Poll - How Do We Know?

[bookslover]

Which of the following provides man with justified true belief (knowledge):

1) The Bible - God's revelation to man
2) Science - the scientific method
3) Experience - "seeing is believing"
4) Reason - the application of the laws of logic
5) All of the above
6) None of the above
7) Other - I'll explain below
8) I don't know

I voted for #5 because:

1) God's written revelation tells us all we need to know about God, man, and salvation; and, where it touches on such things, the Bible give us accurate information on what we would call scientific questions.

2) The scientific method, when properly practised, agrees with what the Scriptures teach (especially general revelation) because science explores God's creation.

3) Experience, when not twisted by drugs or mental illness or sin, is what we call our encounter with God's world as it objectively exists outside us. Experience can validate and confirm what we have already found in the Word.

4) God is a God of reason and orderly intellection (see Psalm 119, passim), a God of "order, not of confusion" who wants things done (especially in our worship of Him) "decently and in order," which implies a prior commitment to thinking things through.

Just some rough thoughts, but when science, experience, and the intellectual life are all plugged into the Scriptures, and informed by them, they are all legitimate ways we know.

 

[Civbert]

It is a pitiful condition to not be able to know if you have kept God's commandments; "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."

And when the bible uses the term "know" it usually means "certain" or "to be sure". This is not "knowledge" which by definition can never be false.

Consider this: do you think one can know with epistemic certainty that we have kept his commandments? Can we know with epistemic certainty that we are saved? Because if you "know" at that level, then you can just kick back an not bother with all these "good works" because you "know" you are saved and nothing can change that.

Now, please tell me if it is not a sin to dishonor those who you assume are your parents. Really. You said on had to have real knowledge of who your parents are in order to obey Gods commandment to honor your mother and father. DO you still hold that positions?

Rev. Winzer - we are in a "pitiful condition" because we can not "know" we have kept God's commands. We know that we have not - because Scripture tells us this. And we don't "know" who the elect are, not even if we are elect. Not with any epistemic justification. We may have "assurance" of our salvation based on the evidences of fruit of the Spirit (as the WCF confirms). But our good works do not guarantee we are saved.

If we claim we can have knowledge based on experience - then we can "know" all sorts of contradictory things. Person 1 could know "A" and person 2 could know "not-A" based on their individual (subjective) experiences. But this is a contradiction with leads to irrationalism. I don't think you intend to go there, but that is where the insistence that experience justifies claims to knowledge leads.

Knowledge is truth for all times, places, and people. It is not "private" such that two people can know contradictory propositions. One can not know a falsehood - no matter how much he believes it. If it's false, it's not knowledge. Experience may always lead to false beliefs.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Anthony,

Are you saying we cannot know "with epistemic certainty" that we are saved? I'm not sure I read you right.

For Scripture does say, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life....And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 5:13, 20

Would you clarify for me, please? Thanks.

Steve

 

[Civbert]

Anthony,

Are you saying we cannot know "with eptistemic certainty" that we are saved? I'm not sure I read you right.

For Scripture does say, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life....And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 5:13, 20

Would you clarify for me, please? Thanks.

Steve

[bible]1 John 5:13-14[/bible]
I think here Scripture is speaking about the assurance of salvation. This is not absolute knowledge (which can not be false by definition).
[bible]1 John 5:20[/bible] 1 John is a bit difficult to understand. Reading through the whole chapter it seems to say that if anyone keeps sinning, they "we know" they are not saved.
[bible]1 John 5:18[/bible]
If we take "know" to mean epistemically justified true belief - then we are all lost - for not one of us is perfectly free from sin - even after regeneration. So I would not say that "know" in 1 John is being used as an epistemic standard of knowledge. It uses know to mean sure or confident, the same way I am sure that next time I eat a lemon, it's going to taste sour. I don't really know/JTB, I know/confident/sure.

So no, I do not think we can know (epistemically) that we are saved. We have assurance by examining our fruits that we are saved. We can have confidence in our salvation. But we can not give an infallible argument from a priori truths that we are unquestionable saved. That knowledge is not available to us. We do not know who the elect are.

 

[Answerman]

Anthony, how do you understand Romans 8:16? "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,"

It would seem that God gives His children a supernatural way of knowing we are one of His children.

 

[Civbert]

Anthony, how do you understand Romans 8:16? "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,"

It would seem that God gives His children a supernatural way of knowing we are one of His children.

I think this is true. However, this is like the knowledge of God all men are born with, or the knowledge instilled in John the Baptist while still in his mother's womb. It is not knowledge that we can justify. We can not verify this from any epistemic axioms we hold. So in trying to be aware of what we can justify as true, this does not qualify. This is assurance/knowledge, not justified true belief knowledge.

If we take this kind of knowledge as equal to justified true belief, then we are going to have to open up the Scriptures to new revelations. How can will tell Joe Layman that "while I'm sure you believe that God has let you know that we should only serve domestic wine during communion, but this is not knowledge because I can not verify this against the Word". How can we say the Pope does not speak with divine authority?

So while I think God can, and does give us some truths apart from Scripture, these "personal" truths do not fit into a biblical epistemology. We must make the Scriptures the foundation of justified knowledge.

