What marks of Scripturalism show it to be something you will not put your trust in?

[JohnV]

If I'm not mistaken, this thread is starting to break up. It's getting into the area of "You said this", "No, I didn't". Before this thread gets closed I'd like to ask everyone a question or two.

It's curious that this thread is about how we know. I'm sure of a few things, and I'm not sure of them in the way Scripturalism describes how I know these things, it seems to me. Nor do I find that our Church fathers knew the doctrines in that way. It seems that 1 John 1 keeps coming to mind, about knowing and being verified witnesses because "we saw", "we touched", "we lived with", and "our fellowship is with God".

However, this intro is just a way to introduce my question. I want to ask a "how do you know?" question, but one a bit different. It is clear enough to me that Scripturalism's object of faith is the propositional Word, not God Himself as three persons of the Trinity; we are not led to God through the Word, but we are led to the Propositional Truth through the pages of the Bible by Scripturalism. So here's the question to all of you:

What marks of Scripturalism show it to be something you will not put your trust in? I stated one of the marks that I noticed, but there are quite a few more. What are the ones that impressed themselves upon you?

At the same time, as Sean has stated what he thinks the common objection to Scripturalism seems to be to him, as he understands it, what mark stands out in the objections that make them appear wrong to Scripturalists?

 

[JohnV]

Don't address your responses as if to each other. Address them to me as if I'm a neutral observer.

 

[Civbert]

... It is clear enough to me that Scripturalism's object of faith is the propositional Word, not God Himself as three persons of the Trinity; we are not led to God through the Word, but we are led to the Propositional Truth through the pages of the Bible by Scripturalism.

... what mark stands out in the objections that make them appear wrong to Scripturalists?

Clearly we are working from a different set of presuppositions - this is why your objection seem "clear enough" to you but strange to me. I'm working from the presumption that we come to know God through His self-revelation in Scripture when we believe those truths He has spoken to us. Now it's hard for me to see how one could reject this position. Why do you suppose that coming to know God's Word would would mean anything less than knowing God? What other way can you know God?

Let me add that to know of propositions is not the same as knowing those propositions. You can know of a proposition and not believe it is true. To actually know a proposition it must be true, and you must understand it, and you must believe it. When I say knowing God's Word, I mean understanding and believing the truths God has revealed. That is knowing God.

But for those who object to this - what do they offer as an alternative? Experiencing God? What does that mean? If one can not express a truth, can they really call it knowledge? How do they know? It's a "apparent contradiction" to claim knowledge that is unintelligible.

 

[JohnV]

Thank you, Anthony. That's a pretty clear summary. That's what I was asking for. I won't respond or critique, but let it stand as it is.

I would ask others not to interact with Anthony's answer here, but just to try to answer the question.

And if you have a better idea as to how to get through the impasse, I'm game for that too.

 

[Davidius]

It seems that 1 John 1 keeps coming to mind, about knowing and being verified witnesses because "we saw", "we touched", "we lived with", and "our fellowship is with God".

I'd be interested in seeing a Scripturalist understanding of this.

 

[MW]

What marks of Scripturalism show it to be something you will not put your trust in?

Unattainable idealism. It is like going to the car in order to drive it to an appointment and discovering you have locked your keys inside it.

 

[Civbert]

I'd be interested in seeing a Scripturalist understanding of this.

[bible]1 John 1:1-3[/bible]
I don't see anything that tells me that knowledge is attainable through the senses. I can tell people what I saw, heard, felt, witnessed and not be making any epistemic claims. And note carefully that those things they saw and heard were being "proclaimed". So whatever is going on, we can say certainly if it were not "proclaimed" in God's Word, we would not "know" it.

So there are no necessary experiences required for the reader to know what is being conveyed. What is required is belief in the testimony of Scripture.

 

[JohnV]

Thank you, Matthew. Having read the interaction between you and Sean and Anthony, I can see what you mean. I don't know if the analogy is all that clear to others, but I see it.

If I may, I want to try to put it into my own words, words to see if I do indeed have it. Sean and Anthony are reverting the terms and arguments that you would use back to you. There's not that much in the arguments themselves, the ones that are returned to you, but they keep playing you between the terms and their definitions: if you address the one, they revert to the other; if you address the other, they revert to the first. Another analogy might be one-way ping pong: returning the volley is not part of the game, but just getting in a good first volley. You only return what you want to receive. And that's how you perceive Sean's and Anthony's responses to your arguments.

