That’s why you need the Roman Catholic Church.
That, anyway, is the logic of a golden-oldie from U.S. Roman Catholic teaching about the dangers of fundamentalism:
Biblical fundamentalists are those who present the Bible, God’s inspired word, as the only necessary source for teaching about Christ and Christian living. This insistence on the teaching Bible is usually accompanied by a spirit that is warm, friendly, and pious. Such a spirit attracts many (especially idealistic young) converts. With ecumenical respect for these communities, we acknowledge their proper emphasis on religion as influencing family life and workplace. The immediate attractions are the ardor of the Christian community and the promises of certitude and of a personal conversion experience to the person of Jesus Christ without the need of church. As Catholic pastors, however, we note its presentation of the Bible as a single rule for living. According to fundamentalism, the Bible alone is sufficient. There is no place for the universal teaching church—including its wisdom, its teachings, creeds, and other doctrinal formulations, its liturgical and devotional traditions. There is simply no claim to a visible, audible, living, teaching authority binding the individual or congregations.
A further characteristic of biblical fundamentalism is that it tends to interpret the Bible as being always without error or as literally true in a way quite different from the Catholic Church’s teaching on the inerrancy of the Bible. For some biblical fundamentalists, inerrancy extends even to scientific and historical matters. The Bible is presented without regard for its historical context and development. . . .
We observed in biblical fundamentalism an effort to try to find in the Bible all the direct answers for living—though the Bible itself nowhere claims such authority. The appeal of such an approach is understandable. Our world is one of war, violence, dishonesty, personal and sexual irresponsibility. It is a world in which people are frightened by the power of the nuclear bomb and the insanity of the arms race, where the only news seems to be bad news. People of all ages yearn for answers. They look for sure, definite rules for living. And they are given answers—simplistic answers to complex issues—in a confident and enthusiastic way in fundamentalist Bible groups.
The appeal is evident for the Catholic young adult or teenager—one whose family background may be troubled; who is struggling with life, morality, and religion; whose Catholic education may have been seriously inadequate in the fundamentals of doctrine, the Bible, prayer life, and sacramental living; whose catechetical formation may have been inadequate in presenting the full Catholic traditions and teaching authority. For such a person, the appeal of finding the “ANSWER” in a devout, studious, prayerful, warm, Bible-quoting class is easy to understand. But the ultimate problem with such fundamentalism is that it can give only a limited number of answers and cannot present those answers, on balance, because it does not have Christ’s teaching church nor even an understanding of how the Bible originally came to be written, and collected in the sacred canon, or official list of inspired books.
Our Catholic belief is that we know God’s revelation in the total Gospel. The Gospel comes to us through the Spirit-guided tradition of the Church and the inspired books: “This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testament are like a mirror in which the pilgrim church on earth looks at God” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 7).
A key question for any Christian is, Does the community of faith which is the Lord’s church have a living tradition which presents God’s word across the centuries until the Lord comes again? The Catholic answer to this question is an unqualified yes. That answer was expressed most recently in the Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council. We look to both the church’s official teaching and Scripture for guidance in addressing life’s problems. It is the official teaching or magisterium that in a special way guides us in matters of belief and morality that have developed after the last word of Scripture was written. The church of Christ teaches in the name of Christ and teaches us concerning the Bible itself.
The basic characteristic of biblical fundamentalism is that it eliminates from Christianity the church as the Lord Jesus founded it.
Notice that a desire for certainty in all of life’s dilemmas is not wrong. Neo-Calvinists take heart. The problem is asking the Bible to supply all the answers. The Bible only goes so far. After that, the church and tradition need to kick in.
A similar dynamic may very well be at work with neo-Calvinism. You need the Bible but you also need philosophy which provides the rudiments of w-w, which in turn yields the answers to life’s questions.
Both Rome and neo-Calvinism give a living tradition that augments Scripture. Both also like philosophy — a lot.
2kers should also take heart. The idea that the Bible doesn’t speak to all of life is like what we’re sayin’. We’re also saying, live with the uncertainty. To which the Romanists and Amsterdamists reply, “that’s not inspiring.”
Old Life 
Speaking of our collected canon, I read a great quote yesterday:
– JV Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards
LikeLike
Live with the tension
LikeLike
Epistemic humility. Blessed is he who knows what he doesn’t know. And everyone around him.
LikeLike
Sean, that sucks.
LikeLike
Worldviewers and Paradigmers Together.
LikeLike
Deep Mud,
Good one.
“All of life” doesn’t mean encyclopedic. Darryl, you should know better. There is true creaturely knowledge that’s not in the Bible. Every neo-Calvinist believes that. Little if any natural science in the Bible, but lots of meta-science.
LikeLike
Dr. Gray,
There was a great Nova on astrobiology, exploring the possibility of eight legged creatures on the planets with the existence of greater gravity could require the additional support that such a design would afford these hypothetical aliens (start watching at minute 47). Sand whales, and how did the sharks come to dominate the sea with such small brains (we humans seem to have the land thing conquered, and our bigger brains seemed to help, I think..)
A lot of speculative science, but still fun nonetheless. Good to hear from you.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Terry M. Gray
Posted April 3, 2015 at 3:27 pm | Permalink
“All of life” doesn’t mean encyclopedic. Darryl, you should know better. There is true creaturely knowledge that’s not in the Bible. Every neo-Calvinist believes that. Little if any natural science in the Bible, but lots of meta-science.
Of course he knows better.
It came out of its cell again, in the day of storm and ruin, and cried out with a new and mighty voice for an elemental and emotional religion, and for the destruction of all philosophies. It had a peculiar horror and loathing of the great Greek philosophies, and of the scholasticism that had been founded on those philosophies. It had one theory that was the destruction of all theories; in fact it had its own theology which was itself the death of theology. Man could say nothing to God, nothing from God, nothing about God, except an almost inarticulate cry for mercy and for the supernatural help of Christ, in a world where all natural things were useless. Reason was useless. Will was useless. Man could not move himself an inch any more than a stone. Man could not trust what was in his head any more than a turnip. Nothing remained in earth or heaven, but the name of Christ lifted in that lonely imprecation; awful as the cry of a beast in pain.
LikeLike
Sometimes the older people get, the more black and white they become about all things being gray
Ernest Sandeen—-The Princetonians and the Fundamentalists agreed with one another in general mood and in the elaboration of their central theme of Biblical authority. Both groups thought
in pre-Kantian, pre-Schleiermachian rationalistic terms. Over and against the new theologies of
immanence and social gospel, both stressed God’s transcendence, and supra-historical power and
expressed themselves in very pessimistic terms when discussing social problems. The two movements were by no means completely compatible, but the common Modernist foe kept them at peace with one another throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
“Toward a Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism,” Church History 36 (March 1967): p 67
Click to access Snoeberger,%20Where%27s%20the%20Love.pdf
LikeLike
Mark, it’s a curious thing to see 2K theology so closely aligned with dispensationalism. Maybe the alleged alignment will knock some sense into those who really are covenant theologians, ie the OPC and URC folks at Old Life.
LikeLike
Daryl,
Your attempt to deal with uncertainty is to say “meh, just live it”? I think a crucial test for any worldview is whether or not it can compete in the market place of ideas. “Just live with agnosticism” isn’t going to get the job done. Weak.
LikeLike
Kenneth….…
LikeLike
We’re also saying, live with the uncertainty.
——–
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. – Isaiah 55:8
My….are not….I can live with that
LikeLike
loser ken, right. for you it’s all about winning. don’t you ever worry about a theology of glory? Of course, always in a poor church for the poor kind of way (just ignore all the basilicas in Rome and all the church’s assets).
LikeLike
Why tradition finally becomes a rival to Scripture:
LikeLike
Kenneth,
And hey, while I have you..
Any chance we can get angry Catholic Nick to listen to Drunk ex-Pastors? I still read creedcodecult, I think that guy just needs to chill. It’s been fun chumming it up with you with the drunks. It’s interested to see who that podcast attracts (let’s get Comrade to come over here to post with Darryl and the sneerers (thanks TVD).
Good of you to show up. Have a nice Easter, man. Peace.
LikeLike
two sources of wisdom -eith from above or from’ below’ Job 38:36; Col 2:3; 1 Cor 2; James 1:5
LikeLike
The bible can’t speak to all of life but Phil Collins can.
LikeLike
Time to re-visit a golden oldie.
a., is prudent plumbing from above or from below?
LikeLike
Daryl,
I feel like the gospel is pretty….. glorious? Why do we have to chose between grace or glory? Can’t we humble ourselves and say we are utterly dependant on God’s grace…. while still marveling at His glorious Church?
LikeLike
If the Church sold all of its assets and melted down all of saint Peters we might be able to feed the world for like a day. At the same time though, the world would have suffered a great and terrible loss. The smells and bells can really be moving.
LikeLike
Kenneth, and if Francis renounced the very office of papacy it would go a longer way to show humility than all the “here, get a shot of me praying and hugging poor people” photo ops, as in Matthew 6.
But does Paul sound like a guy worried about being a player on the marketplace of ideas:
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
LikeLike
Z,
I guess… were the apostles “not humble” because they spoke with authority? Is it so audacious to carry the torch that Christ Himself handed on? I don’t think so.
Paul is speaking to the error of the Jews and greeks. One group rejected the gospel because they were caught up in works, the other because they were “too wise” to believe. I don’t see how that verse woukd serve as a kind of proof text towards gutting the philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview.
LikeLike
“To which the Romanists and Amsterdamists reply, ‘that’s not inspiring.'”
Bingo. On the other thread, I noted how a Swiss Calvinist psychiatrist I met on a plane took pride in the fact that the Swiss make better architects than artists.
At the behest of a German friend, I’ve decided to devote the next months to developing my palate for good lager beer. The complexities of a good lager are much more subtle than what one finds in ales. Also, it’s much easier to screw up a lager than it is to screw up an ale. Making a good lager requires skill and craftsmanship; otherwise, the resulting product is wretched. In contrast, while it may take skill to make a great ale, anyone can make a decent ale without even trying.
Anyway, I was wondering about the fact that lager brewing has generally developed in Protestant-dominated areas, especially areas dominated by Lutherans and non-Puritan Calvinists.
The difference between the Kuyperian-Puritan brand of Calvinism and more traditional forms is the difference between idealism and realism. The old-life Calvinist is a realist, and is generally content to catch small glimpses of God’s fingerprint in the simple pleasures of life, such as in the subtle balance of flavors found in a well-crafted lager. For the transformationalists, the focus is instead on the ways in which those same objects yet fail to conform to the heavenly ideal. So, instead of appreciating the glimpses they can catch of God’s fingerprint in the world around them, they set on an idealistic quest to transform everything to be in conformity to their idealized vision of the divine.
The old-life Calvinist is content with God’s limited revelation, and is happy to order his life in light of godly wisdom and pragmatic considerations. He doesn’t need a master plan. In contrast, the transformationalist needs a Christian worldview to fill in the gaps. But because he has no idea of what heaven is like, he ends up unwittingly claiming divine aegis for middle-class preferences and tastes (because even the Kuyperians can’t think beyond what they know and experience). So, in the end, the Christian worldview just starts to look a lot like Grand Rapids, Michigan, in the 1950s.
LikeLike
K, but how does it serve for establishing The Christian Institute for Philosophical Worldview (and other stuff Christians do gooder than Jews and Greeks)? Paul and Co. established churches, not institutes or schools or clubs or societies.
LikeLike
“The old-life Calvinist is a realist, and is generally content to catch small glimpses of God’s fingerprint in the simple pleasures of life, such as in the subtle balance of flavors found in a well-crafted lager.”
Maybe it’s me coming off of a Trappist ale but thoughtful Catholics with religious inklings are also like that. They’re also more likely the people in the lives of the old-life Calvinists that help sustain their faith since there’s more than like ten of them in the entire United States.
LikeLike
loser ken, marvel away. Just don’t lose your brain.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
How familiar are you with Martin Luther’s ideas about Theology of the Cross over against theolog of glory?
LikeLike
I’ll take the Holy Spirit, myself. Thanks though.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Yes they did, but the people in the churches were told always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you. In order to better “be ready” we need institutes, schools, etc.
LikeLike
Kenneth, and when asked to give that account the answer is the Creed, which one doesn’t even need to be literate to give. Why do you think faith needs so much help?
LikeLike
I don’t find such beers to be very subtle. The alcohol is too high, and the Belgian yeast flavor just overwhelms the palate. That’s my opinion, though.
Also, as a runner who tries to keep my BMI in the neighborhood of 20, they’re too calorically dense. On the other hand, a good lager works well after a 12-mile training run.
I’ve concluded that the Metropolitan Brewery’s Flywheel Lager is the closest thing to a perfect beer available on the market.
LikeLike
Z,
So when people ask why we have hope we are to recite the creed with gentleness and respect? Lol seems like an odd fit.
LikeLike
How would someone recite the creed in a manner that gives them a troubled conscience? Clearly Peter doesn’t have the creed in mind.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted April 4, 2015 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
Kenneth, and if Francis renounced the very office of papacy it would go a longer way to show humility
And end up like the Presbyterian Church [Babel]?
http://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2015/03/31/34k-black-churches-sever-ties-with-pcusa-over-gay-marriage#.VSCqrtzF-4o
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted April 4, 2015 at 8:24 am | Permalink
Why tradition finally becomes a rival to Scripture:
Tradition trumps the Bible. It was tradition that put together the Holy Bible
True.
So it felt like a shot right out of left field when Pastor Dan said, “Which is more important, the Bible or tradition?”
I hadn’t really, ever, considered that. My gut said immediately that it had to be the Bible but I barely even had a frame of reference to understand the question. To me, tradition was something of the Jews in the Old Testament or the Pharisees of the gospels. Or all the superstitions and dressings of the Catholic church—that stuff built up over a couple thousand years. Which was more important?! How are they even connected?
“The Bible.”
“Of course the Bible was more important,” I said.
“But how was the Bible put together?” Pastor Dan asked.
I was stumped.
For all I knew as a Christian, for all I’d been taught and studied and read I’d never actually considered this fundamental question. I’d taken a few courses in my undergrad about the gospels so I knew how they were written but, put together? The Bible is the most important book to Protestant Christianity and I hadn’t even superficially considered how it was put together. That thought alone shocked me.
LikeLike
Ken, I like your new gravatar. It looks less…well, it’s less of you.
LikeLike
Muddy,
My perdy wife and 2nd favorite son help me look good.
LikeLike
TVD,
Good to hear from you.
To those who want to emphasize grace at the expense of justice:
Quote of the day for this Sunday morning from McMark about the meaning of the atonement:
“What does Andrew Fuller accomplish by shifting from what Christ DID back then over there to who Christ Is and what He can do here and now if the Spirit helps a sinner to take up the offer?
Andrew Fuller changes the meaning of the propitiatory death of Christ. With the Arminians, he makes the propitiation to be dependent on the sinner having faith. The sneaky part is that, with the Calvinists, Andrew Fuller also makes the having faith part be dependent on what God (now?) procures by means of Christ’s death.
With the Socinians, Andrew Fuller ends up putting the emphasis on grace as opposed to justice. God is sovereign now to procure faith for sinners with Christ’s death. The idea that God has already been justly propitiated for a sinner (or not) is no longer in the picture.
Andrew Fuller is opposing the gospel of God being justified in justifying the ungodly. He is opposing justice in the name of grace.’
LikeLike
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;he descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Kenneth, Peter had none of that in mind when speaking of giving a reason for the hope that lies within? Wow. That’s all the essence of the Christian faith. What could he possibly have had in mind if not that? Is this where worldviewry and paradigmatic thinking get you?
LikeLike
zrim, not spectacular enough. Remember. Praise bands, words projected, up tempo songs. Ken misses that.
Spectacle indeed.
LikeLike
Ken — good because it’s moving? Back to charismaticism/TBN crowd with you.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted April 5, 2015 at 1:09 am | Permalink
TVD,
Good to hear from you.
The church is what it is because of what the Bible says and not the reverse. The church, as the covenant people of God, receive and recognize the canon; the church does not create the canon.
My friend swam the Tiber last night. Old Life helped. You and your kind kinda pushed her in. Mysterious ways indeed.
As for changing the definition of “church” or “Church,” it’s whatever and whoever you say it is, depending on what day or year it is. So too the Bible. By what authority did Luther [and Calvin] cut out 7 books from the Bible? Who are “the covenant people?” Who is “the church?”
Why, whoever you say they are, because YOU are the “covenant people!”
But your reasoning is circular.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Explain to me how you could recite the creed in a way the violates your conscience?
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience
Was the early church having a problem with people angrily reciting creeds? Lol! Give me a break dude.
LikeLike
Daryl,
You should start a book club for people who are proud of only reading old, dry, boring novels. Sounds amazing…….
LikeLike
Ken, as per Wm. Cunningham, any creed that both Protestants and Romanists could recite together, in that it ignored or didn’t mention justification by faith alone, was not really much of a creed.
Which is to say, not only is arianism, a departure from the apostolic catholic faith, so is romanism.
IOW as a provincial romanist, you keep forgetting you are talking to reformed catholics on this site.
LikeLike
TVD,
You are so convincing you can’t convince yourself to go to your own Church. No thanks. But thanks anyway, dude.
Oh, and TVD, who said:
Andrew Buckingham
Posted April 5, 2015 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
Oh, and TVD, who said:
Darryl and the Sneerers are part of Christ’s church too. Not the best part, mind you, but I don’t expect to see them in hell.
Pretty good stuff. There was an old fable about a cowboy and an Indian eyeballing each other as nightfall came, the cowboy drawing a circle around himself to warn the Indian off. When he awoke, the Indian had drawn a circle around the both of them.
Something like that.
As for Luther’s and Calvin’s Bible, you still haven’t spun your way through the self-legitimization conundrum. The Bible didn’t collect, print and bind itself. Your Bible didn’t translate itself. There were people involved.
Whenever one justifies an
ultimate authority, it is impossible to do so with-
out using that authority. Otherwise, that authority
wouldn’t actually be ultimate!
At best, you’re stuck with claiming the Holy Spirit led Martin Luther to cut out the Deuterocanonicals. Either way, your truth claims of divine authority are no different than Catholicism’s. You just start the clock on the definitive Bible in the 1500s and reject the authority of the 1500+ years before.
But by what authority? By whose authority? How do you know?
LikeLike
Gonna follow Jesus here, and not answer.
[3]
LikeLike
You’re not Jesus. And you’re also taking the passage out of context.
“Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.” 3 He answered them, “I also will ask you a question. Now tell me, 4 was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?” 5 And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From man,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” 7 So they answered that they did not know where it came from. 8 And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”
Since the bastards won’t grant Jesus’s premise–that John’s baptism was from God–he cannot have an honest discussion with them, for they are indeed dishonest. Had they answered truthfully that John’s baptism was from God, Jesus, being baptized by John, would have claimed that same authority for his teachings.
Their sophistry is plain, as is yours here. You refuse to answer because you’re stumped, and I don’t blame you: There is no satisfactory answer except to claim the power of the Holy Spirit for Luther and Calvin, a Protestant magisterium.
By contrast, Catholicism is quite unslippery about claiming John’s baptism, Jesus’s authority, and the power of the Holy Spirit all in an unbroken line for the magisterium.
Happy Easter, brother.
LikeLike
TVD
You need to (re?)read Christianity and Liberalism. Mmodernism isn’t Christianity whether practiced in a simple steepled church or a gothic cathedral.
LikeLike
TVD,
If I was concerned about apostolic succession, I’d become Eastern Orthodox. I’m not so I won’t.
The Roman Church has the Council of Trent (you know, That Boring Justification Thing™.
Try to get a caller like Kenneth or Jason to answer why they chose Rome over Constantinople, and they become as squishy as I did here.
As for me, I’m a cradle protestant, and fiercely proud of it. Nothing attracts me away from Geneva. If you read Darryl’s books, you’d understand why someone like me would never leave what I’ve been given by my birth.
Happy Resurrection Sunday, amigo. Peace.
LikeLike
Kenneth, explain to me how worlddigmery doesn’t end up saying nobody knows anything unless he knows it through Christ and the right use of fill-o-sofee, which is to say inherently arrogant? Gong, “begging the question.” Gong, “circular reasoning.” Gong, “ad hominem.” Gong, “false dilemma.” Gong, “tu quoque.”
All the creed does is say what is affirmed (and denied by implication).
LikeLike
Loser Ken, ever heard of the Bible? Probably not.
Stories don’t change.
LikeLike
vd, t, if you want the authority of pre-1500 popes, what do you do about Alexander VI, the Inquisition, and the Crusades? How many mulligans do you need? If Rome had simply kept to the Bible, they could have avoided a whole lot of denial by your kind.
LikeLike
vd, t, yes, an unwritten tradition that the magisterium can trot out whenever people dissent is as firm as jello.
LikeLike
“a clear conscience” ,the Bible speaks, Baronelle Stutzman
Stutzman:”You are asking me to walk in in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do. Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is about. It’s about freedom, not money.I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important.”
2 Cor 1:12;1 Tim 1:19; Heb 13:18; 1 Cor 4:3-5
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted April 5, 2015 at 9:41 pm | Permalink
Loser Ken, ever heard of the Bible? Probably not.
Stories don’t change.
D. G. Hart
Posted April 5, 2015 at 9:44 pm | Permalink
vd, t, if you want the authority of pre-1500 popes, what do you do about Alexander VI, the Inquisition, and the Crusades? How many mulligans do you need? If Rome had simply kept to the Bible, they could have avoided a whole lot of denial by your kind.
D. G. Hart
Posted April 5, 2015 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
vd, t, yes, an unwritten tradition that the magisterium can trot out whenever people dissent is as firm as jello.