 

[jenney]

I picked "all of the above" but that isn't the same as putting them on equal footing. I believe in degrees of certainty and "working" knowledge.

My experience, the scientific method and logic may pencil in a "fact" or "truth", but then God's Word either confirms or disproves it. They can be wrong. But it sounded like if an idea is, in fact, wrong, then by definition, it was never "known". Is that what you mean?

For what it's worth, I am aware that even God's Word, though it can't be wrong, can be misread, misunderstood, misapplied or misused. But I don't determine its truth from the other methods listed. Rather, I determine theirs from it.

If the poll question meant know in the sense of "absolutely true" then I would have said the Bible.

I'm sorry if I messed up the poll because I was using a different definition of "know". All the propositional stuff is out of my realm of, er, knowledge.

 

[Civbert]

If the poll question meant know in the sense of "absolutely true" then I would have said the Bible.

I'm sorry if I messed up the poll because I was using a different definition of "know". All the propositional stuff is out of my realm of, er, knowledge.

Sean didn't give a definition of "know" so you can't mess up the poll by using the wrong definition.

I've argued for a different definition of knowledge - but you have demonstrated how important it is to define you terms and use them consistently. You basically made the logical choice based on the definition you gave.

I was thinking of saying "don't worry, this isn't a scientific survey" just because how ironic that sounds coming from me (since I don't believe science can not produce knowledge).

P.S. Oops. Sean did define knowledge as justified true belief - my mistake.

 

[MW]

And when the bible uses the term "know" it usually means "certain" or "to be sure". This is not "knowledge" which by definition can never be false.

So we have at least established that you are not using the Bible to define knowledge.

 

[Civbert]

So we have at least established that you are not using the Bible to define knowledge.

See my post regarding definitions.

Also I said "usually", I could have said "often" or "frequently". The word "know" has several meaning as used in Scripture - as I'm sure you are aware. However, my definition of knowledge is completely warranted by Scripture.

I have heard some people define their terms just as the bible uses them. But then whenever they use the term "know" they mean "assured", "justified true belief", and "intimate sexual relations" all at the same time. I find that a bit confusing.

 

[MW]

Also I said "usually", I could have said "often" or "frequently". The word "know" has several meaning as used in Scripture - as I'm sure you are aware. However, my definition of knowledge is completely warranted by Scripture.

Part of the truth is not the truth. You are making an exclusive claim in your definition of knowledge, and it excludes the Scripture's own use of the word "to know." Hence it is unwarranted by Scripture. You might think you are warranted to ignore part of the Scriptural testimony because of a presupposition you have derived from an extra-biblical source; but then you are only proving the point that all knowledge does not come from the Scriptures.

 

[Civbert]

Part of the truth is not the truth. You are making an exclusive claim in your definition of knowledge, and it excludes the Scripture's own use of the word "to know."

This is just false. Presuming Scripture as the axiom of knowledge, preserves the knowledge of Scripture and makes it available to man univocally. It allow man to know God by His Word, and know His commands, and know the Gospel.

You still haven't read what I wrote on definitions - or you don't understand it. I don't mind being challenged or corrected, but please try to understand what I'm saying. I did NOT make an exclusive claim in my definition of knowledge - that's not the nature of definitions. Know can be used in several way just as I said repeatedly. See my response to Jenny. You're exaggerating the situation and not dealing with the majority of my arguments. I am defending my definition of knowledge and how knowledge should be founded on Scripture since that is the source of knowledge revealed to us by God - the "whole counsel of God" as the WCF says. You seem to believe that we can reliable find knowledge outside of God's revelation via "experience". However, I'm not sure because you have made your position clear to me.

I've defended my position. You may defend yours. But please don't misrepresent mine.

 

[MW]

Civbert, once again you are becoming offended at the mere thought of your system being challenged as unscriptural.

You cannot show from Scripture why those other Scriptural references to knowing must be placed on a subordinate level to your strict Clarkian definition of knowledge. The Scriptures themselves do not make the philosophical distinctions you are making. So where are you getting the distinctions from?

Herein lies the problem -- you claim Scripture alone provides knowledge, but Scripture presupposes people know things not revealed in the Scriptures, e.g., 1 Thess. 5:12, "know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you." The Bible provides the major; providence provides the minor; and the conclusion is as infallible as if it were revealed in Scripture.

 

[Civbert]

Civbert, once again you are becoming offended at the mere thought of your system being challenged as unscriptural.

Of course, if justified true belief is unscriptural we can know nothing.

You cannot show from Scripture why those other Scriptural references to knowing must be placed on a subordinate level to your strict Clarkian definition of knowledge.

Now that's interesting. Are you saying that empiricism and rationalism are equivalent to God's revelation for justifying knowledge? If science says man evolved from apes, the it must be equally true with God created man.

I'm not putting other Scriptural references subordinate to one another. I'm saying that all things are subordinate to Scripture. But we also don't force definitions onto examples that don't work with the context and intended meaning of the author. Especially when that leads to contradictions! And we don't' try to make out terms agree with the whole of Scripture because that would lead to ambiguities that destroy meaning.

When a term is used in any text, we are obligated to understand how it is being used in that context. We don't say "well Webster defines X as Y, therefore what you mean is Y".