If I may anticipate a bit, this is close to what I am expecting from Rich. For him the words that Scripturalists use don't have any substance in them, if I understand Rich correctly. They say a lot, but don't really say anything. It turns out to be just semantic play, syllogistically parlayed back and forth, but nothing behind the words and definitions.

This is close to the same criticism, I believe.

Do I have it right? Or even close?

 

[MW]

What errors are new with Scripturalism today? We now have a denial that the apostles knew they were seeing Jesus. So in the course of a thread we have (1.) the Bible is not the Word of God; (2.) the Bible errs in its descriptions of the sensory world -- weights, measurements, etc.; and (3.) the apostolic testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ was not based on what they "knew." And all this is happily tolerated on a "Puritan" board! Enough is enough.

 

[MW]

Do I have it right? Or even close?

Right on target. The clearest example is seen in the way they deny the Scriptural testimony to the trustworthiness of the senses on the basis of an anaysis of the word to know which is not in Scripture. Hence they use their experience of the way the word "to know" is used in every day life in order to derive distinctions in the way the word is used in Scripture so that they can deny that we can gain knowledge by experience.

 

[Civbert]

... And all this is happily tolerated on a "Puritan" board! Enough is enough.

Indeed.

 

[JohnV]

Now, now, Anthony. I asked others not to respond to your observation. I would ask of you the same courtesy to others.

 

[JohnV]

Right on target. The clearest example is seen in the way they deny the Scriptural testimony to the trustworthiness of the senses on the basis of an anaysis of the word to know which is not in Scripture. Hence they use their experience of the way the word "to know" is used in every day life in order to derive distinctions in the way the word is used in Scripture so that they can deny that we can gain knowledge by experience.

That's plenty clear enough, I would think. Thanks.

 

[MW]

Now, now, Anthony. I asked others not to respond to your observation. I would ask of you the same courtesy to others.

At that point he is responding to my reflection on his comment that the apostle's did not "know" they were seeing Jesus.

 

[Civbert]

Now, now, Anthony. I asked others not to respond to your observation. I would ask of you the same courtesy to others.

Sorry. Mea culpa.

 

[JohnV]

At that point he is responding to my reflection on his comment that the apostle's did not "know" they were seeing Jesus.

OK. I didn't want to cut off all discussion. There's still a thread going on. I understand. Fair is fair. I just didn't want to see this going in the same direction that other threads involving Scripturalists have gone. I was trying to cut it off at the pass, so to speak, before it came to that point.

 

[JohnV]

My intention is to attempt to get around the fact that we were working from different starting points, and so talking past each other. I wanted to get us all on the same page.

For myself, either what Sean and Anthony are saying is too deep for me to understand, or it's just too much for the simpleton. There's no inbetween because we're not connecting on the same level. The problem is two-fold then: which is it? and, how do I communicate that? That was my intention. And it goes both ways; both sides can do the same thing.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thank you, Matthew. Having read the interaction between you and Sean and Anthony, I can see what you mean. I don't know if the analogy is all that clear to others, but I see it.

If I may, I want to try to put it into my own words, words to see if I do indeed have it. Sean and Anthony are reverting the terms and arguments that you would use back to you. There's not that much in the arguments themselves, the ones that are returned to you, but they keep playing you between the terms and their definitions: if you address the one, they revert to the other; if you address the other, they revert to the first. Another analogy might be one-way ping pong: returning the volley is not part of the game, but just getting in a good first volley. You only return what you want to receive. And that's how you perceive Sean's and Anthony's responses to your arguments.

If I may anticipate a bit, this is close to what I am expecting from Rich. For him the words that Scripturalists use don't have any substance in them, if I understand Rich correctly. They say a lot, but don't really say anything. It turns out to be just semantic play, syllogistically parlayed back and forth, but nothing behind the words and definitions.

This is close to the same criticism, I believe.

Do I have it right? Or even close?

I think that's a good summary John.