Irrelevant to the substantive discussion of the Biblical canon and Luther & Calvin’s [questionable] authority to reject 7 books of the Bible, and the Septuagint.
Truth hurts. Professional Protestant Darryl is obliged/embarrassed into a response despite his best efforts to ignore his comments section, which has been getting along fine without him. With a response that makes no sense even to his acolytes. Alexander VI? They’re going like, WTF dude?
Fall back to the Crusades! The Inquisition, the Inquisition! Edgardo Mortara! Vatican II! Ring that anti-Catholic bell! Ding ding. Pavlov Protestant gold.
Dude. Your anti-Catholicism is making John Hagee’s look sane. Your Presbyterian religion is the one that’s on the ropes. By its own rules “the people” decide what your religion is. Semper reformanda!
The Jointly Ordained Lesbian Couple Making History For Presbyterians
The Huffington Post | By Carol Kuruvilla
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/presbyterian-church-lesbian-couple_n_6952330.html
LikeLike
“At best, you’re stuck with claiming the Holy Spirit led Martin Luther to cut out the Deuterocanonicals.”
No, since no one claims infallibility for Luther, just reliability. Colossal difference.
“Either way, your truth claims of divine authority are no different than Catholicism’s.”
If you mean we both derive our truth claims from Scripture, very good. But I do not claim infallibility for Rome. That is your sword in the stone. And as sdb above points out, Modern Rome essentially teaches Modernism on a good number of points these days (see James Larsen if you want to tie yourself in knots: http://www.waragainstbeing.com) so don’t pull your arm out of your socket trying to deliver the sword.
LikeLike
Joe M
Posted April 5, 2015 at 11:58 pm | Permalink
“At best, you’re stuck with claiming the Holy Spirit led Martin Luther to cut out the Deuterocanonicals.”
No, since no one claims infallibility for Luther, just reliability. Colossal difference.
No difference atall. This is the Bible, bro. Sola scriptura is your religion. First you have to establish what the Bible IS. “Reliability” is a subjective term. Do you trust Martin Luther more than Augustine or Irenaeus? Because they differed from Luther & Calvin about what is authentic Scripture, you know [or mebbe you don’t].
LikeLike
What infallible authority defined the OT canon Jesus referenced and hearers recognized as authorities? note that different groups recognized different canons. Why should it be different now?
R.C. doesn’t solve anything epistemologically. Prots take the Bible as data (foundational) and assess claims to quality of data based on lots of means but ultimately work of HolySpirit. I know, I know denominations, but again less range than in RC tent (that includes commie loving pinkos and goddess worshipping nuns). Given that we prots share the table, one might say we are catholic…many parts of one church (think benedictinse vs augustinians = Presbyterians vs methodists). In a lot of regions RCs known to parish shop as shamelessly as evangelicals church shop.
Then there is the pope no one can agree on about what he just said in the press much less what it meant, but living apostle better than “dead text”? Really??? Maybe the text is not “dead” and the magisterium of undefined infallible dogma obscures more than it clarifies.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Time to re-visit a golden oldie.
a., is prudent plumbing from above or from below?
What is your answer and why?
LikeLike
sdb, but Rome does solve something sexually. That’s the hope of many converts or birthers like vd, t. “See, Presbyterians ordain lesbians.”
So the church can shrug its collective shoulders about mortal sin, hell, salvation outside the church. But as long as the church is sound about sex — ahem — then it’s the font of all truth, goodness, and beauty.
Yankees’ fans alert.
LikeLike
The baseball analogy always works because look how charitable (I.e. we presbys and romish and charismatic and on and on are still “playing baseball” (I.e. doing “christianity”)) and at the same time how well it reflects our loyalty to our own team. Not to downplay the differences between Rome and Geneva in any way, of course. I dislike the Yankees almost as much as the Dodgers.
I wonder who will climb the holy mountain and post disparaging comments here today. Always glad to see Kenneth around, he does enjoy these interwebs, I suspect many of his words will end up with the drunks today. In other words:
Who’s next, yo?
LikeLike
Well as Ms. Januzzi and a few folks at Marquette have recently learned, the RCs aren’t so helpful on the sexual teaching front when the teaching runs counter to the passions of the Zeitgeist. A few signature on an e-petition and a tweet by a celeb and the Bishops go wobbly.
LikeLike
what are you asking, Greg the T?
LikeLike
TVD (and hi a.),
PS,
Some proteatant thoughts on apostolic succession. There’s plenty more where this comes from if you haven’t noticed.
Sdb,
What infallible authority defined the OT canon Jesus referenced and hearers recognized as authorities? note that different groups recognized different canons. Why should it be different….
Well, one sort of obvious difference is that we don’t have any more prophets being sent to set us straight. Divine revelation is complete.
R.C. doesn’t solve anything epistemologically
Lol http://tanyajpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/delsuion.jpg
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Your Roman Empire religion has no power here.
But glad to see you post here instead of other places. Where do you think Jason gets all his best ideas? The OL bar, of course.
Peace.
LikeLike
I completely agree… new divine revelation ended with the apostles. But the fact that there were prophets around during some phases of the pre-NT period doesn’t help your case. Malachi didn’t establish an OT canon.
LikeLike
Well, one sort of obvious difference is that we don’t have any more prophets being sent to set us straight. Divine revelation is complete.
This from the guy who champions papal infallibility, i.e. the continuing of extra-biblical revelation? But the claim might go further if a pope could give us 2 Revelation or 3 Peter.
LikeLike
sdb and zrim, don’t forget about the vicar of Christ. Not even a prophet had that kind of authority or jurisdiction. Even better, the vicar can make stuff up and ken is supposed to pay, pray, and obey.
LikeLike
a asks: “what are you asking, Greg the T?”
Muddy Gravel asked whether “prudent plumbing” is from above or below? That is a rhetorical way of stating that most of life falls outside the purview of scripture at least, and maybe has no sacred import at all. I’m asking him to state that and tell me why. Using his own non-worldview. (which said NON worldview is an illusion)
In the minds of the people around here, one is either a hyper 2Ker who believes that the sacred and secular never ever touch each other, OR a TKNY cultural transformationalist who’s version of the denial of anything secular is the only other choice. I say “my” way is the biblical way and is neither of those.
Though I’m finding, using Zrim as an example, that Dr. Hart is not nearly as dualistic in his lectures on youtube as some of his crew are on this site, I also sense that he quickly tired of talking to me. At least for now. He felt he couldn’t graciously turn me down, but his heart was most assuredly not in it. Actually THIS would define all the rest if I could prevail upon him to give me a thoughtful response. I suspect that will not be quickly forthcoming or I would have seen it by now. .
So, seeing MG’s question as an opportunity, I’d be gratified if he would tell me which facts are the uncreated ones that accordingly are from below? Is “prudent plumbing”, his example, such a fact?
LikeLike
Nothing exotic here, Greg. Just that there’s a lot of wisdom that can be accessed by the natural man looking at the world around him. So there’s a kind of wisdom that is supernaturally revealed but there’s all kinds of wisdom about vocation, child rearing, governance, finances, etc. that are not monopolized by Christians. I would say it’s God’s nature and God’s creatures accessing it, but it’s less than clear that a’s expression allows for this.
This is a lot of seriousity for the Mudster, but I’ll check back and see what you have to say about this.
LikeLike
Greg, as an example of what exactly?
LikeLike
Greg, you can talk to any of the folks here that appreciate Darryl’s work (like me for example). He’s a busy guy, papers to grade, cats to feed. I’m sure if you make a good point and he wants to expand on it, he’ll blog on you like he did today with Boniface, or he did again with Erik a few days ago.
Peace man.
LikeLike
I find it curious that the latest post doesn’t have a comments section. I also am intrigued by these lectures on YouTube that greg speaks of…. can’t wait to watch them!
LikeLike
Kenneth, good job opinining with the drunks, like I said.
Watch all seven sessions:
https://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/tag/reformed-in-america-conference/
There’s a lot more where that comes from. You really should be careful what you say around these parts. The host is a very humble man to share his learning with us.
Have fun while you continue to post with the drunks. I’ll be reading.
Peace.
LikeLike
KW you could be just like the drunks
click here
finding the identity of “dick bush” (a pca guy) was fun
who’s next?
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted April 6, 2015 at 4:14 pm | Permalink
MG says: “there’s a lot of wisdom that can be accessed by the natural man looking at the world around him.”
Of course there is. Man has throughout his history, by virtue of the remaining though sinfully broken image of God, been so absolutely right about so very much of what he’s observed and published. While, due to this brokenness in sin, being so absolutely wrong about how and why he’s right about it. 1+1=2 for sinners and saints alike and for the same reason. Except sinners spend every second of their lives suppressing that truth in their unrighteousness.
MG says: “So there’s a kind of wisdom that is supernaturally revealed but there’s all kinds of wisdom about vocation, child rearing, governance, finances, etc. that are not monopolized by Christians.
See above please, but there are explicit biblical principles governing each of these, the violation of which is sin. There are occupations a Christian may not ever lawfully hold and the ones that are lawful must be carried out to God’s glory as representatives of Him in the earth. Darryl said pretty much that exact same thing in one of the lectures on youtube. I heard him and agreed.
Children must be raised with godly wisdom in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It is God who gives the ability to make wealth and the bible is festooned with principles regarding the righteous acquisition and handling of money. While no explicit form of government is prescribed in the New Testament, there certainly are governments and forms of government that are inherently sinful. A Christian cannot be a Nazi for instance.
MG says: “I would say it’s God’s nature and God’s creatures accessing it,”
Meaning that nothing ultimately originates from below because everything except God Himself is created by Him and hence bears His fingerprint and signature like Romans 1 says. Therefore NOthing is actually secular. EVERYthing is sacred and also, accordingly unintelligible if not defined by it’s ultimate source.
Even 1+1 equaling 2. The form is the same, but maths and logic mean something entirely different for me than they do for Richard Dawkins. To me they are the glorious order of the mind of an omniscient omnipotent God. To him, they are ANYthing except that. Or so he sinfully and dishonestly professes. See now this (quite legitimately) touches on biblical philosophy.
Dr. Hart does not want to talk to me Andrew. He’s a brilliant man, but his expertise is history. He has never really thought through these kinds of topics. That doesn’t make him a bonehead, but this is not his thing. By which I promise, I mean nothing derogatory.
As for the youtube lectures? Bare minimum, the first 2 in THIS series. I have a feeling Zrim would be very disconcerted. Our beloved host sounds an awful lot like me a good bit of the time. A perfectly splendid state of affairs because that makes him righter than usual 😀
LikeLike
AB
Posted April 6, 2015 at 5:27 pm | Permalink
Greg, you can talk to any of the folks here that appreciate Darryl’s work (like me for example). He’s a busy guy, papers to grade, cats to feed…
…Catholics to attack. No rest for professional Protestants. So many polemics. so little time.
D. G. Hart
Posted April 6, 2015 at 6:53 am | Permalink
sdb, but Rome does solve something sexually. That’s the hope of many converts or birthers like vd, t. “See, Presbyterians ordain lesbians.”
Elder Hart, actually the painful point is that by your own Presbyterian ecclesiology, you have no way of principled opposition to this debasement of the “Reformed” [putatively Christian] faith.
Or the guts, or something. You throw ineffectual firecrackers at Jason Stellman and Bryan Cross that fizzle on your side of the Tiber with an aim so blind and an arm that’s weak.
You do forget how I so admire the JG Machen. Dude had guts. And he admired the papists for the same reason.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/pcusa-church-ordains-first-married-lesbian-couple-as-ministers-days-after-denominations-marriage-amendment-136111/
“Protestantism” is a chimera; it means little more than not-Catholicism. And the “Reformed faith”-as-Presbyterianism has been reduced to a “naturalistic liberalism [that] is not Christianity at all.”
So here you stand, but only because the walls you push against are the very ones that hold you up. “Protestantism” and “Presbyterianism” have collapsed.
LikeLike
@Greg
I’m doubt that anyone here is saying that the sacred and the secular don’t touch. They do touch…in God, as he is the source of both general revelation and special revelation.
The premise of 2K theology is that God has revealed Himself sufficiently in His general revelation to allow us to infer His will regarding how we ought to govern our civil affairs. This general revelation is even sufficient to convince us of our need for a redeemer. But it is insufficient in one key way: It is insufficient to teach us of our redemption in Christ.
Therefore, God has spoken through his prophets and apostles to declare to us His salvation in Christ, and he has charged the church with administering this truth. The church may also rely on God’s general revelation in determining various administrative matters, etc. After all, God’s special revelation is insufficient in many ways, as the purpose of that revelation is to teach us of God’s salvation in Christ, not to teach us how to make watches or write catchy jingles.
The question is not whether these two books of God’s revelation touch each other. They do, indeed! Rather, the relevant question relates to: (1) whether God has also intended that His special revelation be relied upon to govern the civil affairs of men; and (2) whether God has commissioned the church to participate, either directly or indirectly, in encouraging the civil magistrate to apply God’s special revelation in such governance.
I’ll respond to these in reverse order.
On the second, the answer is an unambiguous NO. Nowhere has God commissioned the church to play any role in encouraging the civil magistrate to rely upon God’s special revelation in governing the affairs of men. This includes indirect encouragement, where the church encourages its members to vote in accordance with Scripture. The church is an outpost of God’s heavenly kingdom, and it is simply not to entangle itself in the affairs of men.
On the first, the answer is a qualified no. The purpose of God’s special revelation is to testify of our salvation in Christ. Putting it to other lesser uses cheapens it and takes away from the holy purpose for which God has given it. Even so, Scripture isn’t simply a bare theological statement of our salvation in Christ. It tells the tale of our salvation through God’s inspiration of human writers in time and space. And while these narratives are given for the purpose of testifying to our salvation in Christ, they are also a source of human wisdom and therefore may aid us in interpreting God’s general revelation. In this latter sense, it functions much the same way as other literature. So, even though Scripture doesn’t give us direct precepts to apply in governing the affairs of men, it does aid us in gaining wisdom and makes us better interpreters of God’s general revelation.
I suspect that this won’t be a satisfying answer to you. After all, you seem to be someone who’s looking for Scripture to arm you with ready-baked unambiguous rules that you can apply to civil governance, bypassing the hard task of gaining wisdom and the intellectual challenging task of applying that wisdom to complicated human affairs in light of the full testimony of God’s general revelation. Those who possess such desires often liken them to godliness; in contrast, I tend to seem such desires as lying more closely to the sins of impatience and laziness. Biblicism is not godliness; rather, it is the sin of a lazy, impatient people who are angry that God has called them to the arduous task of seeking and gaining wisdom in a fallen world where they can never be more than probably right. It is the sin of trying to make the Bible into something it isn’t, so that the biblicist can improperly arrogate himself to a high position than his fallen position would ever permit.
LikeLike
Bobby. You’re a haughty arrogant snob. I have a comment in moderation because I forgot to remove the top locator link. Hopefully it’ll be up tomorrow. I have three posts a day here. I don’t think I’ll be wasting them on you. You do not impress me sir. Find somewhere else to point your prattling presumptuous condescension.
LikeLike
Greg,
Nice to meet you too. I’d respond, but I’m not sure what to say in response to a comment that contains nothing but conclusory, unsubstantiated ad hominem. You seem to be the one who’s in over your head here. Perhaps you should try out BaylyBlog. Your style would seem to fit better with that of the self-appointed Bishop of Bloomington and his sycophants.
LikeLike
TVD, Bryan and Jason write polemically without acknowledging the problems with their own view.
If you read Hart’s stuff (published by Yale press, for example), you’d understand
I think your error lies in taking these blogs too seriously. Darryl appreciates the thoughtful blogger (i.e. Boniface from yesterday’s post). And points out the over the top Jack Chick nature of others (Bryan and to a lesser extent Jason).
It’s par for the course for us religionists with something to defend because we believe it and live it out.
Peace.
LikeLike
Greg, as Curt noted, the rule of three is a guideline. I’d say if you have something to say and it takes 4 comments in a day, say it. It was a request by DGH for commenters to show restraint which is a principle violated sometimes by the interlocutor who posts only one comment. In other words, be considerate of our gracious host and all will be well.
Not posting anymore,
Andrew
LikeLike
vd, t, so if ordaining lesbians matters, why not the Crusades? Murder is mortal sin. But if you can whitewash that, why not a priest taking a wee peek?
LikeLike
Greg, “haughty arrogant snob”?
I’ll reimpose the ban if you’re not careful.
LikeLike
D. Hart,
Some sins are just more mortal-y than others.
LikeLike
Greg, Bobby took the time to give you an articulate response. Maybe your response should be “thanks, but I disagree on xyz.”
I’ll pull out one concrete scenario: parenting. There are skills involved, like communicating to various ages, understanding what motivates your child, teaching practical skills, providing for needs, etc. In these the Christian has no inherent advantage. Hopefully the Christian parent will take his child to church, encourage him to believe, etc., but he could be quite poor in the basics of parenting.
So imagine a Christian couple who is so concerned about their children that they home school them and diligently instruct them in the Christian faith. That’s good. But meanwhile, the kids were somehow not equipped to stand on their own and are immature at age 30, still living at home. It’s good that the parents exposed their children to Christ but there are many unbelievers with better parenting skills.
LikeLike
Just offer to watch his cats some weekend so him and his missus can enjoy a weekend away. Spending Saturday at the A’s / Giants game sans kids did wonders for (all about) ours (word to the wise).
That’s three. Oh, and thanks for playing nice with Erik on his blog. Have a nice day Greg the cookie monster.
LikeLike
Greg, don’t go all Mark Jones and storm out because Bobby said something you don’t like. His post read like a reasoned response and challenges your view – interact with it. Hope you are well.
LikeLike
A Christian cannot be a Nazi for instance.
Why not, Greg?
LikeLike
I think lagers are overrated too, but wow… seems a bit harsh.
LikeLike
(the following comment has been sitting completed in this combox since 12:57pm, waiting for the jump to the next page. It doesn’t matter anymore though. This will be 2 today)
How GENEROUS of Erik to provide a little space like this.
LikeLike
@Muddy:
I say the homeschooling parents did not expose their children to Christ, if they are living irresponsible and immature adult lives because of the parents. Saying J.E.S.U.S. to them and even taking them to and involving them in a good church is not the same as raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Portraying Christ to one’s children is primarily a life of showing servanthood, forgiveness and godly problem solving in their marriage. Because joining a coupla sinners together in covenant under the same roof IS either war or forgiveness and godly problem solving. It’s ok for kids to see their parents as broken children of father Adam, which they have no choice about, as long as they also see them handle it righteously when they mess up. Even badly. Especially badly.
The Christian mission in stewarding human beings given them as the fruit of their union is, again, the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Which will secondarily include many of the same things that decent pagans, by the common grace of God, will also instill in their children.
So. What of this is ultimately from above and what is ultimately from below? Which parenting tasks and principles are sacred and which are secular? Is teaching them the catechism sacred and teaching them to do chores secular? For instance? Is their responsibility before and to the Lord more or less in one than the other?
Or even better. Forget that. Name for me please at least one concept or object of knowledge of which you are utterly and unassailably certain.
OR,… forget even that. Let’s go with this. “The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”
Are you utterly and unassailably certain that WCF I:IV is utterly and unassailably true? Why or why not please? (Yes, everything in this comment is actually related to everything else)
LikeLike
Come on Greg. Let’s get up to speed.
The Bible gives us moral principles that we take into our secular callings or vocations, but it doesn’t tell us how to change a tire or give us geometric axioms. While it speaks to all of life authoritatively – even declaring some things to be indifferent or determined by common sense/light of nature – it does not speak exhaustively.
IOW if you can’t distinguish the difference, DG ain’t gonna take the time to answer any questions, because he’s a busy man.
For that matter Bobby gave you a good answer, even if he is the same guy I thought was a CogElite/gaybro poseur a couple of weeks ago. Really. Read it again.
If all this/these categories are new to you, you need to catch up with Van Drunen’s books on the natural law, which goes hand in glove with the 2 kingdoms POV, flowing out of the covenant with Noah or start with the WCF and look up the references to nature, light of etc.
peace out.
LikeLike
Greg: What of this is ultimately from above and what is ultimately from below? Which parenting tasks and principles are sacred and which are secular?
Greg,what I meant by above/below that is what God says- that there is wisdom from/of Him and there is fallen, false, perverted wisdom which He calls human wisdom, wisdom of the world, fleshly wisdom. Pretty must from day one of our lives here, we are involved in : 2 Cor 10:5
LikeLike
Greg, this is really pretty easy. If you look at the most accomplished scientists, athletes, language experts, construction firms, lawyers and welders, are they disproportionately Christians? Uh, no. There’s a whole realm of skills and knowledge that is unrelated to personal redemption. Calvin readily acknowledged this in the Institutes but all you have to do is look around.
You talk about parenting like a man who has no children.
LikeLike
confirmed by His word…
“and behold, I Myself have appointed in the hearts of all who are skillful I have put skill …He has filled them with skill to perform every work of an engraver and of a designer and of an embroiderer”. Exodus verses
that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
LikeLike
a., is “Exodus verses” really the best you can do?
So, would you say that any skill, whoever possesses it, comes from God? And those skills aren’t necessarily related to redemption? At one point Calvin speaks of the Holy Spirit directing leaders.
And, while you’re at it, how would you apply all this to the skill of punctuation?
LikeLike
Sorry for the mix up a. I was addressing Muddy’s question and didn’t first see yours as I missed the small “a” indicating you were involved there at all. My mistake. You need a bigger name 🙂 Seriously. I didn’t see it.