The Scriptures themselves do not make the philosophical distinctions you are making. So where are you getting the distinctions from?

From Scripture. Different cases of terms have different meanings in Scripture. Scripture also doesn't artificially divided faith into a "tri-part" definition that came from a Latin definition. Yet many demand faith as a three part definition without any warrant. And they apply this to Scripture. And that's important because I'm not forcing my definition onto Scripture.

And I'm not apply a philosophical distinction on anything. I'm saying a word can have different meanings. This is not philosophy, it's common sense.

Herein lies the problem -- you claim Scripture alone provides knowledge, but Scripture presupposes people know things not revealed in the Scriptures, e.g., 1 Thess. 5:12, "know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you."

Let's see. [bible]1 Thess. 5:12[/bible]

Now we see that the meaning is not "justified true belief" or even "sure of" but "respect". Again you are forcing your "experience" or extra-biblical sources for knowledge onto Scripture. It doesn't fit.

The Bible provides the major; providence provides the minor; and the conclusion is as infallible as if it were revealed in Scripture.

What does that mean - "providence provides the minor". Providence is "the care and superintendence which God exercises over his creatures" according to Webster. But when I search the Bible, I only find one reference in Acts 24:12. So we don't have enough information to give a "biblical" definition. Yet there it is, in the Bible. How do we know what it means if the Bible doesn't define it. Hold on! The Bible doesn't even come with a glossary or dictionary! I guess we can't know what the Bible says because it doesn't include definitions - and we know that all definitions are false if they are not found in the Bible, right?

The definition of knowledge as justified true belief is completely consistent with the philosophical system found in Scripture. And what we want is a Christian philosophy - a view of knowledge which is consistent with and supportive of the revelation given to us by God. Making Scripture the axiom of knowledge does this. The Word does not as justified true belief by any means other than Scripture itself. Attempts to force Scripture to support empiricism or to make "experience" a necessary precondition of "justified true belief" has failed every time. The idea that man can justify true belief apart from the Scriptures destroys the idea that we can actually have knowledge. Experience and empiricism lead to contradictions (when two propositions are a contradiction, then if one is true, the other is necessarily false). But God knows all things, and nothing He knows is false. Any epistemology that leads to contradictions is fallacious and un-scriptural.

 

[MW]

Of course, if justified true belief is unscriptural we can know nothing.

That is exactly where your rejection of inductivism leads.

Now that's interesting. Are you saying that empiricism and rationalism are equivalent to God's revelation for justifying knowledge? If science says man evolved from apes, the it must be equally true with God created man.

Evolutionary theory is built on imagination, not sensory perception. There are NO examples of an ape becoming a man. Hence there is no particular from which the general idea can be concluded.

When a term is used in any text, we are obligated to understand how it is being used in that context. We don't say "well Webster defines X as Y, therefore what you mean is Y".

You use the word "understand" in relation to something that Scripture itself does not tell us. Scripture does not tell us how it is using the terms you are differentiating, and yet you distinguish them nonetheless. Hence you are using knowledge from outside Scripture to arrive at your understanding of Scripture.

And I'm not apply a philosophical distinction on anything. I'm saying a word can have different meanings. This is not philosophy, it's common sense.

So you are using common sense to arrive at your understanding of what Scripture teaches, and from there you come to the conclusion that all knowledge comes from Scripture. Self-defeating! You use common sense realism to espouse idealist scripturalism so you can cast down common sense realism.

What does that mean - "providence provides the minor". Providence is "the care and superintendence which God exercises over his creatures" according to Webster. But when I search the Bible, I only find one reference in Acts 24:12. So we don't have enough information to give a "biblical" definition. Yet there it is, in the Bible. How do we know what it means if the Bible doesn't define it. Hold on! The Bible doesn't even come with a glossary or dictionary! I guess we can't know what the Bible says because it doesn't include definitions - and we know that all definitions are false if they are not found in the Bible, right?

You are arguing ad absurdum against your own epistemology. I accept logical classifications and extra-biblical definitions because my scriptural philosophy permits it. I can provide an account of knowledge on the basis of realism which does not tie me to the words of Scripture. Yours does not. The last question of the above paragraph is something you are obliged to answer.

 

[Civbert]

That is exactly where your rejection of inductivism leads.



Evolutionary theory is built on imagination, not sensory perception. There are NO examples of an ape becoming a man. Hence there is no particular from which the general idea can be concluded.

Evolutionary theory is provable using the "inductivism" you insist keeping. It is based on the "scientific" theory of induction. It takes empirical based "facts" and uses them to answer the question of the origin of man. Unless one presupposes Scripture there is no answer against it.

You use the word "understand" in relation to something that Scripture itself does not tell us. Scripture does not tell us how it is using the terms you are differentiating, and yet you distinguish them nonetheless. Hence you are using knowledge from outside Scripture to arrive at your understanding of Scripture.

I'm trying to show you that the definitions of words are not "knowledge". You don't deduce definitions. You don't "know" the definitions of words, you define words in relationship to what you know a priori.

So you are using common sense to arrive at your understanding of what Scripture teaches, and from there you come to the conclusion that all knowledge comes from Scripture. Self-defeating! You use common sense realism to espouse idealist scripturalism so you can cast down common sense realism.

