Christianity and the Source of all Truth

[JM]

Question to JM (or to any other Calvinist for that matter): Is it possible that your Calvinist views go against what the Scriptures actually teach?

It depends on what you mean by Calvinist.

~JM~

 

[Drew]

It depends on what you mean by Calvinist.

~JM~

OK. Let me pose a more specific question: Is it possible that the Scriptures do not teach that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future?

 

[Fnerb]

OK. Let me pose a more specific question: Is it possible that the Scriptures do not teach that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future?

How is is possible that "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." wouldn't have knowledge of the future?

 

[Drew]

How is is possible that "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." wouldn't have knowledge of the future?

Well for one thing, "the future" may not be a real thing that God can know anything about. This is only a partial answer to your question, and I am not sure we all want to go down that road. In the context of a discussion of the relationship between "our thoughts about God" and what the "Scriptures say" about God, I am merely trying to get JM (and others) to admit what I think we must all admit: the picture that we have about God in our minds may not be accurate.

If someone is going to say that it is simply not possible for them to be wrong in their belief about what the Scrupture teaches, then there is really nothing to discuss is there? We should gather at that person's feet and be taught.

I am really only asking people to admit the possibility that their views about God are in error. This is not asking much and I doubt any person would dispute this.

 

[JM]

OK. Let me pose a more specific question: Is it possible that the Scriptures do not teach that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future?

OK. When you ask "is it possible," are you asking for evidental possibilities or presuppositional possibilities?

~JM~

___________________________________________________________________
"A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true." (RL Dabney, Systematic Theology, sect. 1, chap. 6, lect. 8

 

[JM]

How is is possible that "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." wouldn't have knowledge of the future?

You are correct Fnerb.

 

[Drew]

OK. When you ask "is it possible," are you asking for evidental possibilities or presuppositional possibilities?

You presently hold in your mind certain beliefs about what the Scriptures teach about God. One of these beliefs (if I understand all your previous posts) is that God knows the future exhaustively.

My question is really rather simple: Is it possible that your views about God's foreknowledge do not match what the Scriptures teach about this subject?

 

[Drew]

How is is possible that "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." wouldn't have knowledge of the future?

You are correct Fnerb.

Fnerb is not correct to imply that the fact that God is the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" means that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future (Fnerb did not actually use the word "exhaustive" but I assume that was the intent - correct me if I am wrong).

This text in no way establishes that God's knowledge of "the future" is exhaustive. Lets look in detail.

He is the Alpha and the Omega: I assume that this is really a different way of expressing the assertion that He is the "beginning and the end". This in no way establishes exhaustive foreknowledge - I suggest that it is a claim that God has initiated the universe and its history and He will be intimately involved in its evolution through time. That God knows every event that will take place in advance is something read into this passage.

Whatever the expressions "Alpha and Omega" and "beginning and end" mean, we need some kind of argument as to why this requires or strongly implies exhaustive foreknowledge.

 

[Vic C.]

You presently hold in your mind certain beliefs about what the Scriptures teach about God. One of these beliefs (if I understand all your previous posts) is that God knows the future exhaustively.

My question is really rather simple: Is it possible that your views about God's foreknowledge do not match what the Scriptures teach about this subject?

I don't know Drew; Prophecy alone disproves HIS lack of foreknowledge. Maybe your question should be whether or not HE uses this foreknowledge exhaustively. How much of it does HE exert on HIS Creation; enough to accomplish HIS will, or is it really totally predetermined in every detail?

If you continue with suggesting lack of foreknowledge, they will keep on saying you are promoting Openness.

 

[Drew]

Prophecy alone disproves HIS lack of foreknowledge.

I have never denied that God has some foreknowledge.

Maybe your question should be whether or not HE uses this foreknowledge exhaustively. How much of it does HE exert on HIS Creation; enough to accomplish HIS will, or is it really totally predetermined in every detail?

I have raised this question.

If you continue with suggesting lack of foreknowledge, they will keep on saying you are promoting Openness.

That's OK by me. I know there are some who use the term "open theist" as a kind of a "smear" (not you and not JM ). I actually do think that the Scripture support openness. Let those who engage in the "politics" of smearing continue. The opinion of such persons is of no consequence to me.

 

[Vic C.]

I have never denied that God has some foreknowledge.

I don't believe there is a grey area here. Either HE has foreknowledge or HE doesn't. Could there be any part of creation's future that is not foreseeable by HIM? If so; why not? What is there in HIS creation that would not allow HIM such a luxury?