——————————————————————
Muddy says: “Greg, this is really pretty easy. If you look at the most accomplished scientists, athletes, language experts, construction firms, lawyers and welders, are they disproportionately Christians? Uh, no. There’s a whole realm of skills and knowledge that is unrelated to personal redemption. Calvin readily acknowledged this in the Institutes but all you have to do is look around.”
Ya now what frustrates me about this site? Maybe it is actually a bit of pride. Lord help me if it is. People pay no attention to me when I speak. I am so lowly regarded and written so far off in entirely a-priori fashion that actual engagement with what I actually say is nearly impossible.
You said on the previous page:
MG says: “there’s a lot of wisdom that can be accessed by the natural man looking at the world around him.”
To which I then answered:
“Of course there is. Man has throughout his history, by virtue of the remaining though sinfully broken image of God, been so absolutely right about so very much of what he’s observed and published. While, due to this brokenness in sin, being so absolutely wrong about how and why he’s right about it. 1+1=2 for sinners and saints alike and for the same reason. Except sinners spend every second of their lives suppressing that truth in their unrighteousness.”
That means that I am agreeing that the overwhelmingly vast preponderance of created reality is not EXPLICITLY addressed in the pages of scripture. I celebrate the brilliance of God in the brilliance of even unredeemed men. Do you hear me?
Now. Here is the question I asked.
“The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”
Are you utterly and unassailably certain that WCF I:IV is utterly and unassailably true? Why or why not please?
LikeLike
Well, then, what was all that business that seemed to be about the superior parenting skills of Christians?
If everyone misunderstands you maybe the problem isn’t with everyone.
OK, Greg, I don’t know where you’re going with this but I’ll pull the trigger: yes, I believe WCF 1 is true.
LikeLike
Faithful Christians raise their children in the nurture and admonition of, as well as to, the glory of God. Is this not superior to pagans who do not? Even so, I still said on the previous page:
===================================
“The Christian mission in stewarding human beings given them as the fruit of their union is, again, the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Which will secondarily include many of the same things that decent pagans, by the common grace of God, will also instill in their children.“
==================================
You didn’t see that? From a strictly natural standpoint, yes, pagans can be good, even great parents. However the greater they are, the further their children will be from knowing their need for Christ. So… what doth it profit a parent, if their children gaineth the whole world, but loseth their own souls?
The overarching problem with the version of the 2K mindset on this blog is the entrenched and incessant conflation of what is actually indifferent with what is most certainly not. That hit me right between the eyes from day one when I arrived here early last year to see an OPC elder with 5 earned degrees equate “sweetbreads” with bloody blasphemous pornographic media entertainment. The paradigm that produces a lack of biblical discernment that spectacular is what positively governs everything that goes on here.
Muddy, you see child rearing (or so it certainly seems) as a neutral activity like tiddly winks, where as long as its done well for it’s own sake, it matters little how or why. No there can’t be good or evil sweetbreads, because food is a truly indifferent, amoral area of life. But yes there is good and evil visual media because by definition people can and do sin in it’s production .
“If everyone misunderstands you maybe the problem isn’t with everyone.”
Everyone doesn’t misunderstand me. Everyone HERE misunderstands me. Because they insist upon reading me as somebody they think I am, rather than actually reading ME. Because if I’m that person they think I am, then I’m already wrong and engaging me is a formality and an eye rolling irritation which is exactly what’s goin on here. I can take it, frustration n all, but that, along with a 3 posts per day limit, makes having a conversation extraordinarily tedious and cumbersome.
Muddy: “OK, Greg, I don’t know where you’re going with this but I’ll pull the trigger: yes, I believe WCF 1 is true.”
That is not what I asked you though. I asked you if you were:
And then asked:
There is a vast difference between simply affirming a thing as true and being utterly and unassailably certain that it is a fact. You also didn’t tell me why. I now have one comment left today.
And Darryl? I will do my best to discern the boundaries of speech as per your warning about Bobby. I didn’t think something like that would be a violation.
LikeLike
Greg, at the risk of repeating myself, Christian parents can give certain things others do not such as an upbringing under the preaching of the gospel and urging their children to look to Christ, etc. But a lot of parenting is skill, like knowing how to encourage, how to comfort, how to instill confidence & a work ethic, etc. So I’ve seen church-going, home-schooling parents produce adults with low social skills, marginal vocational skills, and personal problems related to parental smothering & enabling. Then I’ve seen an unbeliever raise kids who are skilled, confident, pleasant, thankful, etc. Part of the explanation for that is the unbeliever is simply more skilled.
“I asked you if you were: “…utterly and unassailably certain that WCF I:IV is utterly and unassailably true?”
I don’t answer adverb questions. I said I believe it is true. Your turn.
PS: things would go much better for you if you used only articles, nouns, verbs and prepositions. You have a hard time resisting descriptive zingers.
LikeLike
Because they insist upon reading me as somebody they think I am, rather than actually reading ME. Because if I’m that person they think I am, then I’m already wrong and engaging me is a formality and an eye rolling irritation which is exactly what’s goin on here.
Greg,
Hang in there. Last year you came in like a bull in a china shop taking no prisoners – speaking Jeremiads against most of us who see movies. You were invited back and your tone and attitude improved. You are to be commended. Everyone deserves a second chance, which is what I was trying to suggest to Erik about you, but that did not go very well. Given that, you still come across a bit too accusatory instead of simply stating your view or asking questions. But we all make mistakes in discussion, and you are worth hearing, so don’t give up. I think the differences have to do with your understanding of common grace, as well as some latent fundamentalism that may have been left over from your previous church experiences, but that can be explored. I am impressed though with how you learned from last year and are trying to better yourself, an example for all of us.
Todd Bordow
OPC of Rio Rancho
LikeLike
I follow my own example. I’m better than you.
Sean
LikeLike
Sean,
I tried to follow your example but couldn’t afford the marriage counseling and rehab. Plus as a Maverick fan still can’t tolerate the Spurs no matter how hard I try. Remnant of sin and all that…
Hope you’re doing well in SA
Todd
LikeLike
From a strictly natural standpoint, yes, pagans can be good, even great parents. However the greater they are, the further their children will be from knowing their need for Christ.
Huh? How does excelling in a natural vocation lead to causing in someone else a disobedience to Christ?
But, Greg, your reasoning still ends up implying that believing parents are superior in their parenting vocation to unbelieving parents. How does that not lead a believing son to violate the fifth commandment about his unbelieving father?
LikeLike
Regarding WCF I(IV), it is simply saying that Scripture’s authority depends on God and not on man or the church. It does not define what the scope of that authority is. WCF I(VI) suggests that that authority is limited to testimony concerning the nature of God, our salvation in Christ, and our spiritual duties as God’s people. After all, it is fairly well established that the Divines did not intend the phrase “faith and life” to mean “all of life.”
LikeLike
Todd, I understand. Road less traveled, soaring with eagles, lonely at the top, winners win, et al. I barely take notice anymore. As far as the ponies, a gutsy, stat padded Dirk effort in garbage time, too bad so sad for Monta, first round exit, again? All men are not created equal and all that……..
Same to you among the Dreamcatchers, Hatch Peppers and rooftop pizzas
Sean
Patron of SA
LikeLike
TVD: Elder Hart, actually the painful point is that by your own Presbyterian ecclesiology, you have no way of principled opposition to this debasement of the “Reformed” [putatively Christian] faith.
I call furballs.
There is a simple way of principled opposition. It is to point out that the PCUSA has explicitly abandoned the Reformed faith and the Biblical as well. Ya, know, to make an actual argument instead of appealing to the authority structure.
The folk within the PCUSA who have trouble making principled opposition are those who elevate the authority structure over the Scripture, as in, “The Bible isn’t really clear, but the Book of Church Order says…”
LikeLike
Sean,
You may have rings, wins, fundamentals, the best coach, a dynasty, but we have a shark owner. When has your owner invested $200,000 for 30% equity for ThePaintedPretzel. Top that Spurs fan
LikeLike
Come on Greg..
Oh, and WCF 1.4 or any other? Muddy and I (and Darryl) subscribe to the confession as officers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Did you ever listen to those lectures on animus imponentis covering confession subscription? That’s where you want to go with this, friend.
[1]
LikeLike
PS There are transcripts but the audio files are better.
[2]
LikeLike
PPS and there is a good run down at Zrim, Todd (a golfer of all things, per that blog, who knew?), and Sean et al at the outhouse. I’m done for today, see you tomorrow, Mr. Terrible.
LikeLike
Todd, that’s tough. We have large women, and a River Runs Through It? Then there’s Pop, ‘happy?! Who’s happy! You’ll have to think of something else, I don’t know how to judge happy. We’re in the middle of a contest, nobody’s happy!’
LikeLike
@Jeff
I admit that there are some PCUSA churches where orthodoxy doesn’t fare well. Those churches typically have few members, and are filled with nothing but angry left-wing activists.
I attend a PCUSA church where the Gospel is preached weekly and where no one would have any quibbles with basic Nicene orthodoxy. I think we would also tend to agree with much of Reformed orthodoxy, although we would not tend to exclude Barth and Moltmann.
In my experience, those in the PCA who criticize the PCUSA have actually spent very little time in PCUSA churches. Your description is no less accurate than if I were to assume that Greg is representative of your denomination.
LikeLike
Bobby says at Erik’s place: “… At our best, we can do no better than “probably right.” If someone can’t admit that, then I have certain doubts as to that individual’s understanding of the Gospel.”
Who agrees with Bobby? Muddy? Darryl? Anybody?
LikeLike
Greg,
It’s actually taken from a quote by C.S. Lewis.
“[T]he nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political program can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party program–whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence–the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication.”
I see Lewis’s assessment as entirely consistent with our fallen estate. Regeneration, after all, does not make us infallible interpreters of God’s revelation.
LikeLike
This has its issues
But it puts an image in (all about) my mind of the typical PCUSAer..
LikeLike
I disagree with his characterization of the OPC/PCA vs the PCUSA (at least in my region) and his adulation of lagers. I wholeheartedly agree with him about the “probably right” bit. I’m a scientist – I work in the world of quantitative empiricism and even on mundane, boring, scientific questions our accuracy is limited by our emotions, pre-commitments, pride, etc… I can’t think of anything I would say that I am absolutely, utterly, unassailably certain of scientifically. Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes people act unethically, sometimes we’re just blinded by our preconceptions.
If that is true in the sterile world of numbers, computer models, and measurements how much more true must it be in realms where issues touch us personally. I trust the testimony of the prophets and apostles handed down to us through the scriptures – that they were speaking God’s word. I believe in the distillation of that word expressed in the early creeds and reformed confessions. My hope rests in Christ’s finished work and I look forward to that everlasting rest (even if it is Fanny Crosby tunes on repeat). While I am a pilgrim in this strange land, I try to work as unto the Lord, mind my own business, and be ready to give an account of my hope to those around me — though of course I fail at all of these things.
I recognize that I could be wrong…
LikeLike
Greg, I’d like to know what your alternative is. Are you doing works flawless in their motives, execution, goals, and effects? But we need the blood of Christ for the best things we do.
LikeLike
Greg, per usual, I’m with JGM regarding this certainty business.
By all means, keep grinding that axe.
Dr. Hart, I gave you my word that I would abide by your 3 comment per thread per day rule. Unless compelled by circumstances beyond my control, I never break my word. It makes no difference to me that everybody else abandoned it because it was obviously a temporary “experiment”. What matters to me is my word.
I am asking you again sir to please release me from that commitment. It is simply not possible to have a conversation like this on 3 comments a day. I do not intend to write a dozen of my rather long essays, (which I don’t have time for anyway) but for instance a series of fairly short questions and answers are required here to get anyplace.
I understand that you have no reason whatsoever to do this and grant me more freedom in your house. I also understand how favorable the present situation is for you. You don’t have to ban me or even sowerize me. I have limited myself. Which allows me to be here with your hands off, but not really have a meaningful dialog.
Not to slight anyone else, especially Muddy Gravel, who has been gracious the past few days, but sdb has leap frogged several of the steps on the path I was very tediously trying to get Muddy to walk with me. (I’m not blaming him). Maybe nobody’s interested in that. If not fine. Who am I? But if they are, it cannot be done on three comments.
Could you find it in yourself, in spite of all this, to give me the room to engage freely? You have my further word that I will do my utmost not to make you sorry because of my conduct.
LikeLike
Oh, and Todd Bordow appears to be an officer in the OPC as well. Didn’t mean to leave you out, TB!
That’s my three, par is always a good score.
Who’s next?
LikeLike
GtT, do you see anyone else observing the 3 comment limit?
LikeLike
Greg, I think what Darryl is trying to say is that he releases you from your commitment.
I really think you should go lift some more weights though instead of posting more than 3 comments a day per thread, just me and my small opinions though.
See you tomorrow, I’m over by one. Peace.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted April 8, 2015 at 8:40 pm | Permalink
TVD: Elder Hart, actually the painful point is that by your own Presbyterian ecclesiology, you have no way of principled opposition to this debasement of the “Reformed” [putatively Christian] faith.
I call furballs.
There is a simple way of principled opposition. It is to point out that the PCUSA has explicitly abandoned the Reformed faith and the Biblical as well. Ya, know, to make an actual argument instead of appealing to the authority structure.
I call furball too, Jeff, thus:
When Darryl and his Old Life cabal d-bag what’s left of “the Reformed faith” in America as much as y’all d-bag Catholicism, this observer will take you more seriously.
The irony is that you cleave to the Catholic Church more than you do the Presbyterian, which you so easily dump like a bad curry. You expect nothing from it, whereas from Catholicism you expect everything.
And that’s the furball that’s making you choke.
Greg The Terrible
Posted April 9, 2015 at 12:48 am | Permalink
Bobby says at Erik’s place: “… At our best, we can do no better than “probably right.”
A religion of men, then. A synagogue. But not a church. The Holy Spirit is nowhere in sight, except perhaps as a nonparticipant.
Unless you’re claiming that The Westminster Confession [and its various revisions] carry the same authority of the Nicene Creed. If so, can Presbyterianism take a vote and revise the Nicene Creed? In theory, is it all up for grabs?
Whose Calvinism is it, anyway? Yours? His? Are all our beliefs provisional, subject to a vote?
WCF 24.1
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.
LikeLike
TVD, the answer lies in that boring justication thing™. So since stuff that’s matters to us is too boring for you, shall we instead talk golf (the masters, yo!), movies, or why you don’t go to church? I’m with Jeff C. and call furballs.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart says:
GtT, do you see anyone else observing the 3 comment limit?
I have really given considerable attention as to how most properly to answer this. My most trusted online partner saw it before I did and had some helpful insight. I wish you could believe that I am not trying to be difficult for the sake of it. Nor, I promise you, am I hoping to win a war of nerves. None of that is the point at all.
I have said myself that I see the purpose of the rule and the fact of nobody else’s observance. Simply pointing that out again is not the same as releasing me from my word. Please bear with me. I will not allow even the appearance of a breech of promise to exist. That would not only be dishonoring to the Lord, but disastrous for the investments I have in people on the web. (not only the web actually)
I need you to please tell me plainly sir. Yes or no? Am I released from that promise?
LikeLike
GtT,
Look at the blog post again by the host of this website:
I don’t know what restriction you are talking about that Darryl has placed on you. You seem to have imposed something on yourself, however, and only you can release that burden.
[2]
LikeLike
GtT, yes, but the larger point is still in effect. Show restraint.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
GtT, yes, but the larger point is still in effect. Show restraint.
Thank you sir. You surprised me. Pleasantly. I didn’t think you would do this. For what it’s worth you ascended a few more notches on my respectometer.
LikeLike
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Which Christians here believe that “probably true” is the best we can hope for regarding this statement? Please note that I did NOT ask about the sterile world of numbers, computer models, and measurements.
Does sdb recognize that the above could be wrong? That’s a question, not an accusation.
Muddy, nuthin personal, but I am not going to be able to accommodate you on the adverbs. Superlative adverbs are high currency in a self consciously biblical epistemology.
LikeLike
FWIW
It is not the mark of a Christian mind to take no delight in assertions. On the contrary, a man must delight in assertions or he will be no Christian.
And by assertion— in order that we may not be misled by words– I mean a constant adhering, affirming, confessing, maintaining, and an invincible persevering. Nor, I think, does the word mean anything else either as used by the Latins or by us in our time.
I am speaking, moreover, about the assertion of those things which have been divinely transmitted to us in the sacred writings… Nothing is better known or more common among Christians than assertion. Take away assertions and you take away Christianity.”
–Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, in Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, Eds. E. Gordon Rupp and Philip Watson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 105-106.
Greg, there are suggestions and there are rules.
DG floated a guideline, we had a meltdown and all around insubordination ensued.
After all, if a tree falls in the middle of the forest and nobody hears it, did it make a sound?
Just because people stuff the combox, doesn’t mean people bother unpacking it.
IOW if somebody doesn’t have anything to say, whether 3 or 30 are allowed, the least of their worries.
cheers
LikeLike
Greg, get over yourself, and point others to Christ.
Here, have a midnight snack:
[3] (Hi, Bob).
LikeLike
Yes. I recognize that I could be deluded and my atheist colleagues could be right. I don’t think I am or they are… Do you recognize the possibility that you could be wrong?
LikeLike
sdb says: “Yes. I recognize that I could be deluded and my atheist colleagues could be right.”
Just so we’re clear. You’re not certain that the God who “is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things;” actually is? His word is not necessarily truth as Jesus Christ told us in His high priestly prayer of John 17 after all? He might have been wrong? Or maybe He never actually existed either? I want to make sure I’m understanding you.
sdb asks: “Do you recognize the possibility that you could be wrong?”
I can’t even believe I’m having this conversation with people who call themselves Calvinists. I do not recognize the possibility sir that GOD could be wrong. I might be wrong on my weakly held historic pre-mil eschatology. I very much doubt it, but my dichotomous and traducian anthropology may turn out to be wrong in the end too.
I would sooner doubt your existence, or my own, before doubting the proclamation of Genesis 1:1
A God whose existence can be legitimately doubted, or even questioned, is a figment of sinful, post modern man’s self exalting, idolatrous imagination. Neither the ancient Christian scriptures nor the reformed standards know ANYTHING of such a God. I agree with Luther Bob. (and Machen Andrew)
This will require a very short answer Darryl. I’m asking you too. Is it possible that the god of the OLTS is a delusion in the mind of the one suffering from it? Even a simple yes or no will do, but a concise exposition would be even better. Is the foundation of your life an uncertain god?
LikeLike
@gtt I mean what I said. I am convinced God is the creator of heaven and earth, I believe the Bible is the Word of God, I hold to the early creeds and reformed confessions. My hope is in Christ alone and I look forward to the everlasting rest. I recognize that I could be wrong. I don’t think I am, I don’t build my life around such a possibility. But neither do I think boasting about how super duper, 110% certain I am is becoming of a child of God.
I have had those dark nights of the soul. I’ve prayed, “I believe, help my unbelief (this isn’t a post-modern state to be in at all)”. There have been times where I’ve wondered where God is or even if he is. I have no desire to go back to those days. Chest thumping about what I would “sooner do” won’t keep me from there. My faith may not be as strong as your’s evidently is, but I don’t trust in the strength of my faith – I trust in the strength of the object of my faith.
That being said, I don’t really understand your comment:
But lots of people doubt (think Thomas) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How does that make God the figment of postmodern man’s idolatrous imagination? What does post-modernism have to do with anything anyway? How does the rejection of Spinoza and Deists bear on this discussion. Or is “postmodern” just filler that means “people I don’t like”? It seems to me that the God of scriptures was routinely doubted (Abraham forgetting the promise, Job questioning, Elijah questioning, Moses questioning, David’s cries, Israel over and over, Peter’s faulty faith, Thomas’s faulty faith, etc…).
God opposes the proud, and based on my limited reading of you on these comment pages, it seems to me that you are treading into very dangerous territory (though of course my impression could very well be mistaken). But if you will indulge me, if you are confusing belligerence with confidence, you are in a very dangerous place spiritually.
I’m not sure what you hoped to accomplish with your exasperation. If I’m wrong to hold out the possibility that I could be wrong, I can assure you that some random guy on the internet going on about what they can’t even believe is going to set me straight.
Why don’t you think it is possible for a Christian to doubt…even God’s existence? I don’t doubt, but evidently even recognizing the possibility of error is a step too far. Why?
LikeLike
Thank you for your response sdb:
sdb says: “Why don’t you think it is possible for a Christian to doubt…even God’s existence? I don’t doubt, but evidently even recognizing the possibility of error is a step too far. Why?”
I didn’t say it’s not possible for a Christian to doubt. You quoted it yourself. I said legitimately doubt. Maybe I should have used the term “lawfully” doubt. What I’m speaking of is the keeping as one’s theological/epistemological position, the notion that doubt is the best God has left us with and should therefore be embraced. Or at least seen as normal and therefore normaTIVE.
I am no super saint sir. I struggle with doubt and unbelief all the time, but I don’t embrace that as legitimate or as an indication that God or His promises are actually doubtful. I AM the problem. NOT Him. I don’t join the atheists in impugning God’s revelation of Himself by declaring that it might not be true. Let God be true and every man a liar.
The apostle proclaims in the first of Romans that “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” Please note brother. GOD Himself has rendered His invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature, clearly seen”. CLEARLY seen. Has he done so imperfectly so that your “atheist colleagues could be right.” and actually have a plausible excuse after all?
Which of the biblical instances of doubt you’ve given are therein advanced as righteous and therefore to be emulated? Those were great men of God whose unbelief was THEIR sin. NOT God’s deficiency.
There is a vast category difference between warring with the doubtful old man still dead in Adam and telling God and the world that those who believe Him might be deluded and the pagans might be right.
You’re a very smart man. You must see this. I’ll stop there for now.