Sorry - common sense was a poor choice. I should say simply say it's logical.

You are arguing ad absurdum against your own epistemology.

I accept logical classifications and extra-biblical definitions because my scriptural philosophy permits it.

So does Scripturalism. That's what you are missing.

I can provide an account of knowledge on the basis of realism which does not tie me to the words of Scripture. Yours does not.

Wrong.

The last question of the above paragraph is something you are obliged to answer.

I think I already answered it. Scripturalism does not require that I deduce definitions from Scripture. What is required is that the implications of my definitions not contradict Scripture.

Neither idealism nor realism is supported by Scripture. And this is the second time you've mis-characterized Scripturalism as idealism.

 

[MW]

Evolutionary theory is provable using the "inductivism" you insist keeping. It is based on the "scientific" theory of induction. It takes empirical based "facts" and uses them to answer the question of the origin of man. Unless one presupposes Scripture there is no answer against it.

The answer against it is the one I already provided -- that there is no evidence that monkeys turn into men. Lacking evidence it remains an unproven hypothesis. This suffices to show it is not "fact."

I'm trying to show you that the definitions of words are not "knowledge". You don't deduce definitions. You don't "know" the definitions of words, you define words in relationship to what you know a priori.

Let's see if we can work out this little merry-go-round defence of Scripturalism. (1.) You affirm all knowledge comes from Scripture. (2.) You discount what Scripture says about finding knowledge outside of Scripture and call the use of the word "know" something different from knowledge as defined in point 1. (3.) These other definitions of the word "know" are so defined because they differ from what you know a priori, which is, that all knowledge comes from Scripture. Quite clearly Scripture teaches whatever you know a priori, so that you are not actually learning anything from Scripture, but simply reading into Scripture what you already know.

Sorry - common sense was a poor choice. I should say simply say it's logical.

So now it is not common sense which leads you to make classifications of the biblical use of the word "know," but it is logic. But the merry go round keeps spinning, because the laws of logic are not taught in Scripture either.

I think I already answered it. Scripturalism does not require that I deduce definitions from Scripture. What is required is that the implications of my definitions not contradict Scripture.

Now what do we have? I can come up with any idea and call it knowledge because it does not contradict Scripture. Everybody knows there is no warrant in a non-contradiction of exclusive authority.

Neither idealism nor realism is supported by Scripture. And this is the second time you've mis-characterized Scripturalism as idealism.

As long as knowledge is limited to a priori ideas it is idealism, and I can safely continue to call it such. The irony is, you will never "know" if I am right or not, because Scripture nowhere describes idealism.

 

[Civbert]

The answer against it is the one I already provided -- that there is no evidence that monkeys turn into men. Lacking evidence it remains an unproven hypothesis. This suffices to show it is not "fact."

Not according to "science" and inductivism. There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution.

(1.) You affirm all knowledge comes from Scripture.

Knowledge comes from God. Scripture is God's Word. Technically, we justify knowledge by demonstrating it is Scripture or deducible therefrom. Otherwise we are left with speculation and opinion. Or one might call it "practical knowledge" or "working knowledge" as long as one is clear it is not "justified true belief". But absolute knowledge is revealed in Scripture or must be deducible from Scripture. That is Scripturalism.

(2.) You discount what Scripture says about finding knowledge outside of Scripture and call the use of the word "know" something different from knowledge as defined in point 1.

Scripture does NOT say we can find "justified true belief" outside of God Word. These assertions aren't arguments. And definitions are not deduced. You define terms based on a priori knowledge. Scripturalism uses the concept of truth that Scripture uses simply by being propositional.

(3.) These other definitions of the word "know" are so defined because they differ from what you know a priori, which is, that all knowledge comes from Scripture.

Now you are simply being argumentative. Definitions are not knowledge - they conform to knowledge.

Quite clearly Scripture teaches whatever you know a priori, so that you are not actually learning anything from Scripture, but simply reading into Scripture what you already know.

Again you are confusing definitions with knowledge.

So now it is not common sense which leads you to make classifications of the biblical use of the word "know," but it is logic. But the merry go round keeps spinning, because the laws of logic are not taught in Scripture either.

Here again you are wrong. You are also being insulting. I suppose this happens when rational arguments fail.

The laws of logic are present in Scripture implicitly. Jesus used logic. Paul used logical arguments. Language itself fails if the law of contradiction does not apply. Scripture is a most clear example of the laws of logic we have.

I think once again we are at the end of the line. You seem to have asserted knowledge apart from revelation despite a lack of biblical warrant. You have denied the WCF which says the Scripture is the whole of God's council (and nothing may be added). You seem to deny logic (which really is self defeating). I don't see what's left. Denying Scripture? I think that's been accomplished by implication. If you are not denying these things, then you should be a Scripturalists because that's essential the what it says. But somehow you've gotten these irrational (or at least incoherent) ideas about "justified true belief" requiring experience or the idea the non-propositional knowledge is actually cogent.

