor. 13:10, but rather just from what is in my opinion a common-sense reading of the flow of redemptive history and the apparent use of these gifts themselves. That seems reasonable to me.

3) These particular manifestations served a particular and historically-confined (i.e., non-repeating) redemptive purpose, much like Pentecost itself.

4) Therefore, we should not expect to see these things in our everyday Christian lives, or really ever. This is not because God is unable, or even that he is unwilling, but simply because, as I read Scripture, I see no exegetical, biblical-theological, or historical reason why he would.

I agree with much of this. As with #2, the typical Pentecostal perspective is that the church in some sense apostatized and “lost” the gifts until they were restored first with the Irvingites and then more fully with the American movements with Parham and then Azusa (along with the Welsh revival). The major problem with this view goes right along with the Arminian error in that they are GIFTS not rewards.

I am of the opinion that the “perfect” refers to the canon. It’s not that ALL knowledge in every sense is perfect (will it be even in the eternal state?), but that our revelational knowledge is complete (prophecy, tongues and “words of knowledge” not bare knowledge). Nothing else is necessary for a life of faith and godliness. God has been perfectly revealed in His Son. No more waiting on the next word from a prophet in shadowy form. Faith, hope, and love remain now, in glory faith and hope have their object and only love remains forever.

 

[RamistThomist]

It’s not that ALL knowledge in every sense is perfect (will it be even in the eternal state?), but that our revelational knowledge is complete (prophecy, tongues and “words of knowledge” not bare knowledge)

One of the problems in that the position is that the NT doesn't speak of a finalized NT canon, so even if the perfect refers to the canon, we couldn't know when the canon is complete

 

[Eyedoc84]

One of the problems in that the position is that the NT doesn't speak of a finalized NT canon, so even if the perfect refers to the canon, we couldn't know when the canon is complete

That is a “problem” for any Protestant that holds to a complete canon. It’s similar to the RC/EO objection that scripture itself doesn’t teach sola scriptura.

 

[RamistThomist]

That is a “problem” for any Protestant that holds to a complete canon. It’s similar to the RC/EO objection that scripture itself doesn’t teach sola scriptura.

It's only a difficulty if you hold that the canon is an infallible list of infallible books, which is why Sproul and others rejected that view. Of course, if you take the perfect to refer to the complete canon, then that remains a problem.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I happened to read 1 Corinthians 13 today in my daily reading, and listened to Rev. Todd Ruddell's 30 minute reading on that chapter. He agrees that the "perfect" refers to the closing of the canon and shows why. https://ccrpcorg.s3.amazonaws.com/Readings/012719R-A1.mp3

 

[RamistThomist]

I happened to read 1 Corinthians 13 today in my daily reading, and listened to Rev. Todd Ruddell's 30 minute reading on that chapter. He agrees that the "perfect" refers to the closing of the canon and shows why. https://ccrpcorg.s3.amazonaws.com/Readings/012719R-A1.mp3

He is in the minority among cessationists. If the perfect has come, then all gifts have passed away (except for faith, hope, and love, but they aren't really gifts). Presumably he still has knowledge, if so, then the perfect can't have come.

There is the possibility that knowledge could mean "word of knowledge," but Paul is clear when that is in play, and in any case the knowledge earlier in the chapter "puffs up," which we normally don't associate with word of knowledge.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

He is in the minority among cessationists.

In the minority among which cessationists-- the relatively few who speak publicly about it or the many ministers in the many churches, past and present? (Asking honestly, I really don't know.)

To summarize a bit from the audio I linked to above: Knowledge in vs. 8 is understood in its place as part of the list including prophecy and tongues. Paul says that at that moment in the formation of the new testament church, the knowledge being given by the Spirit was in part, just as the prophesying was in part; that is, not yet the completion of the revelation from God being given to the church-- not the full knowledge the church needed that will come with the completion of the canon. The apostles were self-conciously writing scripture; they knew what they were doing, and that the time was coming that Scripture would be complete. Prophecy and tongues and knowledge would be given in part until then.

He points out that the verbs in vs. 8 are passive- prophecy "shall be stopped" and knowledge "shall be stopped". "Shall cease" concerning tongues is active, tongues shall cease of themselves (under their own weight, they were for judgment). Vs. 11, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things" --Paul uses this illustration in respect to the OT church, that prophecy, tongues, etc will be put away as the church grows into manhood, i.e., has the full revelation in its possession.

But better to give it a listen than read my summarization, I found it very thought-provoking.

 

[Pergamum]

Why does the poll say, "Yes in principle the canon is closed, in practice Jesus still visits people with special revelation" and not "The Holy Spirit still gives special insights to people."? Phraseology makes a difference. Romans 8 speaks of the Spirit directly bearing witness to us and the Holy Spirit opens our minds or gives us special burdens or warnings.

 

[RamistThomist]

Paul says that at that moment in the formation of the new testament church, the knowledge being given by the Spirit was in part, just as the prophesying was in part; that is, not yet the completion of the revelation from God being given to the church-- not the full knowledge the church needed that will come with the completion of the canon.

Paul doesn't say any of that, partly because he never speaks of what we understand to be a canon.

The apostles were self-conciously writing scripture; they knew what they were doing, and that the time was coming that Scripture would be complete.

They probably did, but they never tell us about a closing of the canon. Of course, I believe the canon is closed, but since the apostles don't mention that, we can't use it as a Scriptural argument.