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

[Magma2]

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.

Well, I can't help sort out your confusion if you don't state what it is exactly. I can only assume I'm not even sure what you're asking because so far what I've read seems to me very vague. OTOH I think I've been extremely clear and I think my opponents position is without biblical warrant and is also easy to understand. They assume because they have eyes, ears and noses and that the Lord God is Creator that eyes, ears and noses are a means to knowledge. Unfortunately for them, this doesn't follow.

As I said early on to Rev. Winzer if knowledge required experience then God could not know anything at all.

 

[JohnV]

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.

No, Rich, this is for Clarkians too. It is also for them to observe what it is about the anti Scripturalism view that they cannot understand or see, and why they cannot put their trust in the types of arguments that are presented as counters.

But I don't just want us to talk about our observations of the other sides arguments or tactics. I'm hoping that we can circumvent all these by stating them, and then discuss the arguments in a way that actually interacts with what others are saying. I still want an answer to my question about Jesus and His love, because I think Anthony went right around it, only sounding like he answered it. I have no doubt that he thinks he answered it, but I don't think he is open to what I really asked. I don't think he understands what I asked. So if we talk about the things that obviate the other side for us, then maybe we can cut through all the bluster, and get to the heart of the matter. And maybe we can finally get some real answers.

I'm thinking this from my side. But what if maybe, just maybe, Anthony and Sean are right, and I missed what they said? I'm open for that too. So, let's give them a chance as well.

The common objections so far is disconnectedness with the religious heart of the faith. In the area of knowledge, Scripturalism has all the bases covered, but it is only a semantic covering, and does not speak to the spirit of the man. This seems to summarize the observations against Scripturalism so far.

I would still like to see some more Scripturalist responses before I can summarize its observations.

 

[Magma2]

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.

Perhaps you should get out your little gavel again since I see now Rev. Winzer is now accusing Clark of being a false teacher. I'm happy to keep things on track, but I think such arrogant and uncalled for slander should be at least noted.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No, Rich, this is for Clarkians too.

Roger, at least you weren't the only one confused Anthony. Have at it...

 

[MW]

Perhaps you should get out your little gavel again since I see now Rev. Winzer is now accusing Clark of being a false teacher. I'm happy to keep things on track, but I think such arrogant and uncalled for slander should be at least noted.

I've not mentioned Clark once. More conflation by the Scripturalist. I have restricted myself to statements made by Civbert. Magma2 ought to stick to the facts as they can be known, and not state mere opinions.

 

[JohnV]

Well, I can't help sort out your confusion if you don't state what it is exactly. I can only assume I'm not even sure what you're asking because so far what I've read seems to me very vague. OTOH I think I've been extremely clear and I think my opponents position is without biblical warrant and is also easy to understand. They assume because they have eyes, ears and noses and that the Lord God is Creator that eyes, ears and noses are a means to knowledge. Unfortunately for them, this doesn't follow.

As I said early on to Rev. Winzer if knowledge required experience then God could not know anything at all.

So you objection is that the ant Scripturalists just aren't listening, as plain as you have made the case. According to your last sentence, they rely on their ears and eyes and noses, because God has created them to corelate to reality, and then they deny the connection is logical.

 

[JohnV]

I've got to sign out for a few hours. It's now early evening. I'll be back in the morning.

 

[MW]

As I said early on to Rev. Winzer if knowledge required experience then God could not know anything at all.

Read John 17 for the Trinitarian experience.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Perhaps you should get out your little gavel again since I see now Rev. Winzer is now accusing Clark of being a false teacher. I'm happy to keep things on track, but I think such arrogant and uncalled for slander should be at least noted.

Sean,

My remarks were intended to be moderating because the dialogue between you two was clear about where you two stood and longer elaborations on them are unnecessary. You accused a minister of sinning, he accused you of holding to false teachings. The dialogue does not need further elaboration at this point and I ask both parties to cease. (there it is)

 

[Civbert]

.... I still want an answer to my question about Jesus and His love, because I think Anthony went right around it, only sounding like he answered it. I have no doubt that he thinks he answered it, but I don't think he is open to what I really asked. I don't think he understands what I asked. So if we talk about the things that obviate the other side for us, then maybe we can cut through all the bluster, and get to the heart of the matter. And maybe we can finally get some real answers..