I'm sure that part of the problem is how I am explaining things. My arguments are not as clear as possible. Probably they have gotten worse because I'm trying to hard to explain what are simply ideas. But it's clear that you're not following my arguments. Again you keep drawing conclusion and making assertions that don't follow from what I am saying. I don't understand why, and I don't want to speculate. I hope you will take some time and consider my arguments more carefully. Better yet, read what Clark wrote. He was much better at demonstrating his position from the Word. Maybe it won't make a difference - but it seems like you're working with a different set of categories and definitions. I don't think you see the inherent flaws in subjugating dogmatic revelation to subjective experience. And you keep conflating definitions and knowledge. You're not a Van Tilian so I can not identify the source of the misunderstanding - and you've avoided answering my questions so I have any explanations of your ideas. I don't see how we are going to come to an understanding this way. You clearly don't understand my position and I admittedly don't understand yours.

 

[Civbert]

The answer against it is the one I already provided -- that there is no evidence that monkeys turn into men. Lacking evidence it remains an unproven hypothesis. This suffices to show it is not "fact."

Not according to "science" and inductivism. There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution.

(1.) You affirm all knowledge comes from Scripture.

Knowledge comes from God. Scripture is God's Word. Technically, we justify knowledge by demonstrating it is Scripture or deducible therefrom. Otherwise we are left with speculation and opinion. Or one might call it "practical knowledge" or "working knowledge" as long as one is clear it is not "justified true belief". But absolute knowledge is revealed in Scripture or must be deducible from Scripture. That is Scripturalism.

(2.) You discount what Scripture says about finding knowledge outside of Scripture and call the use of the word "know" something different from knowledge as defined in point 1.

Scripture does NOT say we can find "justified true belief" outside of God's Word. These assertions aren't arguments. And definitions are not deduced. You define terms based on a priori knowledge. Scripturalism uses the concept of truth that Scripture uses simply by being propositional.

(3.) These other definitions of the word "know" are so defined because they differ from what you know a priori, which is, that all knowledge comes from Scripture.

Now you are simply being argumentative. Definitions are not knowledge - they conform to knowledge.

Quite clearly Scripture teaches whatever you know a priori, so that you are not actually learning anything from Scripture, but simply reading into Scripture what you already know.

Again you are confusing definitions with knowledge.

So now it is not common sense which leads you to make classifications of the biblical use of the word "know," but it is logic. But the merry go round keeps spinning, because the laws of logic are not taught in Scripture either.

Here again you are wrong. You are also being insulting. I suppose this happens when rational arguments fail.

The laws of logic are present in Scripture implicitly. Jesus used logic. Paul used logical arguments. Language itself fails if the law of contradiction does not apply. Scripture is a most clear example of the laws of logic we have.

I think once again we are at the end of the line. You seem to have asserted knowledge apart from revelation despite a lack of biblical warrant. You have denied the WCF which says the Scripture is the whole of God's council (and nothing may be added). You seem to deny logic (which really is self defeating). I don't see what's left. Denying Scripture? I think that's been accomplished by implication. If you are not denying these things, then you should be a Scripturalists because that's essential the what it says. But somehow you've gotten these irrational (or at least incoherent) ideas about "justified true belief" requiring experience or the idea the non-propositional knowledge is actually cogent.

I'm sure that part of the problem is how I am explaining things. My arguments are not as clear as possible. Probably they have gotten worse because I'm trying to hard to explain what are simply ideas. But it's clear that you're not following my arguments. Again you keep drawing conclusion and making assertions that don't follow from what I am saying. I don't understand why, and I don't want to speculate. I hope you will take some time and consider my arguments more carefully. Better yet, read what Clark wrote. He was much better at demonstrating his position from the Word. Maybe it won't make a difference - but it seems like you're working with a different set of categories and definitions. I don't think you see the inherent flaws in subjugating dogmatic revelation to subjective experience. And you keep conflating definitions and knowledge. You're not a Van Tilian so I can not identify the source of the misunderstanding - and you've avoided answering my questions so I have any explanations of your ideas. I don't see how we are going to come to an understanding this way. You clearly don't understand my position and I admittedly don't understand yours.

 

[Civbert]

Rich,

If this were a regular thread I'd say it's come to it's end - allowing for Rev. Winzer to respond. But I think you should keep it open so others can add comments and participate in the poll.

I find the results interesting. And the comment have also been helpful in understand why some chose one answer over another. Many who choose "all the above" had fair reasons for doing so.

I also appreciate a lot of the questions I've been asked, but I don't want to leave the impression that I am the most knowledgeable person on Scripturalism. I've had my debates with other Scripturalists and even Sean and I disagree on some details. The authority on Scripturalism is Gordon Clark.

I'm happy to answer more questions but I hope more people will post their opinions. I've already posted more than my share and I don't want to intimidate anyone from posting their views - especially those contrary to mine. I'm going to try to limit my contributions and let others talk.

...

For a change.

...

Really.

....

Go ahead everyone.

...

Don't mind me.

...



peep.