 

[Guest]

A note of clarification: While I do agree that we should look at the Scriptures as our starting point and as the ultimate authority on matters of faith, morality, etc., I do believe that God teaches us about truth in other ways as well - through the "lessons of life" for example. And also through an empirical approach to gaining knowledge. So, for example, I do not believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old even though a "literal" reading of the Scriptures would tend to promote such a view.

In the end, I think that this can all work together without contradiction - however, I am more than happy to entertain arguments that its kind of an "all or nothing" affair such that any "lesson of life" or empirical investigation should be eyed with suspicion.

In a sense I think that 'separating' the teaching of Scriptures from the lessons and data of life is a separation that cannot work. This is a though that just occurred to me, so I will say no more for the present.

This explains a lot. Drew is an empiricist. He thinks that men learn through their senses. This is a HUGE assumption which has NEVER been proved in the entire HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Brand Blanshard was just one modern secular philosopher who annihilated positivism and empiricism in the 20th century.

Drew's claim that the Bible is his starting point is contradictory to the idea that men learn through their senses. He is epistemologically confused.

The Bible never claims that men learn through their senses (a point Aurelius Augustine proved from Scripture centuries ago in his book De Magistro), but rather, it condemns this erroneous epistemology as Dr. Gordon H. Clark and Dr. John W. Robbins have so often demonstrated recently. See their essay archives which demonstrate the folly of empirical thought and empirical theologians: http://www.trinityfoundation.org

I asked Drew on another thread if he believed the Bible contradicts itself. Positivism, or should we say modern scientific method, has always been opposed to the Scriptures and contradict the Scriptures at numerous points.
This seems to explain his confusion on other points of Calvinist doctrine. Drew has two competing starting points, not one starting point. Remember, a man can not have two masters.

Drew, like any claiming to be an empiricist, will need to show how a man learns learns through his senses. If he can't do this, then why should any believe him?

Drew will also need to reconcile the Verification Principle, which is the basis for empiricism, with the fact that the Bible teaches that men learn propositionally, not through their senses. Carl F. H. Henry's classic work titled God, Revelation and Authority shows the logical impossibility of reconciling the Verification Principle with Scripture.

The history of philosophy in general, and Christian philosophers like Gordon H. Clark in particular, have always shown that empiricism ends in hopeless skepticism.

Sola Scriptura is the starting point, not empiricism.
Red Beetle

 

[JM]

You presently hold in your mind certain beliefs about what the Scriptures teach about God. One of these beliefs (if I understand all your previous posts) is that God knows the future exhaustively.

My question is really rather simple: Is it possible that your views about God's foreknowledge do not match what the Scriptures teach about this subject?

What do you mean by foreknowledge?

j

 

[Drew]

This explains a lot. Drew is an empiricist. He thinks that men learn through their senses. This is a HUGE assumption which has NEVER been proved in the entire HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. Brand Blanshard was just one modern secular philosopher who annihilated positivism and empiricism in the 20th century.

Drew's claim that the Bible is his starting point is contradictory to the idea that men learn through their senses. He is epistemologically confused.

The Bible never claims that men learn through their senses (a point Aurelius Augustine proved from Scripture centuries ago in his book De Magistro), but rather, it condemns this erroneous epistemology as Dr. Gordon H. Clark and Dr. John W. Robbins have so often demonstrated recently. See their essay archives which demonstrate the folly of empirical thought and empirical theologians: http://www.trinityfoundation.org

I asked Drew on another thread if he believed the Bible contradicts itself. Positivism, or should we say modern scientific method, has always been opposed to the Scriptures and contradict the Scriptures at numerous points.
This seems to explain his confusion on other points of Calvinist doctrine. Drew has two competing starting points, not one starting point. Remember, a man can not have two masters.

Drew, like any claiming to be an empiricist, will need to show how a man learns learns through his senses. If he can't do this, then why should any believe him?

Drew will also need to reconcile the Verification Principle, which is the basis for empiricism, with the fact that the Bible teaches that men learn propositionally, not through their senses. Carl F. H. Henry's classic work titled God, Revelation and Authority shows the logical impossibility of reconciling the Verification Principle with Scripture.

The history of philosophy in general, and Christian philosophers like Gordon H. Clark in particular, have always shown that empiricism ends in hopeless skepticism.