I'm a little confused - again. What was the question? I'd like to avoid going around the questions, but I'm afraid I missed the question entirely. I'm really not trying to be obtuse. I'm lost on this. There was such a sudden exchange of posts that I'm not certain what you are referring to, and I've apparently left a negative impression on you.

 

[JohnV]

I'm not even sure what you're asking because so far what I've read seems to me very vague. OTOH I think I've been extremely clear and I think my opponents position is without biblical warrant and is also easy to understand.(emphasis mine, jv)

As I said early on to Rev. Winzer if knowledge required experience then God could not know anything at all.

It is the bolded part that this thread is about, Sean. There is a gap here between the speaker and the hearer, between the one who explains it and the one who tries to understand it. It won't do to accuse each other of being deaf to the explanations. It is not that we don't hear, it's that we cannot agree. It isn't even just that we will not agree; there are things that are in you explanations that make it forbidden for us to agree. At least, that's what's making me differ. I won't sell a diamond to get a stone, and that's what is being offered me, simply because, as I understand you, you don't see the value in the diamond.

Since it is possible, therefore, that you might say the same thing to me, I want to see if there are objective indicators available to both our views that would force a point of connection, a falsifier that both sides cannot help but abide by. Who has the diamond? And is there as test for that diamond to see who has it? I think there is. And that's the aim here.

OK, 'nuff splainin'. I'm hoping, Sean, that you will participate. If not, I can try to analyze your position about what you trust or do not trust, and you can tell us if you agree.

But for now I've got other things that need doing. I'll be back this afternoon sometime for a little while.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

John V,

What offends me re “Scripturalism” is the unwillingness to accept that the word of God is more than propositions. It is also a gateway through which we may apprehend His presence. “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The heart of God is revealed in His word, to a greater or lesser extent, according as the Spirit wills.

I live in the word of Christ. Thus in Him, I fellowship with the living God, my Father.

This appears to me alien – “mystical” – to the “Scripturalists”.

Steve

 

[JohnV]

Steve:

I think that's very clearly stated. Thanks.

A number of us share this same concern, I think. Though we might state it differently ourselves, it comes out pretty much the same.

 

[Civbert]

JohnV:

I think you missed my question.

 

[Magma2]

So you objection is that the ant Scripturalists just aren't listening, as plain as you have made the case.

Yes, I think some are just not listening. It is akin to the situation in Zec 7:11; "But they refused to pay attention, and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing." Others are listening so it's not a total loss. I'm happy with small blessings.

Look back over the posts on the other threads dealing with the question of epistemology (since they keep getting subdivided I can't point to just one). I'm frankly amazed at how little actual interaction there has been from my opponents with the Scriptural evidence and arguments adduced in support of the idea that experience or sensation is not a requirement for knowledge nor is it necessary.

Instead of interaction they merely counter with things like fallacious and Pharisaic weather forecasting methods as so-called "proof" that knowledge comes by observation. When you point out that Jesus was arguing in an ad hominem fashion, they don't counter with support for their questionable exegesis and supposition that weathermen are in the knowledge business, they just shut their ears, mumble some bromides about Reformed Tradition, and move on.

According to your last sentence, they rely on their ears and eyes and noses, because God has created them to corelate to reality, and then they deny the connection is logical.

Implied in that last sentence was that there is no logical connection between being created by God and coming to the knowledge of the truth of anything through our eyes, ears and noses.

 

[Magma2]

What offends me re “Scripturalism” is the unwillingness to accept that the word of God is more than propositions.

I'll suppose I should take this as just another comment stemming from ignorance. Scripturalists never say that the Word of God consists only of propositions. The Scriptures also contain commands.

I live in the word of Christ. Thus in Him, I fellowship with the living God, my Father.

This appears to me alien – “mystical” – to the “Scripturalists”.

Perhaps the reason it appears mystical to some of us is due to your mystical and irrational spin on things. I would think to live in the word of Christ might mean something along the lines of Van Til's idea of thinking God's thoughts after Him. But clearly you don't mean anything like that at all. Consequently, your assertions do seem alien to Scripture and Scripturalism has nothing to do with it.