 

[MW]

Civbert, once again a thread comes to a close with your position relying on mere assertion and an inability to demonstrate the basic element needed to support an epistemic claim -- consistency. You use knowledge outside of Scripture -- or what you allege is "implicit" in Scripture -- to justify your belief that all knowledge comes from Scripture. Unless you can show from Scripture that Scripture uses the word to know in different senses, then your interpretation of Scripture is inductive (as indeed all interpretation must be), and therefore illegitimate according to your own criterion for testing truth claims. The Scriptures nowhere teach the laws of logic, which you require for elementary classification; these likewise must be presupposed according to your prior epistemic commitment. All in all you have gone along way towards showing that knowledge comes from "all of the above." I rest.

 

[Civbert]

The thread's not closed - just the Rev Winzer/Anthony exchange.

I hope I have not discourage participation. And there's no law that says one has to read the whole thread in order to post an opinion on the poll question. I'd really like to hear more from others.

 

[Magma2]

Civbert, once again a thread comes to a close with your position relying on mere assertion and an inability to demonstrate the basic element needed to support an epistemic claim -- consistency.

I've been following some of this and while I said I would wait to comment until my poll was closed, I thought I'd add my own in response to Rev. Winzer's silly diatribe. Winzer's contention is that the Scriptures nowhere employ the word "know" or "knowledge" in the sense of knowledge being a justified true belief. His refrain is starting to remind me of the parrot squawks of the Arminian who can't help but get all in a flutter every time they see the word "all" or "world" in Scripture never considering the context or the sense in which these words are used from verse to verse.

Contrary to the jerking knee of Rev. Winzer, Scripture uses the word “to know” in a number of different senses, which is why clearly defining what you mean and not equivocating on the definition is essential in order for the conversation to advance. Scripture tells us; “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib." Is this knowledge in the sense of justified true belief? I admit that it does sound like knowledge as some here define it, but no bother. Of course “Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain.” Again, while certainly carnal, hardly a matter for epistemology. Of course the analogy Scripture draws between the intimacy between husband and wife and Christ and His church is an important theological truth not gained by sensation, no matter how pleasurable.

That is why, unless you define your terms in light of Scripture, you are no different then the Arminian who scream “God desires all to be saved and all men are free to come to Him if they only will” – bondage of the will be damned.

Some following the likes of Aquinas contend that Romans 1 gives warrant for extra-biblical knowledge and that all men Know God (capital K - as if the word "know" and its cognates are never used in a colloquial sense). Of course 1 Cor 1:21a tells us; "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God . . . ." Perhaps Rev. Winzer would feel better in that Van Tilian neither world where such glaring contradictions produce a sense of awe and mystery, but for those of us interested in the truth we recognize that one cannot both KNOW God and not KNOW God in the same sense!

Of course, as previously cited, Calvin said; “I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, or what is by diligence acquired, but that which is delivered to us by the Law and the Prophets.” Was he too without biblical warrant for so narrowly restricting knowledge? I hardly think so.

Some verses which immediately come to mind:

Isa 8:20; To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Gordon Clark could not have said it better.

John 8:31; Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Notice again; "if you abide in My word . . . you shall know the truth" and this was spoken to believers. A clearer statement of what is entailed in a justified true belief can hardly be found anywhere.

Luke tells us that he wrote his gospel so that we "might know the exact truth about the things [we] have been taught." Written like that other good Scripturalist the Apostle Peter who said that the Scriptures are prophesy "made more sure" and that they are a light shining in a "dark place" and not the bright place Rev. Winzer seems to inhabit. Perhaps Rev. Winzer has never seriously studied the history of philosophy and just doesn't grasp how completely dark this world really is?

Contrary to Winzer's epistemological smorgasbord where new truths can be discovered under every rock and through every feeling and intution, John 14:17 tells us that the world does not receive the Spirit of truth. Not only that, it cannot receive Him. Further, John tells us elsewhere that the Spirit will lead us into ALL truth and not just some truth as Rev. Winzer contends.

Of course, for those who might be tempted to suggest Christian science and empiricism are somehow sanctified and has been magically transformed into means by which knowledge might be acquired, they must first demonstrate that the Spirit speaks apart from the revealed Word even though John tells us that "he shall not speak of himself; but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." Of course, they can always refer to Is 8:20 above as the appropriate bridle before they go off on that wild goose chase. However, if they want to chase their tails, who am I to stop them.

Perhaps after wandering in the dark for awhile they might remember John's words: "They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." Sounds an awful lot like Isiah quoted above doesn't it?

John also tell us in his second letter that his love is for "all who know the truth, for the sake of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever." Yet, Rev. Winzer says the truth that can be known is not in any sense limited to Scripture and he assures us that the Scriptures do not have a monopoly on truth. Like that character from the old X-Files show Rev. Winzer asserts "the truth is out there." Funny, just like that character in that show, Rev. Winzer never seems to demonstrate how we might find the truth "out there" and apart from Scripture. To him and those like him I will say; "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

 

[Civbert]

Thanks for the Scriptural proofs for Scripturalism - that's what was missing from my arguments.

 

[JohnV]

I've tended to use two methods in trying to get to know things with certainty. It is usually the negative aspects that is of the most benefit. Positive elements of knowledge require putting them into the right order, and that's always really tricky. But negative elements tell me by themselves where their order of error is.