I really don't have any status in these discussions with some because "...I just go by my gut..." and cannot critique a thing according to appropriate epistemological categories. It's not enough for me to say that I can reason and that I can learn things from my senses because I have been created by God to be able to do so and that He holds me accountable for them. Nay, I must be able to explain how God has enabled me to do this and I must do it in a way that is explicable in philosophical categories. The only people qualified to talk about knowing God are the philsophically sophisticated.

Nevertheless, for those who care, I offer the following observations:

1. I find Scripturalism to be detached and cold at times. If a thing cannot be explained in rational terms it cannot be known. To claim otherwise is to be accused of believing in the Force.

2. I find it's assignment of letters, words, and syntax to be arbitrary markers to be un-Confessional:

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;17 so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.18 But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,19 therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,20 that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;21 and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.22

3. I believe it primarily advocates a position of solo-Scriptura (as opposed to sola-Scriptura) given a number of threads where confessionalism is deprecated in favor of Clarkian views of the Scriptures.

4. Perhaps most ironic of all, I'm starting to detect a bit of mysticism from those I would have expected it least of all. My thread about the letter A was very revealing to me. I related to another brother how puzzled I was over the way Sean and Anthony were talking about the way they gain knowledge and that the Words of Scripture themselves didn't necessarily convey it. I'm still not sure how awareness leads to knowledge but I now better understand why someone like Cheung would be consistent with a Clarkian notion because it's not reading or physical things that teach us but immediate illumination apart from the need of a medium. This is what I mean by mystical - that a person could just as well become aware of all these Scriptural truths by meditating on a mountain. I wonder what the point of studying philosophy to get one's categories straight when this knowledge is all made immediately aware to us by God anyhow.

All that said, I will grant that I could be unintentionally mis-characterizing some aspects of Clarkianism. I can honestly say that I've tried to understand it and will continue to do so.

To Sean and Anthony: I know some of these characterizations might cause you to react sharply to me. They are not aimed at you, they are my observations of why I don't like the system and, if it's based on my ignorance, then I'm learning but those are my observations thus far.

 

[Magma2]

What errors are new with Scripturalism today? We now have a denial that the apostles knew they were seeing Jesus. So in the course of a thread we have (1.) the Bible is not the Word of God; (2.) the Bible errs in its descriptions of the sensory world -- weights, measurements, etc.; and (3.) the apostolic testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ was not based on what they "knew." And all this is happily tolerated on a "Puritan" board! Enough is enough.

Is this an example of self-righteous indignation? A display of emotive frustration? Or could it be perhaps that the Lord has convicted you and you're now chaffing under His correction? I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been there, done that . . . and more than once I might add.

For the record, it is you who denies the biblical account and Jesus’ words per Mat 16:17. No Apostle came to recognize Jesus as the Christ via sensation. Your have neither accounted for your empiricism from Scripture nor have you deduce it from Scripture. It is clear, at least to me, that it is you who has merely imposed your sensual philosophy upon Scripture.

Further, even *recognizing* Jesus AS Jesus is the immediate work of God and not the result of the bogus epistemic Pelagianism you subscribe to. We have the account given of the disciples following the resurrection walking with Jesus on the road to Emmaus whose “eyes were prevented from recognizing Him (Luke 24:16).” What prevented them Rev. Winzer? Were their senses malfunctioning? Did they need glasses?

Yet, despite talking with Jesus and traveling with him for some distance – and even eating with Him – it was only at the very moment right before Jesus left do we read; “And their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.” Who opened their eyes Rev. Winzer? Did they both just happen to find their glasses at that precise moment and, voilà, there was Jesus? I’m sorry, but your sensate epistemology has been demolished once again under the sheer weight of Scripture.

As I said earlier, could it be it be that the basic premises of Scripturalism exposes unbelief and in this case even your own? That would certainly explain your reaction above.

Further, I’m a little surprise that you would now stoop to lying. No one has said the Scripture “errs in its descriptions of the sensory world.” No one has said the Scriptures err at all. Is this just another flailing reaction of yours out of your own frustration, desperation and emotion? Besides, the Scripture nowhere asserts that there is a “sensory world” or even that men have sensations. It's my view that this is just your bald assumption not born of Scripture, but of your evident Thomism. For what it's worth you can't even find the word "sensation" anywhere in Scripture and you certainly haven't been able to deduce anything close to it either.