 

[Magma2]

It won't do to accuse each other of being deaf to the explanations. It is not that we don't hear, it's that we cannot agree. It isn't even just that we will not agree; there are things that are in you explanations that make it forbidden for us to agree.

What things make it forbidden for you to agree? Forbidden by whom? Certainly not the Scriptures. If the Scriptures teach that flesh and blood are not a means by which we come to knowledge of the truth, then I would think we would be obliged to believe them.

At least, that's what's making me differ. I won't sell a diamond to get a stone, and that's what is being offered me, simply because, as I understand you, you don't see the value in the diamond.

Perhaps you're just one of those people who bought a Zirconium thinking it was actually a diamond and now you can't tell the difference between the two?

Since it is possible, therefore, that you might say the same thing to me, I want to see if there are objective indicators available to both our views that would force a point of connection, a falsifier that both sides cannot help but abide by. Who has the diamond? And is there as test for that diamond to see who has it? I think there is. And that's the aim here.

Well, if you're "forbidden" to accept a view that is clearly not your own, but it is supremely biblical , I think perhaps you are in no position to even begin to answer "Who has the diamond?"

 

[Civbert]

What offends me re “Scripturalism” is the unwillingness to accept that the word of God is more than propositions.

I think that is one of the key problems. But even is I were to accept that, how would this help? Whatever the "more" is, it isn't anything we can say is true except metaphorically.

It is also a gateway through which we may apprehend His presence. “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The heart of God is revealed in His word, to a greater or lesser extent, according as the Spirit wills.

Here's another point of difference - what does "heart" mean? And how is it different than "mind"?

I live in the word of Christ. Thus in Him, I fellowship with the living God, my Father.

So do Scripturalists. I don't see any difference here.

This appears to me alien – “mystical” – to the “Scripturalists”.

Not sure what that means.

 

[JohnV]

I've got just about enough here to go on to the next step. But I've been feeling under the weather today, and I'm not up to it right now. I guess I'm going to summarize Sean's objection to anti-Clarkianism, and I think I am going to go by his summary in the other thread, the one about how we know. So I've got some work ahead of me, when I'm feeling better.

Meanwhile, I ask everyone to look closely at the six posts in a row, just above this one. Look closely, and you will see what I'm getting at. There is a method going on in them that have nothing to do with the arguments in favour of Scripturalism. That's the objective indicators that I'm trying to get us all to see.

 

[JohnV]

Here is a quote from Sean from another thread in which we discussed Scripturalism:

For what it's worth, I think most of the objections against Scripturalism are, in one way or another, a form of the question; how do you know you have a bible in your hands? Of course, Clark might have countered; how do you get Justification by Faith alone from ink marks on a page? -- which was usually more than enough to leave his critics silent. Clark’s arguments weren’t always negative though, for example Clark responded to George Mavrodes' criticism concerning the question, "don't we have to read our bibles" as follows:

"The substantial question is how do we know the contents of the Bible. If Louis XIV or my wife could be replaced with an imposter twin, then maybe the Bible in my hands is a cunningly devised substitute.... In fact, until these [skeptical] arguments are successfully circumvented, no one has a firm basis on which to object to my general position. If anyone tries to avoid this material and relying on common opinion, charges me with paradoxes, he has failed to grasp even the first point."

Two things stand out, namely that skepticism of Scripturalism tends to veer toward an attack on Scripturalism's assessment of the integrity of knowledge through the senses, and that those who criticize Scripturalism fail to grasp the main points. That is, then, that there is a lack or failure in regard to interacting with the main arguments of Scripturalism. And this lack or failure makes this critical view of Scripturalism untrustworthy to Sean.

Have I caught the gist of it, Sean?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Not to interrupt such an...edifying...discussion, but can someone point me to a simple definition of Scripturalism?