LikeLike
Just so we are not speaking past each other… I do not agree that recognizing that one could be wrong (even about something you are quite certain of) is the same thing as doubt. Neither is doubt the same thing as skepticism. I take recognition that I could be mistaken about anything as epistemic generosity if you will.
I agree that God is not the problem. Like I said,
Because of our sin we cannot see perfectly, so we are left with probably right about most everything. One can be more certain of somethings than others, and one should be quite confident about God’s existence. Indeed if I am right about what I believe, then my atheist colleagues are without excuse! But it is possible I’m wrong. I doubt it though!
God opposes the proud, so I would tread very lightly here. Perhaps you’ve decided that you should believe that it is impossible that you could be wrong about your belief in God, so you thump the table to communicate your certainty and have read into what I have written most uncharitably. Go back to the beginning of this thread when you asked if “anybody” believed probably right is the best we can do and rejecting that is to misunderstand the gospel. Perhaps a more irenic stance is warranted on your part?
LikeLike
If I am reading into your words, I promise you it is not intentional and I very much want to understand.
sdb says: “God opposes the proud…”
I say the proud God opposes are those who erect systems of thought independent of Him which allow for the possibility of His non-existence and the credibility of His sin deluded lying enemies.
The FOOL has said in his heart: “there is no God”. It is neither humble nor generous NOR loving to believe and preach even the remotest of alternate possibilities. .
sdb says: “I take recognition that I could be mistaken about anything as epistemic generosity if you will. “
Do you have a favorable specimen of this “epistemic generosity”, precept or example, either from the scriptures or the reformed standards? That’s a serious question.
LikeLike
Greg,
If I may ask – where are you going with this?
SDB is being most gracious in answering your questions. I don’t mean to step in between you two. But might I suggest your prying into the private religious life over the internet of a man you do not know overstepps your bounds and is not in keeping with Christian civility? I think you should show more restraint, is my personal opinion. I mean no offense.
Peace.
LikeLike
At AB, feel free to step in at any time. I’m no netiquette expert or anything, but I’ve always assumed that convos on message boards are open to all to jump into at anytime.
GTT, I’m not sure we’re getting anywhere here, so just a few comments and I’ll give you the last word.
I completely disagree. Pride is sin. Whether it manifests itself as atheism or not. Peter’s sin was thinking he could resist all and stand by the savior to the bitter end. As Christ pointed out, the only reason Satan hadn’t had him for lunch was because of the protection He offered. Peter was allowed to fall away and was humbled (feed my sheep x3). Spiritual pride is perhaps the most dangerous manifestation of pride. I think this is where I read Bobby to be going with his comment about understanding the gospel. Bold claims about what you utterly, unassailably know to be true are unwise in my estimation. I could be wrong, there is a lot I don’t understand, but I am persuaded that he is faithful and will cast my lot with Him.
Well consider Paul, “If the resurrection didn’t happen, then we are all a bunch of pathetic losers” (my translation). How could he even suggest such a remote alternate possibility?
I believe that it is possible that I could be mistaken about everything I believe and hold dear. Atheists shouldn’t be locked up in mental institutions for holding to materialism…it is a quite rational system that could in principle be true. I find it exceedingly unlikely that is the case, but colleagues much more clever than me disagree. I think they are tragically mistaken. But they are not in the same class of folks who think their CIA is communicating to them through their houseplants about plans for an alien invasion. You seem to think that because I don’t think atheism is tautologically false (along the lines of a square circle) that somehow I am compromising my faith? If so, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. A bunch of randomly bolded, ALL CAPS adjectives expressing your exasperated disbelief just isn’t going to get us anywhere…
I’ll have to think about that one. While I think his philosophical work is lacking, I’ve found the irenic tone of van Til quite attractive. My epistemology is strongly influenced by anti-realist/empiricist thinkers such as van Fraassen (an RC).
LikeLike
GtG: Do you have a favorable specimen of this “epistemic generosity”, precept or example, either from the scriptures or the reformed standards?
Prov 12.15: “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.”
In order to listen to advice, one must first admit, “I am not infallible. I could be wrong.”
LikeLike
sdb: “Pride is sin.”
most is, but apparently not all, relating to who the heart sincerely gives the glory; oh to have the faith of ‘sinless’ pride like Paul’s ability to boast only in God’s work
for our proud confidence is this: the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world and especially toward you. 2 Cor 1:12
LikeLike
The Bible Can’t Speak To All of Life
By D. G. HART | Published: APRIL 3, 2015
That’s why you need the Roman Catholic Church.
Should have stopped there. The rest is commentary.
LikeLike
I don’t know where to start, but wherever it is, it isn’t going to be tonight.
At the risk of further offending you, I must say that I am an expert on Dr. Van Til’s thought. He is one of the my all time heroes of the faith for 25 years.
“It is quite true, of course, that created man is unable to penetrate to the very bottom of this inherently clear revelation. But this does not mean that on this account the revelation of God is not clear, even for him. Created man may see clearly what is revealed clearly even if he cannot see exhaustively. Man does not need to know exhaustively in order to know truly and certainly. When on the created level of existence man thinks God’s thoughts after him, that is, when man thinks in self-conscious submission to the voluntary revelation of the self-sufficient God, he has therewith the only possible ground of certainty for his knowledge” NATURE AND SCRIPTURE page 8 to toss up a quick quote.
Trust me friend. Van Til taught EXACTLY what I’m telling you and he did it with uncompromising dogmatism. He blasted Aquinas and his Aristotelian “romanist” epistemology. If you like I’ll dig up in his classroom lectures, the audio of some of which still survive, (78 0f them to be exact, though not all are in the classroom) where he tells his students to go say that they are pretty certain their wives DO exist, but not absolutely, and see what happens. “Do we give less to God?”
I do not mean to come off hostile to you. Lemme ask though if sdb is reformed? (with RCC epistemology?)
LikeLike
TVD, you are so silly. I appreciate your little games.
SDB, GtT reminds me of the young earth creationists who made my private beliefs their public concern. If you are fine with his questioning, I have no problem. It just comes off as inquisitory, and no Christian deserves a trial like that from some stranger. I’ll be reading. I’ve always appreciated your contributions (and even some of Greg’s, to be honest).
Take care.
LikeLike
“I am an expert on Dr. Van Til’s thought.”
I’m a fool to do this dirty work, but it has to be done. Greg, if other people call you an expert, you *might* be an expert. If you’re the only one who calls yourself an expert, you’re not. Your self-appraisal dial is up to 11 – bring it down a bit and your conversations will be more fruitful, i.e., walk away from your Elijah Complex.
LikeLike
Greg, that “I am an expert” bit is the sort of thing I mentioned that makes you sound like Don Quixote.
Are you an expert? How so? Who says that about you?
GtT – “…when man thinks in self-conscious submission to the voluntary revelation of the self-sufficient God, he has therewith the only possible ground of certainty for his knowledge..”
The voluntary revelation – do you mean special, general, both? Simply trying to make sure I understand what you are saying.
What do you do in the computer field by the way?
LikeLike
Inspector Clouseau was an expert in a great many things. He was particularly adept at the martial arts and disguises. I am an expert, in Type II diabetes eradication. Some people try to diminish it as fat shaming. That’s unfair. I’m saving lives AND improving the view.
LikeLike
I do hereby recant my claim of expertise regarding Dr. Cornelius Van Til. I revise this statement to simply being a person who has taken the time to understand and recognize the thoroughly biblical method of thinking about anything that he intentionally focused on. Though it had been in the scriptures and even in the church historically all along.
Can we get on to the substance of the discussion please? An uncertain God is an idolatrous lie. Find me that god in the scriptures or historic reformed orthodoxy. I’ll be waiting. For the rest of my natural life. A god who probably, but doesn’t necessarily exist is a post modern contrivance and the quintessential offspring of the spirit of the age.
LikeLike
a. quotes sdb as saying
“Pride is sin.”
And then responds with:
most is, but apparently not all, relating to who the heart sincerely gives the glory; oh to have the faith of ‘sinless’ pride like Paul’s ability to boast only in God’s work
for our proud confidence is this: the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world and especially toward you. 2 Cor 1:12
Very VERY good sir. Ya beat me to it and there’s plenty. more. The idea that cherishing and proclaiming the foundational and unassailable certainty of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob is sinful pride, is preposterous on a truly disturbing level.
Ya know, Dr. Hart really is a historian extraordinaire. In case nobody noticed, I have at least a few hundred comments here now and he has not once ever disputed a single historical fact I’ve advanced. Never once. The reason is simple. They happen to be correct where it really matters. Right now he’s reading what I’m saying again and he knows there is no uncertain God to be found in historic reformed orthodoxy. however, the thought of siding with me against his own crew is unthinkable so he’ll say nothing like always. Watch. Of course that’s still better than attempting to defend a demonstrably false proposition.
When it comes to a topic like this I give no quarter and concede not an inch. I don’t care who or how many opponents present themselves. My confidence is in the triumphant conquering king and creator of the universe. This was once known as “conviction”. In today’s limp wristed whimpering feminized church it’s called “arrogance”. I do not care.
LikeLike
Greg, it’s been said any number of ways but is faith more than the sum of it’s logical parts? Does God promise himself to us in cleverly designed and vetted syllogisms or in the means of grace wherein we believe in that which we can not see? Is it not just as piously required that we say no more than what has been revealed? I’m not necessarily defending sdb’s position, I’m sure I don’t know it entirely, but I’m trying to get a sense(less than certain there) of the ground. We are supernaturalists when it’s all said and done, and to the degree that sdb is one as well(incarnation, resurrection) I’m not sure drawing such epistemic hard lines is helpful or defensible.
LikeLike
“Though it had been in the scriptures and even in the church historically all along.”
Not really, Greg. There would be no Van Til if there were no Kant, and Kant did his work in the 1700’s.
“A god who probably, but doesn’t necessarily exist is a post modern contrivance and the quintessential offspring of the spirit of the age.”
It was already contrived in the first century.
____
22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god.
_____
But, ultimately, you’re doing battle with a straw man. Christians have various degrees of faith, and faith may be more or less strong in this earthly pilgrimage. Peter’s faith was not constant and the New Testament authors addressed churches in which some might have wavering faith due to persecution, etc. You seem to be certain as a matter of personality type.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle on April 13, 2015 at 9:24 pm
quotes me asking:
GtG: Do you have a favorable specimen of this “epistemic generosity”, precept or example, either from the scriptures or the reformed standards?
And then responds with
Prov 12.15: “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.”
In order to listen to advice, one must first admit, “I am not infallible. I could be wrong.”
Forgive me sir but this is an embarrassing misuse of that proverb. The fool who is right in his own eyes in this case is the one who claims that the God who inspired Solomon to write that might not be real. No I CANNOT be wrong about the certainty of the God to whom I owe my very existence.
This IS a reformed site right? There’s Calvinists around here somewhere? Darryl you can’t possibly believe that whatever good you want to accomplish, and I reiterate, I believe there is a great deal, will ever happen while some uncertain figment of these people’s vain imaginations is allowed to reign here.
LikeLike
Terrible Greg, The, you come across as one who thinks that the opposite of faith is doubt. But doubt necessarily coincides with faith, and sight is the opposite of doubt. You also speak as one who lives by sight and not by faith.
LikeLike
Sorry, sight is the opposite of faith.
LikeLike
This website hasn’t made vows to any reformed confession I’m aware of. In fact, instead of EC, now JJS is driving traffic here. You’re posting too much again Greg, I suggest taking the day off, focus on your job, and come back tomorrow. You’re losing your cool again, this isn’t going well. Peace.
Greg, look what our constituion says:
To reiterate what Jeff and others have said, it’s the stregth of his or her faith, but rather the object of our faith, from whence we derive our assurance.
You’re acting Terrible in line with your handle. That’s my three, again, take the day off. For your own good.
See you tomorrow,
Andrew
LikeLike
*it’s NOT the strength of his/her faith, but rather the object.
See, now I’m doing muligans. SDB is who I was thinking of:
Next.
LikeLike
I wish we could all meet somewhere for a day so everybody, especially Andrew, could see that I am not “losing my cool” LOL!
Muddy, I;m gonna give you a chance to revise your eye popping misconstrual of Acts 17:22-23 before I do. All sarcasm aside, this is a serious statement. In travelings around the web, even with fellow presbys, I am told that the level of biblical comprehension on oldlife.org is generally sophomoric at best. Smart guys, but (generally) not much real depth of bible knowledge they say. I have steadfastly resisted believing that such could be the case until the last couple days.
Please Muddy Gravel. Do a bit of quick study of that passage. Be back in a little while I hope. Sean and Zrim. I see you guys too.
LikeLike
Turrible, you can’t see me, I am the sky. I’m not the rolling wheels, I am the highway. But you’re right about Muddy, you have to catch him between binges. Muddy is more sophmoric, I’m somewhere around thirteen. Course I was learning Aristotle at that age and frowning about the priest’s higher critical methods, but yes, fart jokes, cute girls and working on my courage all formed the bedrock of my now formidable character. Not all thirteen year olds are equal.
LikeLike
Greg, I’m going to write you off as a scream from the cinder block building – incomprehensible but harmless because confined – if you can’t do better than use an entire comment so say nothing at all beyond what you said at 11:56. I’ve gone through the book of Acts with a few commentaries but, get this: I’m not an expert. But cite someone beyond yourself if you’re doing exegesis.
But, anyway, you’re simply diverting from your off-the-cuff comment that there is something new under the sun in the realm of disbelief.
LikeLike
@gtt
Ok, now I’m pulling an AB and commenting after I said no mas… though to be fair, you did ask a question. Is it ruder to ignore the question or renege on the promise to give you last word? Well after this you can have the last word.
Like I said twice before in this thread,
I added the bold for you. This is what I sincerely believe (though I am a mere layman).
Re. van Til: I don’t think much of his philosophical work, but I very much admire is his irenic tone.
Re. van Fraassen: He is RC, but his epistemology is anti-realist. I don’t think you can can construe it as “RC philosophy” per se (unlike Sproul, I am not a huge fan of Thomism). I suppose I’m post-modern in my rejection of enlightenment philosophy, though I’m not so sure either label is very meaningful (kind of like fundamentalist and puritan, they are now just epithets for things we don’t like).
My recognition that I could be wrong is not doubt or skepticism – I’m a limited fallen human who has seen a lot of very cocksure people be very wrong. Like Peter who was so certain of his faithfulness only to be told that satan would chew him up if Christ didn’t restrain him, I realize I remain steadfast only because Christ holds on to me. The proud God opposes is not just the fool… The boasting Paul refers to is the boasting in what Christ has done – not in Paul’s personal certainty he has achieved. If there is no resurrection, we are all a bunch of pathetic losers (ditto if we are wrong about God). I don’t think Paul thought it was likely he was wrong about the resurrection and I don’t think it is likely I’m wrong about God. I’m sorry you find it so scandalous that I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong (no matter how remote). We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
LikeLike
I would love to meet all you guys as long as there were law enforcement officers real close by. No offense but many of you went off the reservation a long time ago.
Greg, there are probably a lot of people who agree with you in the main on this and on the media stuff but don’t want to be categorized in the same boat because of how you come across.
GtT – “…when man thinks in self-conscious submission to the voluntary revelation of the self-sufficient God, he has therewith the only possible ground of certainty for his knowledge..”
The voluntary revelation – do you mean special, general, both? Simply trying to make sure I understand what you are saying.
LikeLike
Sean, I’m on a bet with Ms. Gravel. Her desserts, my cigars – both gone. So I get cranky and I want to poke things. Hillary’s first events are closed, so that’s a no-go. Greg is next in line. It’s like therapy for me, and because I quote scripture it’s nouthetic therapy.
Now I’m going to look through the ashtrays by the dryer vent while Ms. Gravel is gone.
LikeLike
Muddy, that’s gruesome. You do know there’s only one known chemical imbalance, everything else is immersion therapy. If you’re really nouthetic, there’s no such thing as gradual exposure. Man up.
LikeLike
CT, if I ever meet any of these OLTS characters (of which I am one, I know) it will be too soon. Strong police presence required, indeed.
There seems to be a desire on some to re-play some of the great debates (I hear this one is worth listening to, note who is involved, maybe I’ll try that on my commute for the next couple drives, for kicks and giggles) here on the internet. Here’s what I don’t get – Greg comes loaded for bear day in and day out, even after the host has asked him to show restraint. Why can’t he? He’s got an axe to grind, I get it. But something’s driving him, and even Erik in one of his comments on his blog says he can’t figure out what Greg’s doing here at OLTS. He’s just the latest in a long line who tries to move the needle, and it won’t succeed. I don’t want to post Mark Jones’ why we don’t allow comments at ref21 but I will if pushed to do it. Online debate in comment sections simply does not work, and I restate – these are mind games and not formal dialog settings. After all, they are meant to be writer / reader response (Between Darryl and his readers). Who invented this cross dialog idea in a blog comment anyway? Sounds very Bryan Crossian, quite frankly. So long as Greg keeps typing, he reveals more about himself than he means to, so by all means I hope he keeps it up. I think he will come to realize what is going on (like Jim Carrey on the Trueman Show, realizing the world is watching (when in fact, of course, no one is silly enough to read this comment box theologizing drivel)).
To (all about) me, the blog comment section, again, is writer/reader response, and then maybe some sharing of things (on the topic of the blog post, I might add) that P&R people find interesting. But these back and forth dialgoues are tiresome, and I’d rather free DGH up to do the work he’s so good at – writing formal works and doing his job as Elder. With that, this comment is too long, and I’m sorry.
Peace.
LikeLike
sdb says: “I’m a limited fallen human “
Is your confidence in yourself or the God of WCF II?
Chris says: “Greg, there are probably a lot of people who agree with you in the main on this and on the media stuff but don’t want to be categorized in the same boat because of how you come across. “
He might be (somewhat) right Erik. As wrong as that is. I care what people say far more than how they say it.
Chris says: “The voluntary revelation – do you mean special, general, both? Simply trying to make sure I understand what you are saying.”
What you quote me as saying, is actually myself quoting Van Til in his awesome short piece, Nature and Scripture. The theme of the article is natural revelation. However, in that specific statement he is speaking generally. Man is pickled in a reality of pragmatic certainty. We can’t function without it.
Please do not hit me with with modified addition, non base 10 systems and other such supercilious sophistries. Down here where we live, 1+1 ALWAYS equals 2. Tell the IRS it doesn’t and see what happens. Every second we live our lives we depend on the underlying order of maths and logic. (I know what’s coming, but I’ll let somebody say it first)
Yes, I am fully aware of Cantor and Boltzmann and _______________. They changed NAH-THING for bible believing Christians. From whence arises this certainty?
This brings me to Muddy. The God Paul preached was “unknown” to THEM Muddy. The Athenians. NOT Christians. I am talking to CHRISTIANS here. Acts 17, along with some others, is one of the most oft mangled passages today in all of scripture. Also, according to the same apostle in Romans 1, the true and living God is not actually “unknown”, as in the awareness of His existence, to ANYbody. He is unknown to the lost in a relational sense. Not mere cognition.
I know Barack Obama exists. But I don’t know him. He is in that sense unknown to me.
LikeLike
JRC: In order to listen to advice, one must first admit, “I am not infallible. I could be wrong.”
Greg: Forgive me sir but this is an embarrassing misuse of that proverb.
I forgive you.
Greg: The fool who is right in his own eyes in this case is the one who claims that the God who inspired Solomon to write that might not be real. No I CANNOT be wrong about the certainty of the God to whom I owe my very existence.
Why does Paul say, “If Christ is not raised, our faith is in vain?”
He clearly believes that Christ is raised. And yet he is not allergic to considering the alternative.
You are. Are you more certain than Paul?
But in regard to to the proverb, epistemic generosity is a habit of thought.
LikeLike
Oh..I believe when our first live meet, we will find ourselves stuck together on the golf course for a lot longer than just a day. Sorry (emoticon)
LikeLike
Greg, duh. But you’re not paying attention. I made it real easy for you by quoting the words I was rebutting. They were “A god who probably, but doesn’t necessarily exist is a post modern contrivance and the quintessential offspring of the spirit of the age.” So the issue was whether such a notion was a post modern contrivance, and I argued it was previously contrived. So all your blather was about something I never said.
In the future, just skip the high drama of giving me the chance to change my mind. Good grief, isn’t there enough drama in Detroit?
LikeLike
See, Greg, you saw the text, thought, “A ha! Paul at Athens! I’ve read Van Til’s pamphlet – now I get to school everyone!” But buzzzzzzzzzzzz, oh, so sorry, you’ll have to wait.
LikeLike
Greg, really? Many of us may see serious limitations in the practice much less the need of tightly crafted syllogisms to justify our faith or argue for the existence of God but stop mistaking that for inability or ignorance or worse. None of us enjoy being led down the path of gotcha argumentation, so we choose to derail it, being the tremendously intuitive thinkers we are(myself more than everyone else). Most of us have forgotten more than you know. It’s ok that you know it and really really believe it, but, oh, never mind. Do what you want to do. Keller just sold out NL for clean slated, culture imprinted robot human beings. Jerk (how’s that for some winsome).
LikeLike
Somebody get hold of the hotel porn usage statistics in Orlando for this week. With all that meaning it, you just know there’s some struggling and accountability group confessions on tap.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle asks: “Why does Paul say, “If Christ is not raised, our faith is in vain?” He clearly believes that Christ is raised. And yet he is not allergic to considering the alternative. You are. Are you more certain than Paul?”
Jeff. He is NOT considering the alternative. He is rebuking THEM for considering the alternative. Please read, preferably the whole chapter, but at least starting from v. 12.
