Gordon Clark -- Drug Dealer!

[Magma2]

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/just-say-no-to-scripturalism.html

Here we have Paul Manata comparing Gordon Clark, one of the most respected Reformed Christian elders and teachers in the last century, a man who has few peers throughout the entire history of the Christian faith, to a producer of methamphetamine.

Of course, he then compares anyone who might agree with Clark's Scripturalism as pushers.

I didn't think it was possible, but we've hit a whole new low.

I guess people can start calling me Sean "The Pusher" Gerety and can simply refer to Dr. Robbins as "Scarface."

 

[B.J.]

Sean,
We have never spoken on this matter, but now I am really curious to know something. I have read many exchanges between you and Paul Manata on matters pertaining to Clark vs. Van Til insofar as epistemology is concerned. Now I dont know a whole lot a lot Clark, and have only listened to a few of his lectures coupled with Robbins, so my question to you is an honest one.

Many times Paul uses the same argument in a variety of ways to level the Clarkian view of knowledge, and for the time being I will assume that is the case. The reason why is simple. For every funny, sarcastic illustration P aul gives you never respond in a way that would show he does not understand Clark's Scripturalism. For instance:

Of course, he then compares anyone who might agree with Clark's Scripturalism as pushers.

Now I am not speaking for Paul, but only pointing out what he has pointed out many times. In the above qoute, could one argue that you (Sean) can't know this to be true, as you suggest it is, because you cant deduce this "true" proposition from scripture? I know this is a roughly stated and I apologize in advance if I am misunderstanding the whole debate. So would you please Sean, in an orderly fashion, explain why such criticisms would be wrong? I am truly interested to know if Clark's Scripturalism crumbles under the weight of these silly little arguments.

 

[Civbert]

Sean,
... In the above qoute, could one argue that you (Sean) can't know this to be true, as you suggest it is, because you cant deduce this "true" proposition from scripture? I know this is a roughly stated and I apologize in advance if I am misunderstanding the whole debate. So would you please Sean, in an orderly fashion, explain why such criticisms would be wrong? I am truly interested to know if Clark's Scripturalism crumbles under the weight of these silly little arguments.

What Paul says is true. And it's also trivial. Yes, from a Scripturalist worldview, if a proposition can not be deduce from Scripture, then we can't "know" if it's true or false. However, what Paul isn't saying is that if the Clarkian worldview is true, Paul can't know if the proposition is true or false either. There can not be two true worldviews. There is only one world and all men live in it.

The Scripturalist worldview sets a high bar for knowledge - it says that the only things that any man can know are those things revealed to him by God (Scripture), or can be correctly deduced from Scripture. If Scripturalism is correct, then it is true for all men, places, and times, an not just true for Scripturalists.

So Paul's point is trivial because if Scripturalism is true, then what ever Sean or I can not know, Paul can not know either. We don't change reality by adopting a different worldview. What ever can be known to man, is the same for all men, regardless of their worldview. But if they adopt a false worldview, the things they claim to know may actually be false.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Anthony,

Good to see you again. I do not wish to derail this thread. I would like to continue our discussion concerning my critique of Scripturalism. Let me know if you have any desire to do so.

Your Friend,

Brian

 

[Civbert]

Hello Anthony,

Good to see you again. I do not wish to derail this thread. I would like to continue our discussion concerning my critique of Scripturalism. Let me know if you have any desire to do so.

Your Friend,

Brian

Yes I plan on it. I'm trying to ease back into things and avoid going full bore (as I tend to do). I'm not very good at achieving balance - I'd make a terrible Taoist (not good at Yin-Yang stuff).

 

[Dan....]

I think it myight be helpful to understand why we cannot know anything apart from what God has revealed to us in scripture.

Consider Agrippa's Trilemma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchhausen-Trilemma

1. All justifications in pursuit of certain knowledge have also to justify the means of their justification and doing so they have to justify anew the means of their justification. Therefore there can be no end. We are faced with the hopeless situation of 'infinite regression'.
2. One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking 'ex cathedra' or at any other evidence, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned.
3. The third horn of the trilemma is the application of a circular and therefore invalid argument.

...applying the trilemma (which itself is not knowledge), to prove any proposition would require knowledge of an infinite number of propositions (as per point 1). Only God has infinite knowledge; hence, only God can "know" the truth of any proposition.

That which God has revealed to us is knowledge. Apart from revelation from an Omniscient Being, we cannot know anything with absolute certainty and are left with Descartes wondering whether our senses are reliable.