 

[JohnV]

JD:

I think that Anthony coveys it pretty well in his first post in the thread concerning Scripturalism's use of logic. I'm not focusing in this thread on how people define their own views, but how they define the others' views. There is an impenetrable wall, it seems, in understanding each other, when all the while the subject matter is how we know. If I may give an analogy, someone playing in water would, one would think, be making some splashes or water sounds. If that is missing, isn't it right to be wondering if the person is actually playing in water? If one is talking about knowing truth, would not the characteristics of knowing truth be present? And if that is not present, am I not right in wondering if the truth is known?

 

[Civbert]

Not to interrupt such an...edifying...discussion, but can someone point me to a simple definition of Scripturalism?

Scripturalism is the worldview that says that man's knowledge comes from the Scriptures and those thing deducible therefrom. It basically says that "the Bible Alone is the Word of God" is the axiom or starting point for man's knowledge.

It's basis is the WCF where it says:

1:6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (Gal_1:8, Gal_1:9; 2Th_2:2; 2Ti_3:15-17).

It's the Christian answer to the secular philosophies such as empiricism, rationalism, mysticism, etc.

 

[JohnV]

I wanted to be able to show that I have understood the basic bones of contention for each party by restating their positions back to them in my own words. In this way it should be clear that I have put some effort into understanding the different arguments presented. I don't mean to set myself up as someone who is above all this, but rather that it is possible to put oneself in the other's epistemic shoes, so to speak, and look at from that standpoint for a while.

Now I have to set up the next stage of this attempt of mine to cut through the stalemate.

If we take a different subject for just a moment, an easier one, maybe I can make my point a bit simpler. We know that there are three millennial views that are acceptable in Reformed circles: A-, Pre-, and Post-. We also know that the Church does not decide which one is right. If there were enough Biblical indication to pin it down to one, then the Church would, of course. But there is not enough, and that's why the Church Okays the three views.

Now there are various Bible scholars who hold to these views. Each view is held by some who are respected Bible scholars. It is not that any one view has the advantage over the other. Numbers of followers might indicate which is most common, which is most popular, which is most understandable, or which is most acceptable, but number of adherents does not tip the balance in itself.

But neither does one person holding a church office. One holding office, having the responsibility of preaching and teaching, does not add to the weight of one view or the other just because he has been commissioned to an ecclesiastcal office. Just because he might be the one ordained in that particular congregation to preach and teach, his views are not thereby elevated above the views of ordinary parishioners. There still is no tipping of the balance, so to speak, because it is still true that different respected Bible scholars cannot settle the matter amongst themselves, and neither does the Church. It is wrong of a minister to use his office or his place of Biblical authority to make a determination for one of the views just because he holds office. It is wrong of a minister to use his office to advantage in a discussion of equally stated positions. The parishioner isn't allowed to call his view Bible doctrine, so neither should the minister. A parishioner might not be able to state the position as well as a minister, but that does not mean that his view is a lesser view.

A matter of liberty of conscience is a matter of liberty of conscience for all, equally. And if this is so for ministers, then it is especially so for those who do not hold positions of church authority. It also applies to scholars, even Biblical scholars, working beside the Church on matters of adiaphora

In short, there is a limit to personal views on things not plainly revealed in the Bible. Along with holding any one view, there has to be a respect for other views, a humility that one does not know as much as he ought to know to make claims of certainty. If there were certainty on such matters, surely the Church would be the first to state it. One should not raise himself above others; and especially one should not raise himself above the Church.

Another thing to look at is that at the heart of this discussion is the subject of truth. Anyone who is talking about truth, who knows something about truth, ought to display a humility before the seat of truth. There is no room for arrogance there at all. Talking about truth should automatically obviate a "better-than-thou" attitude. Pride cannot be part of the character of someone who has come face to face with truth. The more one comes into contact with truth, the more he realizes his own errors, how he has been sold to sin. Coming to the truth is a part of sanctification. And so it is the work of the Spirit. It is not we who condescend upon those who do not understand or appreciate our theories; it is the Spirit who condescends upon us who were in our errors and sins. We are not sanctified so that we might be better than others; we are sanctified so that we might be better than we were. There is no room for pride, and that is a mark of someone who makes a claim for truth.

So my next question is this: have we heard the other side's arguments for what is really being said, even if it may not be being said very well? Are we facing, and willing to face, the things that are in the arguments? Can we hear it? Are we open to what the other is saying?