Jeff says: “But in regard to to the proverb, epistemic generosity is a habit of thought.”
“Epistemic generosity” is pagan practice and bringing it inside he church is idolatry. The proverb teaches NOTHING like what you attempt to recruit it for.
Muddy Gravel says: Greg, duh. But you’re not paying attention. I made it real easy for you by quoting the words I was rebutting. They were “A god who probably, but doesn’t necessarily exist is a post modern contrivance and the quintessential offspring of the spirit of the age.” So the issue was whether such a notion was a post modern contrivance, and I argued it was previously contrived. So all your blather was about something I never said.
Lord Jesus please help me with this man. It’s a post modern contrivance
Muddy. Not in the world at large where of course uncertainty has always abounded. That’s my point. People have NOW brought it inside the church. Like a whole list of other unbelieving worldly contrivances.
Sean says: “Greg, really? Many of us may see serious limitations in the practice much less the need of tightly crafted syllogisms to justify our faith or argue for the existence of God..”
Is it possible that you smart people really ARE this simple after all? I have made NO such argument sir. Syllogisms are a feature of deduction, which while useful in their place, cannot possibly prove the existence of the God of the bible. NOTHING can “prove the existence of the God of the bible. He is the axiomatic precondition without which not even a single particle of intelligible rational thought is possible. He IS certainty itself.
Sean says: “None of us enjoy being led down the path of gotcha argumentation…
See that’s the difference between you and I. You can lead me anywhere. I have nothing to fear. The reason is because I trust the God of WCF II who “is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. “
He has given me His mind (1st Corinthian 2:16) and made me a partaker of His very nature (2nd Peter 1:4). For me to live is Christ and to die IS gain. (Phil. 1:21) I fear NOTHING and NOBODY. You won’t find me whining because somebody tries a little Socratic trickery on me.
Sean says: “Most of us have forgotten more than you know.”
Then teach me. Your turn. Ask ANY questions, lead me ANYwhere. I will answer as best I can. If I learn something or you change my mind, you will have my sincere gratitude and I will happily say so right here. I’m in neutral. Push or pull me as you see fit.
LikeLike
How does Greg do it?
He has his ways.
Next.
LikeLike
Greg, I don’t know how to teach someone your age how to be a human being. At this point in life, you generally just make judgements on how someone did becoming one. You seem to want to argue that without a philosophical certainty our Christian faith is lacking(welcome to CtC land). We’ve argued back that faith is just that, faith. It’s the result of supernatural interaction not philosophical preconditions. I can neither help it, nor do I care that that is inadequate rationale in your mind. I’m good with my state as I read Paul. That I entertain doubts or am afflicted by uncertainty at times and to some degree all the time, is no impediment to the reality of saving, sincere, faith. As someone else has said, the rest is likely about your temperament.
LikeLike
Sean: “It’s the result of supernatural interaction, not philosophical preconditions.”
Right here is your problem Sean. A fatal false dichotomy. That supernatural interaction is supposed to bring a foundational change to your philosophical preconditions. (this is what Romans 12:1 and 2 is all about) Philosophical preconditions that everyone has. Everyone. There’s two kinds. God’s, and all the rest. All the rest being so many derivative versions of the serpent’s lie.
You’re still living in all the rest. You are attempting to live your life in the last Adam, while clinging to the mind of the first. Oh yes you are. The mind of Christ starts with God. The mind of Adam starts with Adam. This is the sum of Dr. Van Til’s career and ministry.
LikeLike
Greg,
He’s right it’s your temperament.
I personally listen to my pastor. Not strange internet figures.
That’s two, Mr. Terrible.
LikeLike
“That supernatural interaction is supposed to bring a foundational change to your philosophical preconditions.”
Greg, when did the idea of “philosophic preconditions” become in vogue? No, definitely not in in the first century – sorry. Certainly there were early Christians like Justin Martyr who thought Plato was the bomb, but alas, nothing about a priori knowledge for quite some time. And now you’re making it foundational.
LikeLike
“That supernatural interaction is supposed to bring a foundational change to your philosophical preconditions. (this is what Romans 12:1 and 2 is all about)”
Greg, you left out verse 3. Does verse 3 say verse two is about the necessity of presuppositionalism? Does it support that transcendental philosophy is required by the Bible?
12 I appeal to you therefore, brothers,[a] by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.[b] 2 Do not be conformed to this world,[c] but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.*** 3*** For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
LikeLike
Greg, here’s Calvin on verse 3:
_________
3. For I say, through the grace, etc. If you think not the causal particle superfluous, this verse will not be unsuitably connected with the former; for since he wished that our whole study should be employed in investigating the will of God, the next thing to this was, to draw us away from vain curiosity. As however the causal particle is often used redundantly by Paul, you may take the verse as containing a simple affirmation; for thus the sense would also be very appropriate.
_________
So, it is taken to explain verse two and takes the point not as having philosophical foundations, but as investigating the will of God. Does your philosophy come flow from the Bible or does your Bible flow from your philosophy?
LikeLike
Muddy, the name of Greg’s blog is Trib’s Tantrums. He also calls himself “the terrible.”
He doesn’t take himself seriously, I don’t see why anyone on this blog should either. He may be a nice guy in real life, but online, there’s something about his method that seems downright sinful and in a NAPARC church, I think someone would have reached out to his pastor to help reign him in by now.
In other words, he’s a one man army against this blog and several others. Let him throw tantrums, you won’t see me talking to him any more on these boards.
That’s three.
LikeLike
Greg: Jeff. He is NOT considering the alternative. He is rebuking THEM for considering the alternative. Please read, preferably the whole chapter, but at least starting from v. 12.
He is rebuking them for accepting the alternative. By writing the sentence
“If Christ is not raised…”
he is considering, as a hypothetical possibility, that Christ might not be raised. And if not, then what? To even write that sentence, he has to consider that Christ might not be raised as a hypothetical possibility.
LikeLike
Andrew, do you realize that you go from telling me how great I am, to telling THEM how horrible I am about twice a day? Sometimes on the same page, inches apart? This doesn’t make me like you any less, but it does make you look dopey. Make up your mind bro. 🙂 If you’re ever in Detroit, ya gotta look me up. I can’t golf, but we have a couple fabulous Chinese buffets around here. It world be great to have a handshake and some lunch and maybe pray for each other.
I can’t get to the rest of you guys right now. Sorry.
LikeLike
Greg, I like you, but you come on too strong, that’s why Darryl deleted comments addressed to you in the first place (go read sweetbreads again). If you actually read my comments here, I’m consistent in believing you are coming after people in an unhealthy way. But I said I wouldn’t address you, and here I am breaking that. I do not think you should continue going about religion on the internet the way you are doing (I know what I said on Erik’s blog, my point there was “one day at a time.”). So you are free to continue. My suggestion is you read the “experiment” post again about only making 3 comments in a day, one in the morning, one the afternoon, one in the evening. But here I am breaking that. Just I don’t think Darryl has your worst interest at heart, rather, the opposite, though I know you have your own opinions and they are not the same as mine here or on other topics. If you are in the bay area, feel free to visit, there’s usually plenty of refreshments.
Point people to church, but more importantly, to Christ. The other stuff (like leading a moral life and following the 10 commandments) comes along with that for the true believer, and you can know them by their fruit.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Greg, I’ll try not to repeat what Muddy said, but you want to put forth that Rom 12:1-2 is an argument for philosophical ideallism? This is the same Paul who grounds the veracity of the faith in the HISTORICAL event of the resurrection, otherwise your faith is VAIN?! The same Paul who doesn’t come to you in powerful rhetoric or cleverly designed schemes but preaching Christ crucified. Presuppositionalism is not the heartbeat or even the ground of the faith, Christ and His resurrection is. Historical event not philosophical planks.
LikeLike
Greg,
The point is not to undermine faith in God or confidence in the Scripture, but to engender humility in the face of the limitations of human reasoning.
And I speak here as one whose job is to practice and teach logical deduction. I teach math.
What van Til was on about was not to create a theological Hilbert Program, in which all theology is logically derived from axioms in Scripture. He had the opportunity to embrace that system in his encounters with Clark, and he most emphatically rejected it as glorifying human reason.
Greg to Sean: See that’s the difference between you and I. You can lead me anywhere.
Then be led in this way: Having genuine epistemic humility does not mean lacking confidence in God’s word. It means acknowledging that your own reason is not the final word.
LikeLike
Greg The Terrible
Posted April 15, 2015 at 2:50 pm | Permalink
Andrew, do you realize that you go from telling me how great I am, to telling THEM how horrible I am about twice a day? Sometimes on the same page, inches apart? This doesn’t make me like you any less, but it does make you look dopey. Make up your mind bro. 🙂
______________
Jeff Cagle
Posted April 15, 2015 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
Greg,
The point is not to undermine faith in God or confidence in the Scripture, but to engender humility in the face of the limitations of human reasoning.
And I speak here as one whose job is to practice and teach logical deduction. I teach math.
What van Til was on about was not to create a theological Hilbert Program, in which all theology is logically derived from axioms in Scripture. He had the opportunity to embrace that system in his encounters with Clark, and he most emphatically rejected it as glorifying human reason.
Greg to Sean: See that’s the difference between you and I. You can lead me anywhere.
Then be led in this way: Having genuine epistemic humility does not mean lacking confidence in God’s word. It means acknowledging that your own reason is not the final word.
___________________________
TVD: Just watching the wheels go round and round here at Darryl’s Fun House. Although we haven’t been properly introduced, I’m confident me & Mr. Turrible would get along just fine.
We’ve both taken a 7-iron to the buffet here, but still the help defends the tasteless fare because they know nothing else.
Well, actually, they can’t defend it because they have no idea what Darryl’s so cleverly saying/not saying, but like all good worker bees, they mindlessly attack any threat to the hive.
Cheers, Mr. Turrible, no lukewarm water, you.
LikeLike
I wanted to, but I’m not going to be able to get my responses written tonight.
One thing is clear. Nobody I’ve spoken to here yet has any idea what Van Til taught. There’s no inoffensive way to say this either so I can’t help but just say it. It’s clear that at least the people in this conversation spend very little meaningful time in their bibles. (I commend Darryl for making an effort to change that) How many here spend half as much time in the Word of God as you do being conformed to the world by your television? Raise your hands.
That explains everything. One WILL drive out the other.
LikeLike
Greg,
more van tillian than thou is a good thread to read.
Are you up on your Lee Irons reading?;Carr to share your thoughts on republication while we all wait with anticipation on the OPC GA report on the matter (though I am with “Todd” here I’m thinking both the grace boys and the nicotine smokers will likely get a pass, since there is no “smoking gun” (i know where Todd said exactly that))? Did I lose you, or are you still with me? One day at a time, my friend, Andrew PS isn’t TVD adorable?
LikeLike
Next [2].
LikeLike
VD,t, “like all good worker bees, they mindlessly attack any threat to the hive.”
How did Erik ever go rogue?
LikeLike
Greg, I’d spend more time in my bible but that means less time to smoke crack and watch porn. Plus, have you read Van til?! Snooze fest. But don’t worry, I have my Connemara worry stone and dream catcher in the foyer to catch the evil spirits wandering through. Finally, I wear my scapular against my skin, and the warm glow of the TV keeps me company while I dream, I’m good.
LikeLike
From the cinder block house
Passed through the bars
A note
“I am free.
Be free like me.”
LikeLike
“like all good worker bees, they mindlessly attack any threat to the hive.”
….….apparently disagreeing with Prov 24:23
Jesus (thru Paul):”1 Timothy 5:21”
LikeLike
I rest my case.
Yes Sean. I read most of Van Til’s BOOKS first in the late 1980’s. No pictures though so I understand your boredom 😀
I’ll get to those responses as soon as I can.
LikeLike
Sir Greg, no rush. Really. I really really am a visual learner, unlike your very esteemed self. Plus, I only rep out at 375# on a 5×5 but verily I say to you, I can combine that with about twenty minutes of relentless pressure. I’ll be eating your heart within five. So, hurry along little starling. Fly fly fly. fly fly fly.
LikeLike
A quick copy and paste for now from HERE
===================================
Van Til is not difficult so much as he is FOREIGN. The thoroughly biblical system of thought that he so faithfully proclaimed for all those years is an utterly foreign ethical and intellectual (in that order) language to the one the corrupted sons of fallen father Adam are born with.
Imagine this conversation with a six year old girl after church. My church is mostly black (though I am white). Some sane joyful dancing goes on there on occasion.
————————————————————–
Me, in kiddy voice to a 6 year old girl dancing around the foyer at my church: “How many is 2+2 _______(name)?”
6 year old still dancing in tone calculated to indicate the silliness of the question: “4 brother Greg”(duh)
Me, to tirelessly dancing 6 year old: “are you sure?”
6 year old in respectful tone: “yes sir.”
Me: “why are you sure?”
6 year old states matter of factly without missing a step: “because that’s how God made it”.
————————————————————-
That’s the right answer. The sovereign preeminent, non contingent ground of all thought and being who is alone capable of actually autonomous objective knowledge. The ancient of days whose eternally ontological triunity majestically resolves the problem of the one and the many. The triumphant conquering king of the universe without whose all governing decree not one atom in all the vast cosmos dare twitch. The reason why 2+2=4. In six words from the mouth of a babe nurtured in His name and yet uncluttered by the onslaught of the world.
Ya know, I had to read “The Defense of the Faith” twice in a literal row 25 years ago. I finished it, and became of aware of a strained wince on my face as I pondered what I’d just read for a good while. I picked it up and started over. It was like I could smell a sumptuous feast on the other side of a wall with a door I couldn’t find.
I don’t remember the exact quote of what I was reading at the time, but the second time through the shade went up and the light came flooding in. I felt like an idiot for it having to have been pointed out to me. I actually chuckled out loud: “of course. How could it possibly be otherwise?” I understood the Godhood of God like never before. I’m not being over dramatic. Since then I’ve read most of what Dr. Van Til has written and repeatedly listened to all 78 known extant recordings of his voice. Today it’s second nature. Well actually first nature. “Don’t ya see?” 🙂
Jesus Christ defeated my sin and death. God used John Calvin in his institutes to show me what that meant and Cornelius Van Til taught me how to think like it was true.
LikeLike
sean
Sir Greg, no rush. Really. I really really am a visual learner, unlike your very esteemed self. Plus, I only rep out at 375# on a 5×5 but verily I say to you, I can combine that with about twenty minutes of relentless pressure. I’ll be eating your heart within five. So, hurry along little starling. Fly fly fly. fly fly fly.
Don’t be gittin all twitchy on me there Bub. This preening about is unbecoming to say the least. How bout we talk about grown up stuff that matters? I think you can do it.
LikeLike
Verily Greg, I’m trying to see. But I get distracted by the generals gathered in their masses, they’re just like witches at black masses, you know? There’s all these evil minds plotting destruction, while you look out at the fields(harvest) and the bodies are burning. But the war machine just keeps on turning like nothing is happening, poisoning their brain washed minds(Van Til’s point.). In the meantime, politicians hide themselves away, why should they fight! They just leave it all to the poor. Treating people like pawns in chess. Wait till the judgement day comes! Amen? They’ll be on their knees begging mercies for their sins, while Satan laughs and spreads his wings.
LikeLike
Honorable Greg, sorry about the twitch. You’d think I’d know by now not to chase my EC stack with a pipe hit. But I still forget sometimes. I tell you what though, I can’t feel anything. It beats edging all day.
LikeLike
Sean, Greg rested his case. I say we give him that satisfaction.
what being at the OLTS bar feels like, I’m not sure Greg has seen this one. That princess Leia may be too much for him. But I pick no fight, just hoping to enchance Mr. Terrible’s cultural literacy.
LikeLike
AB, I will eat you alive. Plus, I really just want a girl in a short skirt and a loooooooooooooooooong jacket.
LikeLike
I want a girl with a smooth liquidation
(SMOOTH LIQUIDATION)
I want a girl with good dividends
(GOOD DIVIDENDS)
At Citibank we will meet accidentally
We’ll start to talk when she borrows my pen
LikeLike
Sean I used to eat the white cross 25’s like candy way back when, (could get 1000 for 18 bux by mail order 20 years ago) but haven’t touched em years.
LikeLike
Turrible, everyone knows white cross’ were for showgirls. Though, as I’ve been told, you try dancing in high heels for 8 hours! I haven’t tried it………………………………..yet. Are you gonna Hulk mask me too? That’s my favorite. I’ll put you on my wall if you do.
LikeLike
“Ya know, I had to read “The Defense of the Faith” twice in a literal row 25 years ago. I finished it, and became of aware of a strained wince on my face as I pondered what I’d just read for a good while. I picked it up and started over. It was like I could smell a sumptuous feast on the other side of a wall with a door I couldn’t find.”
Interesting, Greg. When I picked it up after decade I thought “obscure writing under the shadow of Kant.” So now there’s a chalk outline where his shadow used to fall and you’re standing there insisting that everyone else join you.
But, please, don’t let me interrupt. Talk to Dr. Sean.
LikeLike
Greg, pal — word to the wise: Sean is like Jason Bourne, DB Cooper, James Bond, a Jedi renegade, your worst nightmare, and/or Dr Phil. Step away while you can.
LikeLike
CW, you forgot Clockwork Orange.
LikeLike
And Barney Fife, as in he can turn his whole body into a weapon.
LikeLike
I think of it more as Connor MacManus meets Mr. Cobb.
LikeLike
oh yes sir CW. I have observed that Sean is an impressively capable man. Even quite independently of his not so subtle reminders of this fact. I just keep holding out hope that I’ll see it soon.
Tiribulus PRINCIPLES of online debate #5
5. NEVER glibly underestimate your opponent. ALWAYS assume your opponent is 10 times smarter, 10 times more qualified and 10 times more informed than you are. He DOES NOT have to be stupid to be wrong. In fact, the more intelligent he is, the more potential he has for truly spectacular
LikeLike
I say skip the humble braggart routine and go straight James Brown. Jump back turn around and kiss myself.
LikeLike
Sean says: “I say skip the humble braggart routine and go straight James Brown. Jump back turn around and kiss myself.”
OR……hang on now…… you could try having a substantive discussion.
LikeLike
Every time I go serious, I end up disappointed. People go fideistic, move the goal posts, apparently live in their mother’s basement where they have canned responses qued up and even lead you down the trail with hypotheticals and overused ambush ploys. Then my no fun-I’m bored ringer goes off, and it’s all blah blah blah blah. It’s gotta be smart and breezy and concise. My ADD keeps me moving on. Life is complex. Paul tells me to keep it quiet, sober and busy. If you’re selling something else, I just don’t have the patience for it.
LikeLike
However, Mr. Turrible, the entire TGC crew apparently has time to pontificate until the cows come home(some inhabit the panel) and there isn’t a working BS meter to be found.
LikeLike
Cow/s inhabit the panel. Which panel you may ask, well, there’s probably more than one. Cow and panel and cows inhabiting said panel/s
LikeLike
Can’t stop reading the train wreck comments – it is like a cross between Forest Gump and Rain Man played by Hulk Hogan entered into a Van Til fight club scene reading Mr. GtT’s interactions. The only rule about Van Til fight club is… record screech … wait a minute, here are my PRINCIPLES of Van Til fight club done Don Quixote style. The only thing better would be to have everyone read their comments out loud in their best pirate voice.
LikeLike
Greg, if you want serious discussion this is the precondition:
“Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense,
but a man of understanding remains silent.” — Prov 11.12
“There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts,
but the tongue of the wise brings healing.” — Prov 12.18
LikeLike
Jeff, don’t forget these though:
“Like a dog that returns to his vomit
is a fool who repeats his folly.”
Proverbs 26:11
“Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.”
Proverbs 26:4-5
LikeLike
Proverbs 29:20
Do you see someone who speaks in haste?
There is more hope for a fool than for them.
This could go on for a while..
LikeLike
I have not had the time I’d hoped for today.
Sean dodges: “People go fideistic”
Please explain. Not what fideism is. I know what it is. It’s also the favorite charge of thomists(papists), armininians, classicalists, evidentialists, tragically inconsistent Calvinists (like sdb and RC Sproul) AND atheists, who ALL hold the same unbelieving epistemology of probability against the truly biblical view as espoused by Dr. Van Til.
Please Sean, take a break from your jester routine and explain to me what YOU intend by the accusation of fideiism against me and why. Would you do that? (right here MIGHT be where Oliphint and I don’t necessarily see 100% eye to eye though I love the guy)
Muddy, I haven’t forgotten Romans 12.
LikeLike
Gargantuan Greg the Grevious, I never called you a fideist. But I can, if you’d like. One of my issues with Van Til is he pushes the antithesis too far. He ends up eclipsing common grace and the Imago Dei. There’s more but that right thar is a lot.
LikeLike
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!! How did I get lumped in with RC Sproul? Now that’s hitting below the belt!
LikeLike
And how could you possibly know what I understand of van Til? My point was narrow… great guy as evidenced by his irenic tone. I respect that even though I don’t buy his philosophy. I have neither the time nor interest in getting in to a debate about his work (sorry Erik).. much less with a fanboy who thinks adding allcaps is an argument.
I am curious…if utter unassailable knowledge of God is possible (on par with knowing my wife exists), why do we say “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth? ” Who talks that way about trees, what they had for dinner last night, or who the president is? Maybe because God’s existence isn’t an empirical fact or a tautology?
Greg you seem to be saying that you refuse to question God’s existence as if it is a sign of commitment. This is a category mistake.Recognizing you could be wrong is simply to acknowledge that you don’t know everything. If someone found Jesus’s corpse and a letter from Peter to Paul outlining their hoax, I would have to admit that I was wrong. I really, really, really doubt that would happen.