Sola Scriptura is the starting point, not empiricism.

Do I believe that men learn through their senses? Guilty as charged. As a kid I attempted to swallow a partially inflated balloon. Result: Knowledge!

RB will need to explain to us (drawing on his extensive training in logic, no doubt) precisely how it is that placing the Scriptures in a position of authority cannot be properly integrated with an empirical approach to gaining knowledge about the world.

Rather than point to some web site, perhaps RB can give us a thumbnail overview of precisely how the Scriptures condemn empiricism as a means of gaining useful information about the world. And remember, I have never, repeat never, claimed that empiricism is the only route to knowledge, or is even a starting point.

As to a claim that I ascribe to "competing" starting points, I would ask the reader to remember what I wrote, not how RB represents my position. I said that the Scriptures should be our starting point on matters of faith, morality, etc (perhaps the etc is a little vague, I admit). I am not 100% sure about the dividing line is between items of knowledge that can be deduced solely from the Scriptures and items that cannot. If anyone wants to argue that the number of electrons circling the chlorine nucleus is deducible from the Scriptures alone, the platform is yours. Not knowing the "location" of this boundary is not sign of the weakness of my position.

Do I think that the Scriptures are wrong about the creation account? Let me be clear. I believe that the world is not 10,000 years old. I believe the creation account is probably not literal. Does this means that I deny the Scriptures in favour of empiricism? It would suit RED BEETLE's purposes to characterize the situation this way - that I am trying to serve competing masters. However, I will claim that I am in no way forced into such a choice. I can claim the Genesis account, if not strictly literal, still teaches authoritatively on the nature of man, God and their relationship to one another.

Am I really confused by Calvinist doctrine just because I point out flaws in RB's arguments? Let the reader decide.

 

[Drew]

What do you mean by foreknowledge?

j

Forget my earlier questions and please consider this one: Is it possible that your position on any matter of Christian doctrine is mistaken (i.e. at variance with the factual truth)?

If someone asked me this question, I would answer yes.

 

[Solo]

Forget my earlier questions and please consider this one: Is it possible that your position on any matter of Christian doctrine is mistaken (i.e. at variance with the factual truth)?

If someone asked me this question, I would answer yes.

You would be correct.

 

[Guest]

Do I believe that men learn through their senses? Guilty as charged.

This, for you who have not studied philosophy, is an epistemological starting point. Drew will have to prove that men learn through their senses. Can't wait to see this one!

RB will need to explain to us (drawing on his extensive training in logic, no doubt) precisely how it is that placing the Scriptures in a position of authority cannot be properly integrated with an empirical approach to gaining knowledge about the world.

Nope. I only have to state my starting point, then punch holes in yours.
My starting point is 66 Books of the Protestant Bible.

And remember, I have never, repeat never, claimed that empiricism is the only route to knowledge, or is even a starting point.

If you want to appeal to a Kantian model, then go to it. Just state your epistemology. Right now, your only claim is that you believe you learn through your senses. I wonder why Aristotle didn't use the "swallow the balloon" proof to demonstrate his empiricism? :wink:

I said that the Scriptures should be our starting point on matters of faith, morality, etc (perhaps the etc is a little vague, I admit).

Forgive me for asking an epistemological question at this point, but HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? Did you sense that the Bible is a religious book? Hey, William James might agree with you.

I am not 100% sure about the dividing line is between items of knowledge that can be deduced solely from the Scriptures and items that cannot.

Empiricism always ends in uncertainty and scepticism.

If anyone wants to argue that the number of electrons circling the chlorine nucleus is deducible from the Scriptures alone, the platform is yours.

I guess you will first have to show that electrons exist, rather than dogmatically assume such a thing (that's not very scientific you know). Science sure hasn't come to any conclusions on the existence of electrons, or even gravity. Einstein claims that Newton was wrong, yet they don't tell anyone this at the high-school level. Such facts tend to dissuade students from entering a field that is constantly changing, even its so-called proven laws. Fact is, no one has ever seen an electron, and that's a real problem for empiricism.

Not knowing the "location" of this boundary is not sign of the weakness of my position.