 

[Magma2]

Two things stand out, namely that skepticism of Scripturalism tends to veer toward an attack on Scripturalism's assessment of the integrity of knowledge through the senses, and that those who criticize Scripturalism fail to grasp the main points. That is, then, that there is a lack or failure in regard to interacting with the main arguments of Scripturalism. And this lack or failure makes this critical view of Scripturalism untrustworthy to Sean.

Have I caught the gist of it, Sean?

I think you're close. To be clear and for the record (since it seems my post reminding Rev. Winzer of what is being discussed was removed) the biblical epistemology I'm seeking to defend and advance is that of Gordon Clark. This is the Scripturalism Rev. Winzer calls theological liberalism of all things! If I've misrepresented Clark's views in any way it would be helpful if someone would point it out, but it's clear that those who stand in judgment of Clark's Scripturalism simply have not interacted with Clark's thought to any significant degree (if at all) so I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

Regardless, anyone who has read Clark will quickly see that he was a thorough going anti-empiricist. He called it his "pet peeve" and his opposition to the very idea advanced by Rev. Winzer and others that knowledge requires experience appears in almost all of his books. The problem with those who assert the "integrity of knowledge through the senses" is that they haven't shown that the senses have any integrity much less that they are a means to knowledge. My opponents merely beg the question.

 

[Magma2]

If we take a different subject for just a moment, an easier one, maybe I can make my point a bit simpler. We know that there are three millennial views that are acceptable in Reformed circles: A-, Pre-, and Post-. We also know that the Church does not decide which one is right. If there were enough Biblical indication to pin it down to one, then the Church would, of course. But there is not enough, and that's why the Church Okays the three views.

Now there are various Bible scholars who hold to these views. Each view is held by some who are respected Bible scholars. It is not that any one view has the advantage over the other.

This is a poor analogy. For one thing Scripturalism doesn't beg the question which I would think is a clear advantage over those who merely assert the "integrity of knowledge through the senses."

So my next question is this: have we heard the other side's arguments for what is really being said, even if it may not be being said very well? Are we facing, and willing to face, the things that are in the arguments? Can we hear it? Are we open to what the other is saying?

Perhaps if they would advance some coherent defense of their views they would be taken more seriously. Begging the question is not an argument, at least not a rational one. Plus, the few biblical passages advanced in their defense have been addressed and overcome. Despite some claiming to be the oracle of Reformed theology it appears Scripture itself doesn't support any of my opponents empirical assumptions. I think if they were to express the type of humility you call for they would have to admit they have failed on this score. Besides, what hasn't been discussed yet is the one pedagogical aspect of miracles as they touch on epistemology and empiricism. The "senses" would tell us that axes don't float, men can't walk on water, chariots of fire don't all of a sudden appear, and the dead do not rise from the grave. The lesson of biblical miracles is that there is not such thing as the "integrity of knowledge through the senses." God's word alone is true.

 

[JohnV]

Sean:
Thanks for affirming my summary of your position.

In response to what you said above, namely,

This is a poor analogy. For one thing Scripturalism doesn't beg the question which I would think is a clear advantage over those who merely assert the "integrity of knowledge through the senses."

I am comparing things for which we have direct Biblical data to things for which we have deduced or induced Biblical data. The Bible does not give us an epistemological formula other than knowing by knowing God. The first letter of John might be titled, "How we may know", or "By this we know." And each time it refers to this theme it is through an objective indicator. The key question is how we know others' faith and belief along with our own. Fellowship with those who touched and saw our Lord, fellowship with the Father, is where it begins; an objective indicator of personal and demonstrable confessional content is where it ends. From these we derive unstated axioms concerning the philosophical theorem of knowledge. It is not like the millennium in this way, where we are comparing directly revealed bases. We can be more assertive concerning millennial views than we can about the philosophical theorem of epistemology, Biblically or revelationally speaking. It is more by demonstation of the Spirit's indwelling and confessional content than it is by logic or argumentation, by the convincing ability of the confessor.