So why do I care so much about something that could really come down to semantics? I have seen the terrible effect of pride bring down way too many. Maybe it is just confirmation bias, but over and over I see the loudest most vociferous advocates of the utter unassailable truth of this or that have their faith crumble. If embracing epistemic humility is a postmodern contrivance in your view, then you clearly don’t understand postmodernism. Recognizing that your opponent’s claim could have merit the implications of which are worth walking through is not a betrayal of your conviction but respect for your opponent. Not all arguments deserve this respect (not even wrong as Pauli would say).
LikeLike
Mark me down as someone who basically likes van Til, albeit with caveats.
LikeLike
Sean alleges: “Van Til is the pushes the antithesis too far. He ends up eclipsing common grace and the Imago Dei”
How so. I’m gonna push you because I suspect (but could be wrong) that you’re throwing around commonly known catch words to appear to know what you’re talking about. Please tell me how Van Til’s view of antithesis (which I am thoroughly familiar with) ends up eclipsing COMMON GRACE and the remaining though sinfully broken image of God in man.
I will be happy to be wrong Sean. Please explain.
Jeff, no offense brother, honest, but we are not even in the same room with one another. I will actually attempt to explain that more. Please understand guys, that for what I do I go from place to place with computers alot. A day like today, I get a little while at a time in each place. Other days, I can spend hours just on web stuff. I have to go again. (yes, weird hours)
LikeLike
Garrulous Greg The Goon, lead ins, contexts and set ups like this;” I suspect (but could be wrong) that you’re throwing around commonly known catch words to appear to know what you’re talking about.”
Earn you jack from me. I let you know when and if you’ve merited a substantive response from moi. So far you’ve earned the back of my hand. But, being the incredibly magnanimous, charitable and generous guy I am, I’ll give you this morsel; The unregenerate are capable of ordering this temporal life and capable of instructing in both the hard sciences and liberal arts. The categories are not Xian and non-Xian or theist and atheist as regards this temporal life, but rather competency(varying degrees) and incompetency(varying degrees). Arguments and discussions of ‘borrowed capital’ don’t move the meter.
LikeLike
Sean says: “The unregenerate are capable of ordering this temporal life and capable of instructing in both the hard sciences and liberal arts. The categories are not Xian and non-Xian or theist and atheist as regards this temporal life”
And you believe that this is what Van Til taught? That there are Christian and non Christian versions of morally neutral and therefore morally indifferent arenas of temporal life? I’m asking. I want to make I understand.
PRINCIPLE number 7. “Be very careful and deliberate in hearing my opponent’s representations of his position/propositions and answer only after I’m sure I understand. OR, ask him to explain in more detail so as not to carelessly misrepresent him and/or convey a dismissive or disrespectful attitude. (that needs work sometimes.)”
Sean says: “Arguments and discussions of ‘borrowed capital’ don’t move the meter.”
Explain Van Til’s illustration of “borrowed capital” and why it’s wrong please. Make sure you get the answer to the first question right though. Because if not, you’ll REALLY miss this one too.
LikeLike
sdb asks: “if utter unassailable knowledge of God is possible (on par with knowing my wife exists),
Your wife’s existence, and therefore your knowledge of it, depends upon the creator God whose invisible attributes, … eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen.. because HE HIMSELF has MADE them known to you. (Romans 1) It’s ok not to know something. It’s not ok to pretend you do. I’m still waiting for the first person who has so much as a rudimentary intentional knowledge of Van Til’s biblical theistic epistemology. Which, was nothing more than a reformed doctrine of God expressed philosophically.
This was a pet student of Geerhardu Vos and one of Machen’s boys. A founding faculty member of Westminster east and prof there for 43 years. He’s one of the most famous and prominent warriors in the defense of reformed orthodoxy against Schleiermacher and then Barth. HERE he is 83 years old on a trip to NYC preaching Christ and Him crucified to a gathered crowd outside the building where they had business.
YES, I’m a fanboy. He’s one of my all time heroes. Is the Lord more pleased with people whose heroes are godless, blaspheming producers and performers of debased and debauched television and film? Who are far more familiar with and admiring of His hated enemies than they are His faithful servants?
LikeLike
Turrible, you have got to stop with all the schoolmarming and patronizing behavior. And don’t come back and sell how you really really really don’t mean to be a turd in a punch bowl, I just want to understand, Rocky, I really really do. I’m not interested in taking your Reformed Cosmo quiz. Van Til was gloriously inconsistent. He desperately fought for his epistemological antithesis while struggling to be consistent about what the unbeliever could know(truly) and not know. At one time he would happily acknowledge the unbeliever’s ability to apprehend and ‘know’ GR and at other moments he would deny that the unbeliever could ‘know’ anything at all. He finally falls back on being epistemologically self-conscious(God conscious). Guess what? The believer can’t pull it off either. Additionally, he falls victim to the extending of the KOG to again encompass the cultural mandate this side of Glory. This is the why of a guy like Bahnsen. This pushing of the antithesis into the common realm at the behest of the expansion of the KOG(cult) is where Van Til struggles with eclipsing common grace and eroding NL. IOW, Van Til takes the legitimate religious antithesis between the cult and antichrist and extends that antithesis into cultural pursuits such as physical sciences. In short, Van Til was brilliant and inconsistent. No biggie. He isn’t God.
LikeLike
Was there an actual answer to my questions in there somewhere? I can’t address this confused stab (YOU are the one who is confused, not Van Til) without giving away Van Til’s analogy of “borrowed capital” which I asked you to explain, but which you did not.
Here’s a clue. You accidentally brushed up against it when you said this:
Try again please. I can save you some frantic Google time if you just say you don’t really know and ask me to explain it to you.
LikeLike
Gregoranus, I gave you the answer most relevant to the discussion. You aren’t adequate to set the table. So, I made it do what it does. No googling was necessary, but I reserve the right to enlist my dogs to carry in on in my stead. They’re up to this level.
LikeLike
Explain Van Til’s illustration of “borrowed capital” and why it’s wrong please.
LikeLike
Greg, this post is not about van til, read my comments, i gave you a post about van til.
You have an axe to grind.
get over yourself.
LISTEN TO DR. SEAN, HELLO!!
who’s next?
LikeLike
Greg, no. I’ve adequately addressed the misapplication of antithesis and how it eclipses CG and Imago Dei when pressed into temporal endeavors under the guise of the KOG and regenerated believers vs. unbelievers engaged in similar enterprises.
LikeLike
Remember Greg, DGH says you should do 3 comments per day per post.
Break that rule, go ahead. But you are living outside of what Darryl kindly asked of you.
Don’t be “that guy.” YOu are becoming it before our eyes here
Who’s next, yo?
LikeLike
LikeLike
Sean, Terriblus winsomely invites you into his little argument bunker.
http://www.humoar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/free-hugs-clown.jpg
LikeLike
Huh? Can you translate this into English? Maybe a comma or two would help. Eats shoots and leaves is very different from eats, shoots, and leaves.
Where did this business about television and film come from or this bit about “familiar and admiring of his hated enemies”? I’ve told you what I believe (even if it took repeating it three times to get it through your thick skull) and you’ve moved the goal posts. The only substantive question we seem to disagree on is whether it is possible for me to be mistaken about anything. I say yes, you say no. And this launches you into a rant about admiring God’s enemies?
I’m sorry to have wasted the time I did interacting with you. You aren’t reasonable and really haven’t had anything of value to contribute. You may be a swell guy in person, but you really have no business no the internet.
LikeLike
I’ve gotten to know greg a little bit, off line. He has a right to the internet as everyone else. I don’t understand why when Darryl asks people to limit 3 to a post per day, and Greg/Erik dynamic duo was the cause, why he can’t learn from that. In other words, he has a problem with restraint. It’s a Calvinist Virtue Greg is still learning [3]
Greg knows this (his joke about smoke in the restaurant, baptist yells “fire”, pentacostal, “water” reformed “everyone, please sit down, order”.
Now I ask you all calmly and gently and in as soft spoken manner as I can.
Who is next?
yo
LikeLike
SDB, Terribilus had a long comment-skirmish with a commenter who no longer visits here. He now has friendly chit chats with that departed visitor and somehow has it all screwed up inside his head that he and that departed visitor are the good guys and people here are the enemies. So, in T’s head, people here hold the view the departed commenter had when he was here – the doctrine of blog imputation.
LikeLike
I’m feeling remorse for CVT comments. He was, as far as I can tell, a kind man and a churchman who served the OPC faithfully. He did some clever work in the academic environment of his time in the field of apologetics. It’s just that he wasn’t a philosopher and there is no divine mandate to see our faith through idealist lenses.
LikeLike
Sean says: “Greg, no. I’ve adequately addressed the misapplication of antithesis and how it eclipses CG and Imago Dei when pressed into temporal endeavors under the guise of the KOG and regenerated believers vs. unbelievers engaged in similar enterprises.”
So
Sean says: “The unregenerate are capable of ordering this temporal life and capable of instructing in both the hard sciences and liberal arts. The categories are not Xian and non-Xian or theist and atheist as regards this temporal life”
And you believe that this is what Van Til taught? That there are Christian and non Christian versions of morally neutral and therefore morally indifferent arenas of temporal life? I’m asking. I want to make sure I understand. Could you provide an example of this being Van Til’s position please?
Two pages ago I said the following to Muddy Gravel:
Van Til himself said that most of the advances, especially modern ones, in science and medicine and technology have been accomplished by pagans, though he also celebrated the “galaxy of greatest thinkers” (direct quote) among the Greeks of Paul’s day. Not to mention his routinely praising unbelieving philosophers among his contemporaries as being “brilliant”.
He knew nothing of a separation of categories the way you are alleging Sean. He taught a foundational difference between epistemological knowledge and formal knowledge. At the formal level 1+1=2 for absolutely everybody. The form and formal function are identical because of the image of God present in all men, through which God’s common grace operates. At the epistemological level, the level of first principle and heart commitment, is where there exists an eternally radical antithesis. To those raised from rebellion and death in the first Adam to the life and mind of Christ in the last, 1+1=2 because of the ordered mind of the creator God whose image they bear and thoughts they think after him on a finite derivative scale.
To the mind still dead in sin, 1+1=2 for literally any reason at all other than the truth found for us now only in Christ. They will believe absolutely ANYthing,… not because that’s what they actually believe epistemologically, but to escape from what I believe epistemologically. Epistemologically, they KNOW where that knowledge comes from according to the first of Romans.
So you see Sean, the unbeliever’s campaign of rebellion against his God, is financed with capital that has been borrowed, indeed stolen, from God’s own bank. What you call “confusion” on Van Til’s part is actually the very brilliance of his approach to fallen man, missed by a shallow and dismissive reading on your part. The saints have at once, fully everything and nothing in common with sinners.
For Dr. Van Til there was not formally Christian and non-Christian mathematics to continue that example. Could be plumbing, to use Muddy’s, or any other morally neutral “sphere” of life. What made them sacred or secular on the formal level was which w-w was brought to them on the epistemological level. Because man is commanded to do all that he does to the glory of God (Colossians 3:17) and whatever is not from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23). The unjustified and unregenerate are by definition incapable of either. While the new man in Christ is saved unto both.
The bible DOES speak to all of life epistemologically, even if most of the temporal, especially modern details are not formally mentioned. Those areas of temporal life that are not morally neutral and therefore not indifferent, are without exception unambiguously addressed because “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” therefrom.
LikeLike
sdb, but Erik Charter disagrees, saying Greg’s antagonists are more often than not the ones off. So, you know, there.
LikeLike
Greg, this is the last comment to you for the month of April.
stop
playing unreal tournament tiribulus posting comments and start reading and leave these people alone. what is your problem, man?grace and peace.
LikeLike
Muddy accuses CVT of being an “idealist”
I’m one guy here folks and working a funeral to boot. Trying to keep up with everybody.
Muddy, could you define which sense you mean by this please? Because if you mean philosophical idealism, as a school, you have no business talking about the man at all. If you mean it in the sense of lofty well meaning, but unattainable standards then that is preposterous as well except for different reasons.
LikeLike
Greg may need the sowers rule applied again, Darryl. This is insane.
LikeLike
Muddy says: “SDB, Terribilus had a long comment-skirmish with a commenter who no longer visits here. He now has friendly chit chats with that departed visitor and somehow has it all screwed up inside his head that he and that departed visitor are the good guys and people here are the enemies. So, in T’s head, people here hold the view the departed commenter had when he was here – the doctrine of blog imputation.”
Except the friendly chit chat thing, for which I’m grateful, this is wholly inaccurate at every single point. I can’t see it being worth pursuing any further than that.
LikeLike
In shorthand, idealism is dominated by epistemological concerns. So was CVT. Under Kantian idealism, stuff is perceived by categories built into our perceptual faculties. To CVT, stuff is perceived through presuppositions. In Hegelian idealism there is thought as a system. CVT is committed to thought as a system.
So CVT, doing his work at a specific juncture in thought-history, spoke in terms of the mega-commitments of idealism. And he developed an apologetic within that context. To enshrine his apologetic method as THE method is a commitment to forever let idealism set the terms of the debate.
LikeLike
Muddy, I am NOT on this site to make enemies. Please believe I mean nothing personal when I tell you that you simply could not possibly be wronger.
LikeLike
Muddy, let me ‘splain; you’re an idiot. Furthermore, regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of your assesment, I, Gregorian, will hold forth at one and multiple points to exhibit MY defense and understanding of Van Til, regardless of it’s relevance to the discussion. For I am a self-titled man.
LikeLike
Greg, I will answer you here and not in Erik’s blog. It’s weird of there, his technology really sucks.
Yes, you called me yesterday, and our call was good. However, you don’t know how to limit your interaction out here. My suggestion is no more comments today, come back tomorrow. Go get some sleep.
I’m done. Peace.
LikeLike
See my comment HERE please folks.
==================================================
The rest of you guys here are a real disappointment. I really expected more.
LikeLike
Erik picked up on Bobby’s spying on a strange opc, bobby said half of the men had aspergers.
Erik is out for blood against the OPC.
I am so lost and dont know why. He reminds me of Jason Stellman.
The insanity must stop here. Now. Please.
Peace.
LikeLike
Muddy, you’re an idiot AND a disappointment. It’s like talking to one’s wife. Yeesh
LikeLike
Understood, Sean. And it’s another day that ends in “y.” But notice how effortless it is.
LikeLike
You’re my hero.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Greg, I hope I’m among those with whom you are disappointed. If not, let me know what I can do. Meanwhile, enjoy hanging out at the blog about a blog. And when AB tells you that you have interaction limitation problems you should probably listen. That’s like Bill Clinton telling someone “Dude, lay off the chicks.”
LikeLike
I am being substantively Sowered without the rule.
LikeLike
This morning I listened to this old outdoor speech given by Dr. Van Til at Westminster east at the end of his career (late 60’s, early 70’s) entitled “The CERTAINTY of Our Faith”. Haven’t listened to these or actually read much of his work in a while. Take 34 minutes and listen to this poor quality audio recording.
THAT is the “old life”. Whatever this is ya’ll got around here? It ain’t that. See, what you have is the “I’ll pick the old parts I like and throw away the rest” life. That’s what this dualistic, neo-Gnostic, hyper 2K non-worldview w-w is all about. It allows in your minds the total abandonment of the morality of the LC where it infringes upon your love of the world.
I’m here because I want what Dr. Hart says he wants, but I want ALL of it. It works as a system. A worldview consisting of theology, philosophy and ethics. Not an uncertain pick and choose Mr. Potatoe Head where you stick the features you want in whatever holes suit your fancy.
LikeLike
Greg, Van Til was not God.
Nor are you. Nor me.
Enjoy these blogs. But maybe dont use your real name.
Have a nice day, Mr. Terrible. Is that hanna barbera cartoon tiribulus worth watching?
I’ll be reading your words. Bye.
LikeLike
“Not an uncertain pick and choose Mr. Potatoe Head where you stick the features you want in whatever holes suit your fancy.”
[Should I respond? Heh heh. No, that’s not right, not right at all. But what if I said…no, never mind.]
No comment.
LikeLike
MG,
Elijah complex
http://www.bestyears.com/midlife_depression_elijahcomplex.html
All you bro.
Next.
LikeLike
He doesn’t get to define “Elijah Complex.” It’s more like “am I the only one left,” and habitually thundering like a prophet.
LikeLike
@AB I don’t think Greg is a bully, but neither do I think it is worthwhile to keep engaging with someone who is argumentative for what seems to me to be the sake of being argumentative. After stating my belief (three times) in the scriptures as the Word of God, God as the creator of Heaven and Earth, the early creeds and reformed standard, my hope in Christ alone and looking forward to the saint’s everlasting rest, but allowing that I recognize the possibility that I’ve got it all wrong, he asks “Is your confidence in yourself or the God of WCF II?”. After noting that while I don’t buy van Til’s philosophical work, I appreciate his irenic tone – Greg starts a spitting contest over who understands van Til better (a total red herring – maybe I don’t understand van Til at all, but his humble tone is far more productive than Greg’s jeremiads). Finally, he brings up this bizarre bit about admiring blasphemous producers and performers and something about admiring God’s enemies more than his servants…Huh? I still don’t understand what that has to do with anything, but what has become clear to me is that he is itching for an argument. This isn’t someone I’m likely to learn anything from nor is he someone likely to learn. Like I said, I’m sure he is a great guy offline, but engaging with the sort commenter who makes these kind of of accusations and innuendo (e.g., you’re just a limp wristed postmodern who loves dirty movies) is not something I’m interested in. If he doesn’t believe that I describe my views in good faith, then there isn’t much point in continuing. As long as Darryl is OK with it, Greg can of course write whatever he wants here. I’m not offended, just not very interested.
LikeLike
Who knows Van Til better is not the actual point at ll. The certainty that Van Til preached, which IS the worldview (YES, it’s the basis of a worldview. THE worldview) of historic reformed orthodoxy is the point. He is a founding father of the OPC and for whatever reason, Machen’s pick to teach apologetics at their fledgling seminary.
His certainty, MY certainty, which he unwaveringly taught his whole career, IS the oldlife. Your conceding ” the possibility that I’ve got it all wrong” IS new Calvinism that is more insidious than anything TKNY could ever come up with.
My point in saying the following…:
After asking this:
…is that thus far I have been treated to a frankly embarrassing scarcity of even the most basic skills of bible interpretation and an eyebrow raising ignorance of your own tradition’s essential history.(Not just you) While on the the hand displaying an impressive and enthusiastic familiarity (not in this thread) with the blasphemous, bloody, debauched media served up by God’s enemies in the entertainment industry.
Darryl, would it kill ya to chime in on this? At least the epistemological certainty part? Is it not true that a god whose existence and scriptures were merely probably true is wholly unknown in the Calvinists of the reformed standards? The major ones anyway? You know this “BUT… I might be all wrong” thing is unheard of before the last few decades. I will not gloat, nor will I throw it gracelessly in their faces. You have my public word.
LikeLike
SDB,
Thanks.
Erik blogged on you as well, I perceive Erik is trying to rile Greg up to fight, Erik seems like sour grapes.
But I think Greg gets a little bit that Erik might be using him as a tool. We’ll see what Greg does, I’ll be reading. Peace.
LikeLike
Muddy quotes me as saying:
“Not an uncertain pick and choose Mr. Potatoe Head where you stick the features you want in whatever holes suit your fancy.”
And then responds with
[Should I respond? Heh heh. No, that’s not right, not right at all. But what if I said…no, never mind.]
No comment.
At 10:09 am this morning I sent Erik the following Email
“This one’s for you. Do NOT say anything out loud yet. If these guys are as shallow and predictable as I think, at least one of em will fall for this. Probably Sean if I had to guess.”
With this link to a screenshot from the wikipedia article on Dan Quayle.
Well it was you Muddy instead of Sean, but ya did pretty good. Your restraint was admirable 😀
LikeLike
@AB I miss Erik around here… I enjoyed his sense of humor. He was a bit over the top at times, so if he feels the need to stay away, I get it. There is a lot more to life than a commbox! Have a great Sunday.
LikeLike
SdB,
Me too.
Same to you.
LikeLike
Got ya!
LikeLike
I thought I’d cut that off before it likely turned into a rat pack about what a scorn worthy moron I am for duplicating the most famous spelling error of all time. That was my original hope. It WOULD have made the point of how willing some folks are to harp on irrelevant juvenile drivel in the stead of adult substantive discussion of matters of eternal import when it imperils their idols.
However, it was a dirty trick and a bit juvenile on my own part I admit. If I had it to do over again, I probably wouldn’t, but I could not now let it sit there broadcasting the impression that I can’t spell “potato”.
Instead of ya’ll bristling over my being an uneducated, unordained arrogant punk from a church that isn’t even “duly constituted” (an ad hominem non-argument), why don’t you address the substance of what I’ve brought here?
Either own that your embrace of the epistemological uncertainty of the God and Gospel of the bible is a brand new imposition upon the Christian religion as YOUR OWN tradition tradition has historically expressed it, or demonstrate otherwise by citing historical authorities who agree with you.
OR… you can tell me to play in the freeway and go on as you have been, believing what you like regardless of what the truth actually is. Because ya see, this right here is THE key to everything. 1+1 equaling 2 or not along with the whole of the reality we live in depends on the CERTAIN non-contingent existence of the TRIUNE creator God of the Christian scriptures. How there can be Calvinists who don’t understand this will always be beyond me.
LikeLike
Gtt,
You assume a lot. I don’t address the substance of your argument because you make baseless charges about my media consumption (which is nil), my bristling over your purported lack of education (which never occurred to me), and your argumentativeness. I stopped discussing my views about certainty because I don’t think you are interacting in good faith. Your a clanging cymbal, and that’s unfortunate because I suspect you could have something worthwhile to say. But I could be wrong….