One of the things that tells me of error, (the negative aspect of knowledge: not that I know this or that is true, but that I know this or that is not true) is the attitude, both of that which is asserted and of he who asserts it. Because I can know God through His Word (as apposed [not opposed, but apposed] to knowing the Bible through the Incarnate Word, both of which are epistemic necessities) I know that speaking truth is speaking about or for God. One cannot speak truth and do so unkindly, unlovingly, unthinkingly, unaffectedly, selfishly, unmercifully, etc. You cannot speak for God with an ungodly approach; nor can you speak about God in an ungodly way. If there is also rancour in the speaking of it, then it cannot be true no matter how true it might seem to be in fact.

All arguments have some truth in them, otherwise they would not deceive. Deceit takes the truth and bends it to suit its own purposes. If I detect that characteristic of deceit, whether it is by lack of graciousness, of mercy, of self-examination, or of humility, then I am very wary of deceit itself. My best response is to reject it altogether. The truth, the very same truth, will still be presented to me by other and better sources, but this particular source is no longer trustworthy, even if it seems to speak some things truly.

I've tuned in from time to time in this thread. It doesn't go anywhere. The Scripturalism presented here is a circular semantic trap and nothing more. That has become evident. To get caught in its trapping argumentations is a springboard only into more traps. The trick is not to get caught in the semantic tail-chasing yourself.

I think it is enough that people are scared away from the topics of Scripturalism by the way it has been presented. I don't think anyone becomes convinced by the arguments; they just get scared off by the way it comes across. There's nothing basically compelling about the arguments themselves either, it seems to me. All I ever see is a going around in circles; and, epistemically speaking, I'm left standing exactly where I started off. All that is offered, as far as I can see, is a semantic solution at best.

What bothers me the most, though, is that there seems to be an inherent confession of not being able to know God personally, as if God is only some reference point. It talks about God as if He is distant, personally unconnected.

E.g.: How do I know that I know? I know the Word. How do I know the Word? Because I read the Word. How do I know what I read? Because I know the written Word. Now do I know the written Word? Because it is in the Book. What book? The Bible.

And it just keeps on going around, without an element of personal contact with God through the Spirit. You could say that it sounds clinical, not personal. But the Word of God without God's personal presence is not the Word of God, even if its the Bible. There are countless people who use the Bible to justify themselves and their views, and may even brazenly quote it arightly, but they're still not standing on the Word of God. You can't divide the Word of God from the person of God without losing the Bible as the Word of God. It's just not possible. So its the disconnectedness that bothers me the most.

This is my submission. I'm not going to pursue this, though. I see no need. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I'm not going to be won over to a position that requires a chip on the shoulder.

 

[Hungus]

I had to go with Other. Simply put, we can learn some things from all of the above, however only option 1 - Scripture can be judged to be "True" everything else is either factual, within realms of observation, or intuitive ,in the philosophical sense. Plus we must be able to communicate and understand before we can learn from scripture.

 

[Magma2]

I had to go with Other. Simply put, we can learn some things from all of the above, however only option 1 - Scripture can be judged to be "True" everything else is either factual, within realms of observation, or intuitive ,in the philosophical sense. Plus we must be able to communicate and understand before we can learn from scripture.

Thanks for your response Robert. Just wondering, did you by chance read the opening post where I framed the poll question? Seeing that you're "pre-professional philosophy," if you didn't read it would it have changed how you answered the poll? I guess the other question is, what is a fact? Is it true or something else entirely?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I've tended to use two methods in trying to get to know things with certainty. It is usually the negative aspects that is of the most benefit. Positive elements of knowledge require putting them into the right order, and that's always really tricky. But negative elements tell me by themselves where their order of error is.

One of the things that tells me of error, (the negative aspect of knowledge: not that I know this or that is true, but that I know this or that is not true) is the attitude, both of that which is asserted and of he who asserts it. Because I can know God through His Word (as apposed [not opposed, but apposed] to knowing the Bible through the Incarnate Word, both of which are epistemic necessities) I know that speaking truth is speaking about or for God. One cannot speak truth and do so unkindly, unlovingly, unthinkingly, unaffectedly, selfishly, unmercifully, etc. You cannot speak for God with an ungodly approach; nor can you speak about God in an ungodly way. If there is also rancour in the speaking of it, then it cannot be true no matter how true it might seem to be in fact.

All arguments have some truth in them, otherwise they would not deceive. Deceit takes the truth and bends it to suit its own purposes. If I detect that characteristic of deceit, whether it is by lack of graciousness, of mercy, of self-examination, or of humility, then I am very wary of deceit itself. My best response is to reject it altogether. The truth, the very same truth, will still be presented to me by other and better sources, but this particular source is no longer trustworthy, even if it seems to speak some things truly.

I've tuned in from time to time in this thread. It doesn't go anywhere. The Scripturalism presented here is a circular semantic trap and nothing more. That has become evident. To get caught in its trapping argumentations is a springboard only into more traps. The trick is not to get caught in the semantic tail-chasing yourself.

I think it is enough that people are scared away from the topics of Scripturalism by the way it has been presented. I don't think anyone becomes convinced by the arguments; they just get scared off by the way it comes across. There's nothing basically compelling about the arguments themselves either, it seems to me. All I ever see is a going around in circles; and, epistemically speaking, I'm left standing exactly where I started off. All that is offered, as far as I can see, is a semantic solution at best.