So if this rule of humility applies to millennial views, how much more does it apply to matters not directly doctrinal. The authority of theorems concerning the latter are scholastic, not ecclesiastical; and are therefore not binding upon anyone. The scholastic realm has no binding power upon the Church. Only ecclesiastical authority has that power. Yet even scholars who do work in the areas concerning Biblical truth should be demonstrating that same character of truth in their knowledge in as far as they have grasped it.

Perhaps if they would advance some coherent defense of their views they would be taken more seriously. Begging the question is not an argument, at least not a rational one. Plus, the few biblical passages advanced in their defense have been addressed and overcome. Despite some claiming to be the oracle of Reformed theology it appears Scripture itself doesn't support any of my opponents empirical assumptions. I think if they were to express the type of humility you call for they would have to admit they have failed on this score. Besides, what hasn't been discussed yet is the one pedagogical aspect of miracles as they touch on epistemology and empiricism. The "senses" would tell us that axes don't float, men can't walk on water, chariots of fire don't all of a sudden appear, and the dead do not rise from the grave. The lesson of biblical miracles is that there is not such thing as the "integrity of knowledge through the senses." God's word alone is true.

It is not true by any scholarly measure that a lack of another advanced theory justifies the one proposing a theory. Just because others do not advance a theory that you can take seriously does not mean that yours is automatically the one to take seriously.

Yet all the same, the question remains whether you have seriously attempted to hear the objections. If I understand everyone correctly, your summary of their objections does not fit what they were objecting to. Your summary is more of a caricature (vb) of the objections than a serious attempt to understand them. We could ask in return what you are afraid of that you have to do that instead of trying to honestly represent our own views back to us, and then answering them for what they really are.

This is the honesty and humility that I am trying to get at. It has nothing to do with the subject of epistemology, yet it has everything to do with it as much as it has everything to do with every subject. It is an objective indicator of whether or not what you're saying has any objective meat to it, of whether it is trustworthy. If I can't trust you to understand what I am asking in my questions, if you're just going to pidgeon-hole everything that doesn't agree with your theorem, how can I trust you that you're giving me an honest and truthful, a trustworthy account of how we know?

Even lacking a serious counter theorem to yours, where is the integrity and humility in your theorem that makes it a trustworthy thing to believe? Clark aside, where is it in your accounting of it?

I'm not saying that the Scripturalists on this Board are the only ones lacking integrity and honesty. There is more pidgeon-holing going on here than just from the Scripturalists. But there is a difference. Some are doing so from the defence position behind the lines of confessionalism, while you and Anthony are doing so from a position of advancing something additional to the confessional basis. We're all guilty of arguing wrongly, of arguing ineffectively, or arguing without due care to how others take what we're saying. Yet what can be discerned behind this poor attempt at defending the confessional standard is the confessional standard that is being defended. This does not excuse the erroneous arguments, but these erroneous arguments do not undermine the trustworthiness of the standards themselves. I can disagree with Matthew, for example, and yet not disagree with the same principle he's trying to defend. We all need to come to grips with how immovable truth is on its own, without our help.

But, again, we're here talking about a theorem of epistemology that is extra-Biblical, not doctrinal, not binding. It does not stand over the doctrines of the Church, and is not superimposable upon them. It is a proposed theory. That's what we have been discussing. The sides are trusting or not trusting the proposal, believing or not believing the arguments. For me, I have to see the ingredients and characteristics of truth and of people who have come into contact with truth before I can put my trust in them. Even if the arguments are right, it is not safe to put my trust in them until I see the Spirit also in them. And someone who has that is not afraid of objections, and does not have to misrepresent objections in order to stand. Someone who stands for the truth has a real heart for those who do not have the truth because he knows well how it is only by God's grace, not his own doing, that he has been rescued from ignorance.

 

[Magma2]

The scholastic realm has no binding power upon the Church. Only ecclesiastical authority has that power. Yet even scholars who do work in the areas concerning Biblical truth should be demonstrating that same character of truth in their knowledge in as far as they have grasped it.

If the Scriptures teach that in Christ are hidden all treasures of knowledge then all Christians are bound to believe it. Period. If someone wants to assert that knowledge can be found apart from Scripture then it would follow that Christ can be also found apart from Scripture. I would think the burden of proof would be on the one making such a bold assertion, not me.