I’m glad you said “enough is enough” because you haven’t provided even one sound argument, even any real challenge, in defense of your views.

God willing my tone per the above is acceptable for these boards, because I certainly think it is fitting in response given the vitriolic nature of your attack. It is clear to me that you are incapable of a dispassionate and rational discussion especially when it challenges your own errant philosophic and anti-Scriptural presuppositions.

Perhaps you should cool off for a while before jumping in again?

 

[Davidius]

For the record, it is you who denies the biblical account and Jesus’ words per Mat 16:17. No Apostle came to recognize Jesus as the Christ via sensation. Your have neither accounted for your empiricism from Scripture nor have you deduce it from Scripture. It is clear, at least to me, that it is you who has merely imposed your sensual philosophy upon Scripture.

Further, even *recognizing* Jesus AS Jesus is the immediate work of God and not the result of the bogus epistemic Pelagianism you subscribe to. We have the account given of the disciples following the resurrection walking with Jesus on the road to Emmaus whose “eyes were prevented from recognizing Him (Luke 24:16).” What prevented them Rev. Winzer? Were their senses malfunctioning? Did they need glasses?

Yet, despite talking with Jesus and traveling with him for some distance – and even eating with Him – it was only at the very moment right before Jesus left do we read; “And their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.” Who opened their eyes Rev. Winzer? Did they both just happen to find their glasses at that precise moment and, voilà, there was Jesus? I’m sorry, but your sensate epistemology has been demolished once again under the sheer weight of Scripture.

As I said earlier, could it be it be that the basic premises of Scripturalism exposes unbelief and in this case even your own? That would certainly explain your reaction above.

Perhaps another relevant passage would be Peter when he was asked "Who do you say that I am?" Upon giving the correct answer, Christ said that it had not been revealed to him by flesh and blood, but by the Father.

I'm confused about Scripturalism and Romans 1, though, and other places where the creation is said to be telling of God.

 

[Magma2]

My intention is to attempt to get around the fact that we were working from different starting points, and so talking past each other. I wanted to get us all on the same page.

For myself, either what Sean and Anthony are saying is too deep for me to understand, or it's just too much for the simpleton. There's no inbetween because we're not connecting on the same level. The problem is two-fold then: which is it? and, how do I communicate that? That was my intention. And it goes both ways; both sides can do the same thing.

I don't think you're a simpleton, nor do I think what has been said is "too deep." Perhaps the problem is it is so contrary to your own basic and even reflexive assumptions? The other problem is that perhaps I haven't explain things as well or as thoroughly as I should, but I don't think these boards are really conducive for anything more than thumbnail sketches and rejoinders.

I will recommend to you the same thing I recommended to Rich and that is read Clark and start with the volume on Christian philosophy (http://www.trinitylectures.org/prod...d=146&osCsid=3a0c88975b2e0e7b1180316c2f729a22 ).

Clark is brilliant in exposing even our most strongly held and hidden sacred cows by bringing them to light of Scripture.

 

[Civbert]

...At the same time, as Sean has stated what he thinks the common objection to Scripturalism seems to be to him, as he understands it, what mark stands out in the objections that make them appear wrong to Scripturalists?

In order to answer, I need to respond to the objections posted. I'm not sure how to this and avoid replying to those who are posting the objections.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What is this thread about John because I need to moderate it if it's a dialogue for non-Clarkians to expound why they don't like Scripturalism then we need to keep it that way.

I believe this might be useful for Clarkians to have to "look in" without responding so they can figure out how they need to articulate better (if some of the objections can be overcome by better instruction). The tit-for-tat only leads to arguments.

I may not agree with my students but I do read feedback forms and take heed to the criticism I get in ways I can improve my communication of ideas.

 

[JohnV]

OK, that's pretty clear, Rich. You seem to me to be saying that Scripturalism is strictly propositional, consisting of its parts of terms, syntax, and definitions, and nothing else. And its connection with reality is mystical, making the jump to "I know" through no discernible medium. In other words, it can talk about knowing quite well, but cannot itself know, and denies any thought of such knowledge. Is that right?