Once I had a science teacher tell me that knowledge is power. Though she obviously was oblivious to the fact that such a statement originated with Plato, a man who repudiated any truthful claims based upon the senses, she nevertheless thought that knowing was powerful. It seems to follow that not knowing is rather weak. But, as one can see from your posts in other threads, not knowing has never stopped you from making a plethora of assertions. :D

Do I think that the Scriptures are wrong about the creation account? Let me be clear. I believe that the world is not 10,000 years old. I believe the creation account is probably not literal. Does this means that I deny the Scriptures in favour of empiricism? It would suit RED BEETLE's purposes to characterize the situation this way - that I am trying to serve competing masters. However, I will claim that I am in no way forced into such a choice. I can claim the Genesis account, if not strictly literal, still teaches authoritatively on the nature of man, God and their relationship to one another.

Well that was a clear answer, not.
How do you know it is not strictly literal? Are you subjecting it to a higher authority? Please answer, then tell us what method you use to determine whether some part of Scripture should be subjected to your higher empirical authority. Sounds to me like your fine with the Scripture as long as it agrees with Carl Sagan's take on things.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Drew wrote:

1. Life experience - living in the real world - is a valuable source of "information" on "how to live". So I would say that such experience will and should inform how we read and interpret the Scriptures. I suspect that this probably is not at odds with the quoted statement. A 70 year old will probably have a more correct understanding on what it means to love than a 15 year old, even if they both have equal knowledge of the Scriptures.

The above is a good example of the irrationalism that results from an empirical world view. First of all, notice how Drew thinks that experience "will and should inform how we read and interpret Scripture." This places the Bible underneath the authority of empirical analysis.

He then thinks that a 70 year old will have a better understanding on the definition of "love" than a 15 year old, even if they have equal knowledge of the Scripture. A ridiculous claim, for if both know the Scriptures equally, then both know how the Scriptures define the term "love". Guess what, it is not defined as a feeling or an experience. The Bible says, "This is love, that we walk according to His commandments" 2 John, verse 6. Now, if both the 70 year old and the 15 year old know the Bible, then they both know this definition, but if the 70 year old rejects it due to the empirical notion of love prevalent in Romanticism, while the 15 year old does not, then it is clear that the 15 year old has the better understanding--even if he has never read Emerson.

Plato did not agree that those with great experience and credibility had a clearer understanding, especially when it came to simple definitions. Plato wrote:
"It seemed to me, as I pursued my investigation at the god's command, that the people with the greatest reputations were almost entirely deficient, while others who were supposed to be their inferiors were much better qualified" Plato: Collected Dialogues, Apology, Princeton University Press, June 1996, page 8.

Sola Scriptura
Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

Do I believe that men learn through their senses? Guilty as charged.

This, for you who have not studied philosophy, is an epistemological starting point. Drew will have to prove that men learn through their senses. Can't wait to see this one!

I did study philosophy - at Princeton University as a matter of fact. Where did you study philosophy, my friend? Now, do you see how silly it is to play the game of "credentials". Credentials do not matter - good arguments do.

It might indeed be tricky to "prove" that men learn through their senses, and I do not pretend to be prepared to "prove" this. It certainly seems obvious that we do. Information about the world enters our eyes and ears and we gain new knowledge - the sky is blue, liver tastes awful etc. But our senses are indeed only sensors. So perhaps, just perhaps, it might be "technically true" that they do not contribute to learning.

At the end of the day, I am not sure this really matters. I claim that empiricism can be integrated with placing the scriptures in an authoritative position and you seemingly do not. Readers have a right to expect a case for each of your respective viewpoints.

 

[Drew]

RB will need to explain to us (drawing on his extensive training in logic, no doubt) precisely how it is that placing the Scriptures in a position of authority cannot be properly integrated with an empirical approach to gaining knowledge about the world.

Nope. I only have to state my starting point, then punch holes in yours.
My starting point is 66 Books of the Protestant Bible.

Obviously incorrect yet again. If you are going to take a position (namely that one cannot properly integrate empiricism with Scriptural authority) you need to actually make a case. How dumb do you think the readers are? In the same post that you make the above statement, you demand that I prove that men learn through their senses. Fair enough - I indeed made that claim and you do have a right to expect me to support it. But why are you not required to support your position that empiricism does not give us knowledge of the world?

Look - the inquisitive reader will expect a case for either position. Neither of us can simply claim our positions and expect people to blindly accept. Perhaps if the inspiration strikes and if time permits, I will try to make a case

As for "punching holes", in the position that empiricism can be integrated with Scriptural authority, please point us to a post where you have done this. I really mean this. A specific post. And not one where your position is simply asserted (or where you refer to someone else's argument).