It is not true by any scholarly measure that a lack of another advanced theory justifies the one proposing a theory. Just because others do not advance a theory that you can take seriously does not mean that yours is automatically the one to take seriously.

What I've said is that the arguments advanced in support of the opposing theory, knowledge REQUIRES experience, has not been supported by Scripture and the arguments advanced have been fallacious, that means false for those in Rio Linden.

Your summary is more of a caricature (vb) of the objections than a serious attempt to understand them. We could ask in return what you are afraid of that you have to do that instead of trying to honestly represent our own views back to us, and then answering them for what they really are.

I disagree completely. I think a caricature is to label the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark "theological liberalism." That's pretty vicious too.

Even lacking a serious counter theorem to yours, where is the integrity and humility in your theorem that makes it a trustworthy thing to believe? Clark aside, where is it in your accounting of it?

What theorem are you talking about? I think I've given significant biblical account for the counter that knowledge does not require experience and if you don't want to trust that I really don't know how I can help you? Perhaps I can

I'm not saying that the Scripturalists on this Board are the only ones lacking integrity and honesty.

And I'm not suppose to take offense to this?

There is more pidgeon-holing going on here than just from the Scripturalists. But there is a difference. Some are doing so from the defence position behind the lines of confessionalism, while you and Anthony are doing so from a position of advancing something additional to the confessional basis.

Hogwash. Clark called his position, his axiom, his starting position, "the Westminster Principle" at least in his reply to George Mavrodes and he builds his philosophy in large part from WCF 1.

See his reply to Mavordes if you want some idea of how this works. Clark was arguably one of the foremost defenders of the Confessionalism of Westminister and to suggest he was going beyond the Confession is a charge I think you need to back up.

But, again, we're here talking about a theorem of epistemology that is extra-Biblical, not doctrinal, not binding.

All the truths of Scripture are binding. And if Scripture touches on epistemology, which it most certainly does, then it is hardly "extra-biblical."

 

[Civbert]

I wanted to be able to show that I have understood the basic bones of contention for each party by restating their positions back to them in my own words. ...

So what is the Scripturalist position? In your own words that is. In the remander of your post, I think you forgot to give it.

 

[Civbert]

...
If we take a different subject for just a moment, an easier one, maybe I can make my point a bit simpler. We know that there are three millennial views that are acceptable in Reformed circles: A-, Pre-, and Post-. We also know that the Church does not decide which one is right. If there were enough Biblical indication to pin it down to one, then the Church would, of course. But there is not enough, and that's why the Church Okays the three views.
...

OK. I understand your position is the Scripturalism and it's opponents view are not explicitly answered by Scripture (ironic that), so we should not impose our views on others or anathematize anyone accordingly. OK. That's your position regarding this whole thing. I disagree, but you haven't really said (in your own words) what the Scripturalist position actually is.

...
Another thing to look at is that at the heart of this discussion is the subject of truth. Anyone who is talking about truth, who knows something about truth, ought to display a humility before the seat of truth.

I understand what your trying to say here, but the kind of fallacy you are making is similar to the one you just argued against. You said that basically, just because someone with position or title takes a position, or just because a position is more popular, that does not make the position correct. Well that is true when it comes to the personalities of the people who hold a position. Luther was arrogant an rude (to say the least). Jesus would have been kicked off the board for calling people names. Paul was no wimp either when he expressed the wish that his opponents would go ahead and cut off the rest of their privates. So please don't make rudeness or lack of humility a "marker" or "indicator" that a position is false or you will have to toss out your Bible. There is not necessary (that is logical) connection between truth and attitude.

...So my next question is this: have we heard the other side's arguments for what is really being said, even if it may not be being said very well? Are we facing, and willing to face, the things that are in the arguments? Can we hear it? Are we open to what the other is saying?

Good question. I'm sure that opponents to Scripturalism have not really understood it, and I know for a fact that I have not understood many of the arguments of the opponents of Scripturalism. I have found them very confusing at times and have sought clarification.

Perhaps you can help by giving the argument for Scripturalism in your own words. I think you might speak in categories anti-Scripturalist can understand. Maybe you can translate between both parties.