LikeLike
sdb says: “I don’t think you are interacting in good faith.”
Please explain. I wouldn’t ask if I didn’t want to hear. Because sir, I have spent hundreds, maybe thousands of hours debating this exact, and I do mean EXACT issue with vicious God hating ATHEISTS! Uncertainty is their stock in trade. The intellectual currency of their realm. The introduction of uncertainty was the trick of the serpent in the garden. It is the very essence of unbelief.
I expect this kinda crap from the drippy, runny Biola crowd, but it tears my heart out seeing it defended in the tragic guise of “epistemic humility” and ‘generosity”by the purported children of the reformation. I haven’t been able to make up my mind whether the worldliness and hypocritical moral compromise among Presbyterians is the consequence of this or the other way around.
Please explain sir. What would it look like if I were interacting in good faith?
LikeLike
You’ve made several baseless accusations throughout this thread that I described above. Instead of lying about my familiarity with obscene entertainment (for example) you could ask me what i think about it if you think it relevant.
LikeLike
And what have you accomplished from your thousands of hours of arguing online?
LikeLike
Greg: … why don’t you address the substance of what I’ve brought here?
OK, I will.
The substance of what you’ve brought here is this:
I, Greg, am a brilliant “expert”, and the rest of you are “inane”, “silly”, “shallow”, “not in the same room”, “undermining the Reformed faith”, “juvenile”…
and many more unseemly personal disparagements.
That’s your substance, the point that you have striven to get across and reiterated in many and varied forms. The stuff about van Til is merely accidental to your main argument, which is that you are a superior person, capable of passing judgment on the rest of us as inferior.
I have no desire to engage with that substance or pass comment on it. It is a foolish and wicked topic of conversation per 1 Cor 1.26-31 among many other passages.
Now, if you want for your substance to be something else, such as about van Til’s understanding of epistemology (which I find very interesting and would love to discuss), then we can do that. To do so, you will need to completely abandon your boasting and disparagement of others. It is enough to express your point of view dispassionately and let those who wish to hear, hear. Focus your flashlight on van Til’s material, and you’ll do fine.
That is my final word until and unless there is radical change in your discourse.
LikeLike
sdb, most of all I have “accomplished” obedience. It’s not all online and most of my life isn’t online either, but the internet, like all technology if used to God’s glory, is an awesome opportunity. It would take me an hour to catalog different types of “results”, depending on the person and or group, but results are not my goal. Results are God’s problem. Faithful obedience is my goal.
I also never once used the word “obscene”. Sexual immorality is only one, albeit very large dimension of the reprehensible content of today’s “entertainment”. I have never seen an ally of Dr, Hart’s on this site yet who is not a proponent of an utterly false and unbiblical construction of “liberty” whereby the death of the world is made right in their eyes. If you are that exception, I apologize and shouldn’t have allowed statistical probability to dictate my conclusions in stereotypical fashion. Though on this site that stereotype could be forgiven. Please bear with my, for now, continuing skepticism in your regard though. I’m not calling you a liar, I’ve just been through this too many times.
Can we start over and talk about the axiomatic, epistemological certainty of YHWH? The God of WCF II?
LikeLike
I claimed expertise in one area Jeff. Where I have spent a lot of time and then recanted to avoid distraction. My “not in the same room” remark was intended to convey a terrible missing of the point, to which the context will testify. Not that I am in a room of brilliance all by myself as you attempt to say.
The interaction here has been, in the main, shallow and juvenile. I stand by that. I also stand, in the main, upon the rest of what I said unless specific refutation is forthcoming.
For the record Jeff, when I first came here 2 February’s ago, it was with a bit of trepidation. I figured I was wading in way over my head with all these letters and years floating around here. I did it anyway and my attempt to goad Dr. Hart into a debate doubled at first as a bluff. My observations have been honest and, in the main, I do believe accurate.
The W-w on this site has taken the divine arsenal of Westminster Calvinism and loaded it with blanks.
LikeLike
Jeff says: “Van Til’s understanding of epistemology (which I find very interesting and would love to discuss), then we can do that.”
I would like nothing more.
LikeLike
Let’s discuss Van Til’s epistemology Jeff. You say you’d love to do that. So would I. I promise I am not cracking my knuckles and picking a fight. Let’s start over. You can go first.
LikeLike
OK, sure.
My own perspective on van Til is far from expert, so I’m happy to hear from someone who has read more widely. I’ve read (and own) The Defense of the Faith about 10 yr ago, A Christian Theory of Knowledge about 20 yr ago, and more recently have read some in the Clark-van Til controversy.
My filter for van Til is more Framian than Bahnsenian.
I understand van Til’s important contribution to be the proposition that truth is true because God has so declared, rather than because it is true independent of God’s knowledge. That is, truth coincides with God’s thought by definition rather than by correspondence.
That said, I would be interested as to how you are defining the term certainty, how that definition would play out in terms of exegesis, and how it might apply to van Til’s notion of paradox.
Thanks,
Jeff
LikeLike
This is a great comment Jeff, and great questions too 🙂
I have some stuff to do for a little while, but wanted to acknowledge what is instantly one of the very best responses I’ve ever gotten on this site.
For now, could you give me a concise (or not so concise as you see fit) statement of your understanding of Van Til’s paradox, so I don’t go off assuming in error? Thanks.
============================================================
sdb, from the other thread, quotes me as asking:
“Did not sdb tell me that his atheist workmates might be right and his religion may be all wrong? Do I need to dig that up and copy and paste?”
And then responds with:
Yep. I concede it is exceedingly unlikely I could be wrong.
Am I to receive this as a statement of “probability” sdb? That’s simply a question.
LikeLike
I understand a van Tillian paradox to be a proposition that is contradictory wrt human knowledge. That is, it is a statement that appears to be contradictory because we lack the ability to understand its resolution.
This stands in contrast to a Clarkian “so-called paradox”, in which there is an apparent contradiction because of a lack of sufficient propositions.
LikeLike
Jeff, I was only able to start on a response tonight. Not that it will be real long, but I had some stuff come up.
LikeLike
I just finally stopped moving today Jeff. I can’t think clear enough to write this reply still. I just wanted you to know I didn’t forget.
LikeLike
Greg,
Darryl has a whole category at this blog devoted to Cornelius Van Til. Since you are bringing along your interlocutors from other threads to the one of your choosing, and they comply, why not read a CVT thread or two, like the latest ones, or even an old one. Or not, it’s up to you.
The blog comment boxes can produce fruit, my opinion is that is rare. It seems you, Greg, or more working out your issues than SDB or Jeff are. For me, following along as long as I have, it begins to all look absurd, as Trueman says, the more serious the blogs try to be, the more absurd and pompous (hello-called to communion dot com) they become.
All to say, check out in more broad terms the thought if DGH and his views in Van Tillianism rather than going after individual interlocutors here. Take or leave my advice, I for one dont engage in rabbit trails. Probably the best thing is wait for DGH to blog on CVT and resume the convo then. But instead comment on today’s post and see if you can support Darryl (TVD posted in record time in today’s post for example, we need your help Greg on the many fronts facing Reformed Protatnatism).
I hope that helps. I dont want you to shoot your golf ball in the weeds, so its an irenic tone I carry, and one where I hope all benefit.
Now, who is next?
LikeLike
Jeff says: I understand a van Tillian paradox to be a proposition that is contradictory wrt human knowledge. That is, it is a statement that appears to be contradictory because we lack the ability to understand its resolution.
Pretty much. It is at bottom merely the recognition of the creature creator distinction in the arena of logic. God called light, matter, time and space into existence from nothing by fiat command. Even without sin, we are on every level entirely unequipped to grasp such mind numbing knowledge.
God does not bother to explain this, nor does He promise additional propositions that will fill in some blanks for us. Blanks are not the issue. Capacity is the issue. He authoritatively declares it and commands belief by faith. (Hebrews 11) All of God’s incommunicable attributes present us with these types of problems.
We can’t think for 5 seconds about the aseity or impassibility of God for instance without immediately bloodying our noses against what is TO US, utter unintelligibility. Predestination is proclaimed as a “high mystery.. to be handled with special prudence and care” in WCF III:VIII as another quick example.
Even logic itself, signified by the simple equation of 1+1 equaling 2 defies explanation unless the mind of the triune God of the bible is first held as basic to any knowledge at all. We know THAT 1+1=2, but have no idea how or why.
Where do you agree or disagree or need clarification so far?
LikeLike
My goal is to try to restrict conversations where I’m being addressed on an ongoing basis to a single thread where that topic has already been started, rather than hijacking new ones. I do understand this isn’t my site and Dr. Hart has lately been most exceedingly gracious in allowing me to be here With complete freedom.
Darryl, if you haven’t already, please recognize I AM trying to be good here.
For anybody who might care about the latest on the Erik and Greg show, he has, despite his direct clearance to say “whatever you want”, banned and blocked me. I knew at the time that his dropping of that leash, as well as his repeated attempts to sic me on you guys over here, did not extend to himself.
The last several HERE will explain. He has taken his site offline and you can bet the farm, our conversations will not be there when he goes live again. My only regret is that I didn’t save more from his side of the dialog. I hasten to clarify that none of this angers me in the least. (it really doesn’t 🙂 ) I’m actually surprised it took as long as it did. God bless that boy. He’ll be alright. (Philippians 1:6)
LikeLike
Yes, I think agree on the general shape.
Where from here? I think the next question is what “certainty” is all about, both for van Til and for yourself, if there is any difference there.
* What is certainty?
* Why is it important to you?
* How do we achieve certainty?
Thanks,
Jeff
LikeLike
Greg,
Enough with your drama. I moderate comments and I take my site live and dark as I see fit. The internet is not all about you.
Darryl should try moderating comments and get about 47 jokers out of his life.
Anything Andrew or Greg says about me, take with a 26 oz. canister of Morton Salt.
LikeLike
When you give Greg & Andrew an inch…
LikeLike
Jeff says: “Yes, I think agree on the general shape.”
Cool.
Jeff says: “Where from here? I think the next question is what “certainty” is all about, both for van Til and for yourself, if there is any difference there.”
Not where it really matters.
Jeff asks:
* What is certainty?”
That is one great question Jeff. A directly epistemological one, the answer to which will unavoidably involve circular reasoning for us finite critters. True independent, internal, objective knowledge is possible for none but God alone. Our knowledge is spawned from, stands upon and is governed by His. Saints and sinners alike.
For our purposes, we’ll go with the standard reformed definition of the “impossibility of the contrary”. That is certain, the falsity of which is impossible. Anything less, is “probability”. I insist, as did Van Til, that the Christian God, the God of WCF II IS, like truth itself, certainty itself.
*Why is it important to you?”
-Because the bible proclaims it of the LORD our God.
-Because it’s surrender has resulted in all manner of other compromise in the once reformed world.
-Because if the best I can offer the pagans is a different version of the same uncertainty they already think they live in, I am as hopeless as they are and they have no reason to listen to me.
-Because we live in a reality of pragmatic certainty in practice, despite the elitist eggheads unwaveringly certain proclamations that unwaveringly certain proclamations are impossible. The God I worship is the explanation for this.
* How do we achieve certainty?
Certainty was designed into both us and the universe when God created them.(no, science has NOT shown this to be false) It’s not a goal to achieve. It is THE inescapable, already ever present reality, to be joyously embraced and celebrated by faith in God through Christ.
Thanks,
GtT
LikeLike
Nobody is saying anything ABOUT you Erik. As in a denigrating, derogatory fashion. And I speak only for myself. Not Andrew. I stand by everything I said. You gave me carte blanch as long as I was pointed at somebody else and banned me when I took YOU to task. AFTER all your waling about Darryl’s 3 comment rule and how oppressive it was. He never even actually banned me 😀
This will the be the one and only time I address you about this on this site. I JUST mentioned how gracious Darryl has been to me. I am not gong to jeopardize that over this.
We’ll see what’s missing when you go live again. People can make up their own minds what’s happening in all this. If you take me as being in any way hostile toward you, you are woefully and grievously wrong. if you wanna talk further, drop me an email and name a place. Not here. I am always happy to talk to you.
LikeLike
Dr. Marvin,
Welcome to Oldlife. Do you go to church.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Dr. Marvin,
PS
Is link some reference to Bob Suden, who is a commenter here? I’m confused, I don’t watch youtube videos posted at Oldlife, because people can sometime put things in here that violate the 7th commandment. And I subscribe to the westminster confession, dontcha know?
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Greg, this is my fourth on this thread, as I see you have posted 4 (or 5?) here as well today. Just a freindly reminder.
Hi Erik!
LikeLike
Greg,
No one is “banned”. Say something that interests me and the comment goes through. Say something that doesn’t interest me and it doesn’t. I’m done giving people who can’t run a successful blog themselves an open forum. That’s not why I do it.
You’ve proven yourself uninteresting on anything but one topic and I don’t need the same comment from you a hundred times on that one topic. If I want to blog on TV and movies and you don’t like it you can sit and spin.
LikeLike
Erik, this is me 2 over par
LikeLike
Sweet, Erik is back! Did someone say sit and spin?
LikeLike
Is this a Ryan Seacrest Production? I had half a thought last night about worldviewism, I forget the abbrev., and my half a thought was something along the lines of, what if God was exhibiting the supernatural through the ordinary means of the church to shame the wisdom of the world? IOW, rather than offering a universal he instead offered preaching and wine and crackers. That half a thought was rather pleasing to me and was leading me to other half-thoughts but then Spurs. Anyway, there’s something there, something akin to shaming the wisdom of the world and provoking claims of ‘foolishness’ and ‘babbling’. There’s something unGodly to reducing the gospel or the faith to philosophical systems. Oh wait, there was this, from the post, no less,
A similar dynamic may very well be at work with neo-Calvinism. You need the Bible but you also need philosophy which provides the rudiments of w-w, which in turn yields the answers to life’s questions.
Both Rome and neo-Calvinism give a living tradition that augments Scripture. Both also like philosophy — a lot.
2kers should also take heart. The idea that the Bible doesn’t speak to all of life is like what we’re sayin’. We’re also saying, live with the uncertainty. To which the Romanists and Amsterdamists reply, “that’s not inspiring.”
Though, there’s an outside chance my half a thought came the post, I’m gonna go ahead and take credit for it. I’m working on overcoming my co-dependency.
LikeLike
Sean, if we were aliens and strangers rather than crusaders and transformers, uncertainty would come easier.
LikeLike
I’ll continue waiting for some informed substantive contribution from you Sean. What you equate with Romanism and call “neo-Calvinism” was Machen’s hand pick to teach in his school for over 40 years.
The bible and the God who reveals Himself therein IS that W-w smart guy. You have not engaged a single syllable of what I’ve said on this to date. Why don’t you put your straw and spitballs away and say something meaningful for a change. Which part of your life is Jesus NOT Lord over? (Watch folks. We’ll get no answer to that at all)
LikeLike
Greg, you’ll be banned.
You’ve been warned.
Next.
LikeLike
I ain’t got nothing but luv for ya, Cue. Don’t hulk me or rep out on that trap bar, again. I get all nervous. I can’t think right. Love me. XOXO. Are you sure you don’t watch much TV? Maybe Saturday morning? Cartoons?
LikeLike
GT: For our purposes, we’ll go with the standard reformed definition of the “impossibility of the contrary”. That is certain, the falsity of which is impossible. Anything less, is “probability”.
I’m slightly confused. This seems like a definition of “true” rather than of “certain.”
“True”, of course, is a state of affairs. It is true, for example, that God exists. “Certain” is a state of our knowledge.
Generally, we say that X is True if it is impossible for X to be false.
I’m not trying to pettifog here, but just to make sure that we are agreed that truth and our knowledge of the truth are not one and the same concept.
Assuming you are agreed, how would you distinguish “certain” from “true”?
LikeLike
No, that’s a great point Jeff. I almost went off on a long piece about objective and subjective certainty and how they relate to truth, but we’ll go with that. In fact it’s better.
Truth = objective certainty, and certitude = subjective certainty, is the formulation I’ve used, but yours is simpler and says the same thing.
It is key to a biblical epistemology that we recognize that ” truth and our knowledge of the truth are not one and the same concept.”. Quite so. Only for God is truth and the knowledge of it identical. As unfortunate as the word choice was due it’s existing connotations in secular philosophy, this is what Dr. Van Til meant by all human knowledge being “analogical”.
Our knowledge is never original and uninterpreted. Every particle of knowledge and being owes its’ origin and continued existence to the sovereign God who alone owes His to none. Our knowledge is derived from and defined by His. This situation is now fractured by the presence of sin which adds rebellion to an already limiting finitude.
We are in the truth insofar and as faithfully as we “think God’s thoughts after Him” as revealed in His written word.
What do you think?
LikeLike
I’m better, thanks.
OK, so which kinds of beliefs would you say that you have certainty about?
Are you certain that 1+1 = 2? That God is three persons in one being? That James is canonical but 1 Esdras is not? That the ending of Mark is (or is not) canonical?
Give me an idea of the scope of certainty.
LikeLike
Let’s go back to and start with “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.
That is at once, a proclamation AND a command. A command to embrace a specific, narrow and exclusive accounting of the origin of all things.
It is true (objectively certain) because it is the word of almighty God as WCF 1:IV and V quite rightly declare. The denial of it’s truth is an insolent indictment of God Himself and therefore sin.
How subjectively certain it is to us is measured in direct proportion to our surrendered faithfulness to the Holy Spirit speaking therein and testifying with our spirits that we are the children of God. (Romans 8:16)
To struggle with doubt over Gen. 1:1 and require constant attendance to the means of grace, public and private, seeking God for progressive victory over the old nature, and to eschew all that does not promote that end in us, simply IS the Romans 7 Christian life of war. (nothing to do with justifying us whatsoever btw) ALL of the actually elect live and fight this life of war while still in this flesh in this world. That’s one thing.
To state outright, as a feature of one’s personal W-w that Gen. 1:1 MIGHT not be true and that God’s enemies MIGHT be correct in their unbelief is a full frontal assault on the character and veracity of the living God “who is truth itself”, the Author thereof, and hence the very essence of sin. It is by definition to reduce the objectively certain truth of the eternal God to a probability that is subject to our finite created AND sinful minds.
As concerning so far Gen. 1:1 alone, are we still together here?
LikeLike
Jeff & Greg, all my joking aside, I’ve enjoyed reading your interactions. This seems like an appropriate link.
LikeLike
What is your assessment of this conversation as relates to this article Chris? I am saying here pretty much what Dr. Clark is saying there. In one of the comments he specifically rejects Clark’s tenet of the univocal nature of our knowledge with God’s. THAT is key and speaks volumes. I couldn’t agree more.
I have laboriously and painstakingly sought to make inescapably clear that the certainty I preach IS God’s and my thinking His thoughts after Him in a derivative, finite, created and analogous fashion. Indeed Clark himself says the following:
“The first aspect of the QIRC is that it is not satisfied with being a mere image-bearer, an ANALOGUE of God. It wants more.”(emphasis mine)
That is some right smart Van Tillian language right there.
I have argued from HISTORIC reformed orthodoxy to a fault, claiming literally NO novel or esoteric knowledge whatsoever, but incessantly pointing back to them and challenging our historian host par excellence to deny my claims.
I may be totally misreading you and will be happy for it to be so. I ask then. What is your assessment of this conversation as relates to this article?
LikeLike
Greg,
My assessment is that I agree with you and Jeff (it appears) the link to the article is helpful because I think the author is gifted to explain it in a way that you are not (and I am most certainly not).
This one goes into a bit more detail and is even more helpful. If you haven’t read Dr. Clark’s Recovering The Reformed Confession, that is another book worth reading – I thought it was very helpful.
LikeLike
Greg, is w_w a necessary part of our sanctification?
LikeLike
Ok, fair enough. Maybe I’ve gotten too used to conflict and took it as a correction. There is an eternity of difference (quite literally) between confessing doubt toward God and His word as sin, and embracing it as truth. Perverse irony of all ironies.
Between Saying that I myself as a sinful man sinfully doubt God and saying that God Himself is doubtful and the pagans may be right.
LikeLike
And not for nothing, but the gramare gorrrila had a moment; “……..There are lots of folk who know longer accept these distinctions……” Maybbe parabales are a better way to communeicate?
LikeLike
A worldview is a system of thought consisting of theology, philosophy and ethics through which all of life is viewed. That’s my working definition.
Muddy asks:”Greg, is w_w a necessary part of our sanctification?”
Now there’s a good question MG.
Like certainty, properly defined (see above), W-w IS the subjective state of our sentient intellectual and moral being. It is not something we take or leave and then define as we see fit if taken. To exist at all in the image of God as a conscious living moral agent IS to be, by created AND covenant definition, the holder of one of two worldviews depending on which covenant one is living in.
The dead first Adam bequeaths to us his worldview of self exalted autonomous man. The last Adam births in us the worldview of grateful self surrender to the autonomous God. As a result OF, not the means TO our justification.
My contention is that the vast majority of today’s Christians, even those who really should know better, think they can live the life of the last Adam while stubbornly clinging to the worldview of the first. Indeed the very denial that there IS a worldview IS itself clinging to the worldview of the first.
Please guys, once and for all accept the fact that I bear no affinity whatsoever with Keller and the culture worshipers. We will really just communicate much better if you can do that. There is nothing esoteric or novel or unique to me in what I’m saying. My driving point since the first time I stuck my nose in here is that my views are the historic ones. YOURS are the new and novel.
I say again. With all due respect and appreciation for our host. I have like 500 posts here now and he has never EVER once disputed one of my historical claims. Ever. Because he knows that in the main, where anything actually counts, I haven’t brought anything weird here. This is YOUR history. I’d like to see it back.