What bothers me the most, though, is that there seems to be an inherent confession of not being able to know God personally, as if God is only some reference point. It talks about God as if He is distant, personally unconnected.

E.g.: How do I know that I know? I know the Word. How do I know the Word? Because I read the Word. How do I know what I read? Because I know the written Word. Now do I know the written Word? Because it is in the Book. What book? The Bible.

And it just keeps on going around, without an element of personal contact with God through the Spirit. You could say that it sounds clinical, not personal. But the Word of God without God's personal presence is not the Word of God, even if its the Bible. There are countless people who use the Bible to justify themselves and their views, and may even brazenly quote it arightly, but they're still not standing on the Word of God. You can't divide the Word of God from the person of God without losing the Bible as the Word of God. It's just not possible. So its the disconnectedness that bothers me the most.

This is my submission. I'm not going to pursue this, though. I see no need. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I'm not going to be won over to a position that requires a chip on the shoulder.

Good summation John. I know it bothers some that this kind of stuff is pointed out but it really is the main problem. Perhaps there are winsome Clarkian apologists out there but I just haven't seen the philosophy presented in a way that is resonant with the Word. I will grant that Anthony has been generally patient (and Sean more so lately than usual with ocassional lapses but I've been kind of ornery lately myself) but even with that patience it is a presentation of the Word as a Clinican would.

One thing this has done for me lately is caused me to reflect on the good gifts that God has given me in creation and through His Word. Concurrent with these discussions, I've been listening to a History of Western Philosophy for the past several weeks as I have time in the car. I've listened to others previously (including one by Robbins) but this one is more thoroughgoing.

It dawned on me that perhaps what I sense is that this is all ultimately a way of arguing in standard philsophical categories for things that don't belong there. By philosophical categories, I mean the categories that Western Philosophy has historically used. Thus, the gifts God gives us to observe the world around us (our senses) and things that He expects us to learn from and give Him glory for are categorized as empericism. Now, knowing a bit about Hume, I can flatly deny I'm doing anything of the sort in an autonomous way but for those who either believe you learn everything from your senses or nothing at all I'm either one or I'm the other.

I honestly think that's where the disconnect in much of this discussion is. It's why I was having trouble in the AT/ET thread connecting with Rev. Winzer for a bit because I was trying to reconcile an apologetic method (Van Til presuppositionalism and his discussion of qualitative/quantitative knowledge) with AT/ET theology. I realized that the idea being conveyed in ET revelation was a notion that didn't fit that mode of thinking precisely.

Thus my continued difficulty in saying "How I know" in a way that is philosophically acceptable. On a very basic level, I know I'm a creature of God who bears his image and a capacity to know and reason. I also know from His Word that I can learn from my environment and subdue it and am commanded to do so. I give Glory to God for all of it. The condemnation of Romans 1 is not that men presume to know things about the world around them but that they don't give glory to God because they suppress the innate knowledge they have of their Creator and then refuse to give glory to God for the things around them.

If that is not philosophically precise enough for some people then I'm not really too concerned. I am neither a man that lives by my senses nor a man that trusts his own heart and reason. I am a man transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit, who knows His Shepherd's voice, reads the Word to be guided into all Truth, and is fascinated by and learns from his environment and gives constant glory to the God who created it and expects me to be a steward of it.

 

[MW]

Magma2's response to my participation in this thread shows that he hasn't really been following what I have been saying. My quibble is not over Civbert's different senses of the word "to know." I grant that words are used in different ways. But I can do this consistently because my realist epistemology allows me to accept the inductive method of Bible study. Civbert's does not; and yet he instinctively uses the inductive method in order to classify different uses of the word "to know." Now Magma2 has done the same thing. He is using something (call it knowledge, opinion, logic, common sense, or whatever else one pleases) to arrive at different ideas of the word "to know." He cannot give an account of that something, hence all that is built upon it is mere opinion, according to the idealist claim. So until some account is given as to how one arrives at the different senses of the word "to know," their defence is nothing more than opinion, and worthless.

 

[Magma2]

Magma2's response to my participation in this thread shows that he hasn't really been following what I have been saying. My quibble is not over Civbert's different senses of the word "to know." I grant that words are used in different ways. But I can do this consistently because my realist epistemology allows me to accept the inductive method of Bible study. Civbert's does not; and yet he instinctively uses the inductive method in order to classify different uses of the word "to know." Now Magma2 has done the same thing. He is using something (call it knowledge, opinion, logic, common sense, or whatever else one pleases) to arrive at different ideas of the word "to know." He cannot give an account of that something, hence all that is built upon it is mere opinion, according to the idealist claim. So until some account is given as to how one arrives at the different senses of the word "to know," their defence is nothing more than opinion, and worthless.

Why don't you demonstrate where I've used inductions apart from Scripture to arrive at knowledge as justified true belief above? You make all sorts of wild assertions, yet never seem able to back them up. This all is starting to remind me of the last time I tangled with you on Richard Bacon's list. There you were insistent that for Clark science is cognitive in spite of Clark's repeated contention throughout his "Phil of Science and Belief in God" and elsewhere that science is -- and must be -- always false. I'm honestly starting to think you just don't know what you're talking about.