Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Don
Matt,
They answered very simply that such was not what Clark taught. They say that "men" are in the Bible, and thus they would never resort, nor did Clark, to absurdity in saying that your name has to be there. We know men exist because God created them, they have children, and they continue to exist. We don't need our name there, etc. HTis would go for anything we find that is extrapolated: trees, works of art, craftsmanship, industry, animals, creeping things, birds, the world, stars, etc.
The critique is more along these lines:
"Men" may be in the Bible, but *certain or particular* men are not in the Bible. Assuming Scripturalism, how do I connect 'men' in the Bible to a particular man outside the Bible in order to know that I am a man? Unless you adopt some form of occassionalism, it would seem that the inferences used in determining whether you were a man would not be stated in or deducible from Scripture since you'll have to appeal to something outside of Scripture in order to make that determination. Thus you would forfeit Scripturalism.
Don
First, I need to find one of those RPCGA churches. :bigsmile:
Second, I think Don is closer to the mark, and, honestly, I think Clark only touched on this question tangentially in response to critics who complained on Scripturalists principles Clark couldn't know his wife, etc. Dr. Robbins said some time ago in response to Michael Sudduth, that outside of some sound argument which avoids citing immediate "self-knowledge" or any similar notion like private revelation or anything else, he would agree that we have an opinion that we are men. MS´s objection was that on Scripturalist principles since all men are sinners and since he could not know he was a man, therefore MS could not know he was sinner. To which Dr. Robbins responded:
So if we have the opinion that we are men, then the syllogism I provided [all men are sinners, MS is a man, therefore MS is a sinner] is neither absurd nor irrelevant; it is right on target. We may or may not be correct in our opinion, but if we have that opinion, if you have that opinion, you are required to believe that you are a sinner. In addition, Paul in 2 Cor 10:5b tells us that we are to take "every thought captive to the obedience of Christ," and this would include our opinions as well as our knowledge.
Clark too was clear, that knowledge, strictly speaking, needs an account and Scripture alone provides that account where all else has failed. More to the point, he too considered many things which most take for granted as opinion, but agreed with Plato that opinion is often as useful as knowledge:
What account shall be given of everyday "œknowledge" that common sense thinks it silly to doubt? Don´t I know when I am hungry? . . . Indeed, how can I know what the Bible says without reading its pages with my own eyes? . . . But all such criticisms miss the point. The status of common opinion is not fixed until a theory has been accepted. One may admit that a number of propositions commonly believed are true; but no one can deny that many such are false. The problem is to elaborate a method by which the two classes can be distinguished. Plato too granted a place to opinion as distinct from knowledge; he even admitted that in some circumstances opinion was as useful as knowledge with a capital K . . . It is incorrect therefore to complain that the axiom of revelation deprives us of knowledge otherwise obtainable. There is no knowledge otherwise obtainable. [90-91]
And, since this line of discussion invariably gets into a question of assurance simply because if I´m not deducible from Scripture then I can´t know I am saved and assurance is impossible, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
"It appears also that the affection which is occasioned by the coming of al text of Scripture must be vain, when the affection is founded on something that is supposed to be taught by it, which really is not contained in it, nor in any other Scripture; because such supposed instruction is not real instruction, but a mistake and misapprehension of the mind. As for instance, when persons suppose that they are expressly taught by some Scripture coming to their minds, that they in particular are beloved of God, or that their sins are forgiven, that God is their Father, and the like. This is a mistake or misapprehension; for the Scripture nowhere reveals the individual persons who are beloved, expressly; but only by consequence, by revealing the qualifications of persons that are beloved of God: and therefore this matter is not to be learned form Scripture any other way than by consequence, and from these qualifications, for things are not to be learned from the Scripture any other way than they are taught in the Scripture." [emphasis mine -- Religious Affections pg 194]