 

[Magma2]

To Sean and Anthony: I know some of these characterizations might cause you to react sharply to me. They are not aimed at you, they are my observations of why I don't like the system and, if it's based on my ignorance, then I'm learning but those are my observations thus far.

I appreciate your thoughts and honesty. This isn't a popularity contest after all, the truth never is. If my delivery of some of the ideas I've expressed are the reasons for your gut reactions, then I take full responsibility. I'm nowhere as erudite and as eloquent as Clark who was a scholar of unusual genius. I guess you can just say I'm just a hack and I don't think even Rev. Winzer would disagree.

 

[JohnV]

Well, thanks for your input, Sean, but you haven't answered the question. I'm not asking for reactions to each other's observations about the other just yet. I'm asking for observations about the positions that have been conveyed. Let's leave the persons out of this for now.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

OK, that's pretty clear, Rich. You seem to me to be saying that Scripturalism is strictly propositional, consisting of its parts of terms, syntax, and definitions, and nothing else. And its connection with reality is mystical, making the jump to "I know" through no discernible medium. In other words, it can talk about knowing quite well, but cannot itself know, and denies any thought of such knowledge. Is that right?

I think so John.

 

[MW]

Is this an example of self-righteous indignation? A display of emotive frustration? Or could it be perhaps that the Lord has convicted you and you're now chaffing under His correction? I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been there, done that . . . and more than once I might add.

Correction? No, I'm not going to change my reformed confessionalism for idealistic individualism which twists and turns every which way to justify itself, all the while undermining basic Christian beliefs.

For the record, it is you who denies the biblical account and Jesus’ words per Mat 16:17. No Apostle came to recognize Jesus as the Christ via sensation. Your have neither accounted for your empiricism from Scripture nor have you deduce it from Scripture. It is clear, at least to me, that it is you who has merely imposed your sensual philosophy upon Scripture.

More Scripturalist conflations. The issue is not the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; but that the apostles knew they saw Jesus alive. Civbert's denial of this point undermines the basis Christian tenet that Christ "showed" himself alve by many infallible proofs, Acts 1:3.
The same conflation is carried on for the next two paragraphs.

As I said earlier, could it be it be that the basic premises of Scripturalism exposes unbelief and in this case even your own? That would certainly explain your reaction above.

Yes, I confess, it exposes my unbelief in theological liberalism. It has hit a raw nerve, I can't bear to see people deny the fundamentals of the faith. I do not exercise a false charity towards men who claim to represent the faith but do not.

Further, I’m a little surprise that you would now stoop to lying. No one has said the Scripture “errs in its descriptions of the sensory world.” No one has said the Scriptures err at all. Is this just another flailing reaction of yours out of your own frustration, desperation and emotion? Besides, the Scripture nowhere asserts that there is a “sensory world” or even that men have sensations. It's my view that this is just your bald assumption not born of Scripture, but of your evident Thomism. For what it's worth you can't even find the word "sensation" anywhere in Scripture and you certainly haven't been able to deduce anything close to it either.

The facts speak for themselves, as testified by Civbert over the course of this oft-splintered thread.

No, I can't find the word "sensation" in Scripture, but then I can't find the word "proposition" either. That neither word is to be found in Scripture poses no problem to the realist view, but is an insurmountable wall for the idealist.

I’m glad you said “enough is enough” because you haven’t provided even one sound argument, even any real challenge, in defense of your views.

Coming from a person who is of the opinion that I cannot know that he exists, this does not present much of a challenge.

God willing my tone per the above is acceptable for these boards, because I certainly think it is fitting in response given the vitriolic nature of your attack. It is clear to me that you are incapable of a dispassionate and rational discussion especially when it challenges your own errant philosophic and anti-Scriptural presuppositions.

False teachers always call for discussion when their views are exposed as error. They would have the Christian church to bear with them as they try to explain themselves.

 

[Civbert]

Now, now, Anthony. I asked others not to respond to your observation. I would ask of you the same courtesy to others.

Others are responding to our observations which is why I find this confusing. I thought you asked Scripturalist to answer what we find wrong with the objections to Scripturalism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sean and Rev. Winzer,

You have responded to one another. The reasons are clear to both sides at this point.

Let's keep the thread on track.