I think I’m going to put together a presentation and name it “Are Oldlifers Liberal”.
Come on Darryl 😀 Be a sport. I couldn’t help myself.
LikeLike
Greg, was the “I couldn’t help myself”, even with or even particularly with, the smiley emoticon, you stubbornly clinging to the w-w of the first Adam or more involuntary reflex of remaining corruption? I have other thoughts as well.
LikeLike
Sean, Greg to me is as cuddly as a teddy bear with issues pertaining to restraint. Just let him keep posting, and grab some popcorn (Hi Greg).
Next.
LikeLike
Greg, what happens when real life clashes with worldview? Like, what do you do when people get away with their sin and good people get kicked in the teeth and neither situation is ever remedied? Happens all the time. Whither worldview then?
LikeLike
Zrim asks: “Greg, what happens when real life clashes with worldview?”
Worldview IS real life Zrim. For every child of Adam that will ever exist. You are not understanding what I mean by “worldview”. I appreciate this comment and questions. I’m not insulting you. One’s W-w is comprehensive. It is not possible to form one single thought apart from it. If you stick with this conversation that will make sense as we go.
Zrim asks: “Like, what do you do when people get away with their sin and good people get kicked in the teeth and neither situation is ever remedied? Happens all the time. Whither worldview then?”
Honest Zrim. I’m not even blaming you, but like I said above. The definition of “worldview” you are bringing to this discussion is not what I mean at all. The situation you describe is simply temporal injustice awaiting the flawless justice of the Lord. There is nothing hidden that will not be brought in to His light.
David (Psalm 37) AND Solomon (Proverbs 24:19) tell us not to fret over evildoers. Both tell us constantly (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) that nobody’s gittin away with nuthin. The Lord most high sees and will bring all to account for every even hidden thought, deed and careless word.
God and His self attesting scriptures are my worldview. All philosophy is is the quest for answers. God has those answers. (who else?) Including morality and ethics. Informed and governed by the bible there is nothing to fear from “philosophy”. The bible is full of it. Our God solves all the philosophical conundrums since the ancient Greeks. That’s a thing to rejoice in. Not flee from.
Please tell me what have understood the word “worldview to mean. That’s an honest question.
Chris I haven’t gotten to that 2nd article yet, sorry.
LikeLike
Absolutely magnificent 2nd ARTICLE Chris. Spot on! The archetypal/ectypal language is used by Oliphint too. While not the same kind of knowledge that God has, in that God has it originally and internally (archetypal), the revealed (ectypal ) knowledge He gives us is as true as He is because it’s from Him. It is therefore not possible for it to be UNtrue. Any uncertainty about that is OUR sin, not His shortcoming.
To concede to the pagans that the god you worship might be “all wrong” is to propose a different deity altogether.
LikeLike
Sorry Sean. I just now figured out that you were actually asking a semi serious question with this:
“Greg, was the “I couldn’t help myself”, even with or even particularly with, the smiley emoticon, you stubbornly clinging to the w-w of the first Adam or more involuntary reflex of remaining corruption? I have other thoughts as well.”
On a previous page I said to you the following:
================================================================
[There is]a foundational difference between epistemological knowledge and formal knowledge. At the formal level 1+1=2 for absolutely everybody. The form and formal function are identical because of the image of God present in all men, through which God’s common grace operates. At the epistemological level, the level of first principle and heart commitment, is where there exists an eternally radical antithesis. To those raised from rebellion and death in the first Adam to the life and mind of Christ in the last, 1+1=2 because of the ordered mind of the creator God whose image they bear and thoughts they think after him on a finite derivative scale.
To the mind still dead in sin, 1+1=2 for literally any reason at all other than the truth found for us now only in Christ. They will believe absolutely ANYthing else, not because that’s what they actually believe epistemologically, but to escape from believing what I believe epistemologically. Epistemologically, they KNOW where that knowledge comes from according to the first of Romans.
So you see Sean, the unbeliever’s campaign of rebellion against his God, is financed with capital that has been borrowed, indeed stolen, from God’s own bank. What you call “confusion” on Van Til’s part is actually the very brilliance of his approach to fallen man, missed by a shallow and dismissive reading on your part. The saints have at once, fully everything and nothing in common with sinners.
==================================================================
Emoticons are in themselves morally indifferent and therefore in form, common to both covenants. Their sinfulness or no, depends upon their use. if used to mock a person’s appearance or intelligence for instance, then the sinful intent of the user has put them to sinful use. In this particular case, the laughing smiley was intended as a sort of yes, constructive lighthearted jab as I was turning the thesis Dr. Hart (with a great degree of legitimacy) wields against “evangelicals back at himself”. I am confident that he understood that. If he took it how I’d hoped, he may have even gotten a begrudging chuckle out of it.
I said all that to answer your question by saying that this emoticon was used in a dialog wherein the glory of our Lord through the proclamation of His truth is my intention. I selfconciously brought this morally indifferent instrument of expression into both formal and epistemological service of the last Adam and hence the new covenant. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)
A W-w is something like a person’s spiritual, intellectual and moral operating system. To use a computer analogy. Everybody has one. To deny it is akin to claiming that the computer you will (hopefully) type your response on has no such overarching, all governing system of operation. BUT. There it is. Like it or not.
LikeLike
“Emoticons are in themselves morally indifferent and therefore in form, common to both covenants. Their sinfulness or no, depends upon their use…I said all that to answer your question by saying that this emoticon was used in a dialog wherein the glory of our Lord through the proclamation of His truth is my intention. I selfconciously brought this morally indifferent instrument of expression into both formal and epistemological service of the last Adam and hence the new covenant. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)”
You’re killing me, Greg. Death by hundred comments – slow, cruel, and inexorable. I never thought it would end this way.
Emoticons are a tool of the devil.
“A W-w is something like a person’s spiritual, intellectual and moral operating system. To use a computer analogy. Everybody has one.”
Wrongwrongwrong. Some people consciously reject “system” as a way of thinking. Lots of people have no clue what systematic thought or philosophy even is, and have all kinds of quasi-thoughts sometimes getting moldy and other times exploding in their brains. But you won’t ever see this because you presuppose presuppositionalism.
LikeLike
God and His self attesting scriptures are my worldview. All philosophy is is the quest for answers. God has those answers. (who else?) Including morality and ethics. Informed and governed by the bible there is nothing to fear from “philosophy”. The bible is full of it. Our God solves all the philosophical conundrums since the ancient Greeks. That’s a thing to rejoice in. Not flee from.
Actually, Greg, he confounds philosophy with the cross. You want to enlist the Bible to play by the world’s philosophical games. You are the one wanting to make Christianity respectable and a worldview player. The cross doesn’t make philosophical sense. It is transcendent. Why do you settle for making friends with worldliness? Worldview is a function of being too tied to the things of this world, up to and including philosophy. Does Paul sound like a guy who affirms and rejoices in philosophy? How do you harmonize Paul with your crush on philosophy?
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
LikeLike
Greg, grown men do not emoticate.
Get with the times, and try posting on one of the more recent threads if you have something to share.
I may have hit some in the weeds this morning, but you are only hurting your cause the more you post on this thread. There’s also a category at this blog devoted to “worldview” as there is one about CVT, and many other topics.
Get reading, son. And catch up with the rest of us. Warrior children is today’s topic, now to comment on that thread.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Paul had a specific culturally Greek usage of the word “philosophy” in mind in his denunciations Zrim. That’s pretty commonly known.
I’m not givin up on you Muddy. The rejection of systematic thought IS the intellectual spirit of this age.
I’m waiting for Jeff’s response.
It would be great to get Dr. Clark’s contribution here. Maybe I’ll try.
LikeLike
Greg, oh, so that part of Scripture doesn’t apply to anyone outside that specific time and place (especially highfalutin epistemological expertologists like yourself). Maybe like Jefferson, we just cut that part out since it’s so irrelevant.
LikeLike
I have to say, since graduating college, I prefer my half-thoughts, even the moldy ones. The desire to resolve all tension seems more and more an immature, natural, understandable, but predeterminative predilection. So, when the scriptures elevate preaching and wine and crackers, and then purposely tells the window peepers, here’s your wisdom. That resonates. Now, some go too far and go magic on you but supernatural is not magic and accepting the limitations of creatureliness is neither uber-piety or lack of piety. It fits rather well with the Already-not yet tension, I see in part, know in part BUT then…………………… So, whose w-w or lack of one, agree most closely with the atmospheric and pointed assertions of scripture? Lord I believe, help my unbelief.
LikeLike
Hi Greg,
The others are just jealous of your emoticons, and since there is no jealousy emoticon, they have to put their feelings into words.
Just kidding.
Seriously, I think you might be overselling worldview. Upon a time, I used to defend the concept of worldview as “the sum of our thoughts …”
Then I realized after two specific instances of getting burned that evangelicals were using “worldview” as a way of bypassing “doctrine” and skipping straight to “moralism.”
So now, I defend doctrine as the thing that we get from Scripture. I hope that makes sense.
—
Greg: Let’s go back to and start with “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”… It is true (objectively certain) because it is the word of almighty God as WCF 1:IV and V quite rightly declare. The denial of its truth is an insolent indictment of God Himself and therefore sin.
I agree with all of this.
Greg: That is at once, a proclamation AND a command. A command to embrace a specific, narrow and exclusive accounting of the origin of all things.
This is more problematic. A quibble with the first sentence: there is, grammatically speaking, no command here. There are commands elsewhere (e.g., 2 Chron 20.20, in the context of trusting God’s word). But no command is stated here.
So that’s just a quibble. We both agree that this should be believed.
But now … how do quibbles relate to certainty? On the face of things, you literally said that you were certain that Gen 1.1 is “a proclamation AND a command” — and yet, it is possible that you are not *completely* correct.
So what does that do to your certainty, if anything?
To my mind, the quibble alerts us to a distinction drawn between God’s Word (which we agree is certainly true) and our understanding of God’s Word (which I would hope we agree is not).
That distinction becomes even more important here: A command to embrace a specific, narrow and exclusive accounting of the origin of all things.
What exactly is that specific, narrow, and exclusive accounting? I can see that this verse entails believing that God created all things in the beginning. What else can we be certain about from this verse?
Zoom out a bit. What can we be certain about from Gen 1-2? Since the accounting is specific, it should be easy to specify, right?
LikeLike
@Jeff
You wrote earlier, “Generally, we say that X is True if it is impossible for X to be false.”
Is that right? I don’t know many philosophers who would say that. For example, I could say X is “I am wearing an orange shirt”. That statement could be true even if it is possible that I am in fact wearing a black shirt.
One might say my statement is a contingent truth (it depends on which shirt I put on this morning), and your statement only applies to necessary truths. But then it seems that we have dramatically narrowed the scope of what we mean by True.
LikeLike
kind of like what is real?
Jeff, come on, no emoticons. By the way, I think you are the strongest interlocutor here at Oldlife, or in Darryl’s parlance, you have the most crowns.
I’m curious, do you golf?
LikeLike
@ sdb: Not “necessarily true,” just “true.”
So if I am in fact wearing an orange shirt, it is impossible that I am not wearing an orange shirt. I could have worn others, of course, so “I am wearing an orange shirt” is not necessarily true. It didn’t have to be, but it is so.
@ AB: never, except for putt-putt. That was awkward with the in-laws for a while, but then the missus learned Bridge, so we’re good.
LikeLike
Greg, no crowns here, but at least I have that going for me.
And just for you:
😆
you are welcome to peruse my pics from the golf course today. keep doing what you do, how you do it, i have posted my three for the day here, and greg still has some saved up. so if he keeps this up, hole in one for him, he wins. i bow out,
ab
LikeLike
that comment there ^^^^^^^ was meant for jeff
hi greg
bye all
LikeLike
Jeff says: “using “worldview” as a way of bypassing “doctrine” and skipping straight to “moralism.”
I promise you. You will not have this problem with me.
Jeff says: “So now, I defend doctrine as the thing that we get from Scripture. I hope that makes sense.”
I am about 95% convinced that we are, at the moment ,very close to each other in a semantic brush pile hacking our way toward one another. “Doctrine just means teaching”. Biblical philosophy is also doctrine. Maybe we need to more precisely define “doctrine”? And philosophy? How can there not be an explicitly and exclusively, not just theistic, but also Christian doctrine of knowledge?
Jeff says: “This is more problematic. A quibble with the first sentence: there is [in Gen. 1:1], grammatically speaking, no command here.”
Jeff, you just now agreed with me when I said this:
———————————————————————
Let’s go back to and start with “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”… It is true (objectively certain) because it is the word of almighty God as WCF 1:IV and V quite rightly declare. The denial of its truth is an insolent indictment of God Himself and therefore sin.”
———————————————————————-
You agreed. How then I ask can there be sin where is no command? Grammatically speaking you are correct. There is no command. However, an indicative from the mind of God is by definition an imperative BECAUSE it is in fact the mind of God. Do you disagree?
Jeff says: “To my mind, the quibble alerts us to a distinction drawn between God’s Word (which we agree is certainly true) and our understanding of God’s Word (which I would hope we agree is not).”
Yes, I agree, but why would God reveal certain truth to us only to leave us unable to be certain of it ourselves? Staying for the moment with Genesis 1:1.
Right now, my intent is to establish the to us utter certainty of at least one single proposition and or object of knowledge. If I get a concession that ANYthing at all can be certainly known, I will have established the foundation of my building and we can to move on. Unless of course you have more here, which I have all the time in the world for.
Jeff asks: “What exactly is that specific, narrow, and exclusive accounting? I can see that this verse entails believing that God created all things in the beginning. What else can we be certain about from this verse?”
We couldn’t be certain about anything else from this verse alone. If it were all we had. Considering from the rest of scripture which God is being declared, we are being commanded to believe that YHWH is responsible for the origin of the universe. What matters is not this verse in isolation. Feel free to interpret it in the light of the rest of scripture.
It also doesn’t matter right now, how old the earth is, or the definition of the word “yom”, or whether the framework, day/age or six day view etc. is correct. It doesn’t EVEN matter at this point whether we believe that Adam and Eve were literal historical people brought into existence by direct divine creation from the dust of the earth (which I DO most assuredly believe). What matters is the incontrovertibly true nature of the assertion that the God of the bible has created the heavens and the earth. Is it possible for that not to be true? NOT is it possible for us to doubt it. That’s the question.
Jeff says: “Zoom out a bit. What can we be certain about from Gen 1-2? Since the accounting is specific, it should be easy to specify, right?”
See above. One thing at a time please.
LikeLike
Sean says: “…The desire to resolve all tension…”
I stopped reading right there. You really don’t pay attention when people SPEAK do you Sean? You’re a capable guy. I’d be gratified by your actual participation.
LikeLike
Greg, I tend to be enamored with my own thoughts. I mean, I’m glad you have your own and all, but I don’t really care about them. Plus, you hurt my heart when you said I’ve contributed nothing substantively and now you say I don’t really pay attention. Wounded.
LikeLike
Greg, I’ll give you a half-straight(I mean, I’m all hetero) answer. I don’t enjoy conversations where the other side has an agenda and is leading the conversation to predictable ends. It’s a lot of work for a return I already aniticipated/have. I’m either really lazy or terribly efficient in my ways. And I have just enough self-esteem and pugnaciousness to not care what most others think of me. Until I do, and then I’m easily wounded.
LikeLike
Sean’s a little tender today.
Don’t worry Sean, Spurs by nine.
And Mayweather Jr. in five.
LikeLike
Todd, I hope you’re right, about the Spurs. I’ll be shocked if Mayweather loses.
LikeLike
Sean says: ” I don’t enjoy conversations where the other side has an agenda and is leading the conversation to predictable ends”
All razzing aside. Seriously.
If your contributions to this point are indicative? You have no idea where we’ve been. To say nothing of where we’re going. I hope you can believe that I don’t mean that sarcastically at all.
LikeLike
Greg: “Doctrine just means teaching”. Biblical philosophy is also doctrine. Maybe we need to more precisely define “doctrine”? And philosophy? How can there not be an explicitly and exclusively, not just theistic, but also Christian doctrine of knowledge?
Let’s file that one away for later, but I agree that more precise definition is needed.
JRC: Jeff says: “This is more problematic. A quibble with the first sentence: there is [in Gen. 1:1], grammatically speaking, no command here.”
Greg: … How then I ask can there be sin where is no command? Grammatically speaking you are correct. There is no command. However, an indicative from the mind of God is by definition an imperative BECAUSE it is in fact the mind of God. Do you disagree?
There is a command, just not right there in that verse. The command, ultimately, is to love God with our mind, finding expression in the 1st commandment to believe him and in the 9th commandment to appear and stand for the truth.
Why does this matter? Well, aside from the need to distinguish indicative from imperative (the one preceding the other), and aside from the need to do careful and precise exegesis, there’s also the matter of understanding that not all of Scripture is imperative. When we read that Gideon laid a fleece before the Lord, we are not to understand that as an imperative for us.
I’m sure you agree, and I don’t think you are trying to go there. I’m just pointing out that keeping indicative and imperative straight and distinct is a matter of good doctrine. Gen 1.1 is indicative, while Ex 20 provides the imperative to believe it.
Does that make sense?
But I recognize that this is somewhat of a side point, in that your larger aim is to establish that Gen 1.1 can be known with certainty. So…
Greg: Considering from the rest of scripture which God is being declared, we are being commanded to believe that YHWH is responsible for the origin of the universe.
Yes.
Greg: What matters is the incontrovertibly true nature of the assertion that the God of the bible has created the heavens and the earth. Is it possible for that not to be true?
Given that I believe the Bible to be the word of God and infallible — no. That is an axiom of the system.
Is there a possibility, however remote, that any one of the following could have happened?
* Gen 1.1 in the original manuscript said something different.
* Gen 1.1 has been tragically mistranslated all of these years.
* Genesis was mistakenly included in the canon.
* That my belief that the Bible is the Word of God is mistaken.
Note: I don’t believe that any of those things has a serious chance of being true. I’m laughing at them as I type them.
I’m just asking: Is the chance of any of those things happening mathematically 0 or just really, really small? Is it *impossible* for any of them to be true, like making an imaginary real number?
Put this another way: When Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness, was he taking no risk at all?
LikeLike
Jeff, I blogged on my thoughts regarding emoticons, just in case 😉
As for this:
That’s a good run down. Here’s another monkey wrench. Just like lawyers, WORDS are the stuff of theologians. They are a human construct. Yes, God condescends and uses human language to communicate with us his children. But the use of language and words in the end breaks down, for after all, God is not bound by human constructs. What is going on in the heavenly realms and how we relate to is really does end up having these discussions end where they usually do, in the sunday school classes that just have rabbit trail after rabbit trail:
That and Romans 1, the list could go on and on.
Thanks for interacting with Greg here, I still think you are the one guy who talks people from down off the ledge here at Oldlife, from David R, to Kenneth, and now to Greg. You’re awesome, I would enjoy golfing with you, if not your thing, maybe we can go canoeing on a lake, or bowl 10 frames. You rock.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Ditto for the same sentiment as AB expressed Jeff, that’s some gentleness and respect there.
LikeLike
@ AB: I’d be willing to embarrass myself over 9 holes with you. You get to pick up the windshield tab.
@ CT: Love the QIRC article. That’s one of Clark’s best Big Ideas.
LikeLike
Jeff, anyone who says they are good at golf is either lying or professional.
When someone says they’ll golf with me, they’ve risen to the top of my list of favorite people, fwiw.
Have a wonderful Lord’s Day with your family. We’ll get greg and Erik to round out our foresome, and all these internet issues will look so silly.
Kind of like in heaven, we’ll rememeber so little of the tears down here, I need to stop..
LikeLike
PS Jeff, I know you are a math teacher.
Everything I learned I learned from my math teacher.
First in 1996 Freshman geometry Then in 1999-2000 with Philosophy and Calculus. Then 2009 until the present (the man still e-mails me). I always know he is thinking about me and some Paul Tillich quote, and then the e-mail pops up.
You math teachers a special breed. Props.
Who’s next 🙂
LikeLike
To be clear, I am not taking an adversarial posture with Jeff. If it seems that way then I will adjust my speech because that’s not how I’ve hoped to be taken since I suggested we reboot our conversation. I am very much enjoying this conversation with you Jeff.
LikeLike
Jeff asks 7 comments above: “I’m just asking: Is the chance of any of those things happening mathematically 0 or just really, really small?”
Any answer except absolute zero IS agnosticism. We are right then in the unbelieving realm of uncertain probability. A God whose existence is only probably true, no matter how high that probability may be, is an imaginary idolatrous figment of self exalting autonomous man’s imagination.
Jeff, I can’t but be honest. Dr. Van Til would have flunked you. Please hear a soft matter of fact tone in my voice when I say that. You’re a nice man and I like you, but you have now shown yourself to be no different than sdb or Sean as far your position on the topic of this discussion is concerned. I’d really like to believe you haven’t thought this through well enough. What you’re saying would have been unknown in Machen’s seminary. I just bet Darryl knows that too.
I’m gonna go see if I can get Dr. Clark in on this in the next couple days. Out of curiosity. This is deadly serious having nothing to do with me. All the rest of the stuff you guys talk about around here is meaningless if you’re worshiping an uncertain God of skepticism and probability. Again. The tragically inconsistent papists make a stronger claim to truth.
LikeLike
Greg, but this isn’t seminary, and Jeff is having a conversation.
Look at those four asterisks again. You are not treating Jeff with the kind of grace he is treating you here.
I’m with Jeff, and not just because we are both NAPARC officers. You can count me as one of CVTs flunk outs as well. The asnwer most certainly is in RSC’s article, he need not come here again and explain what he already did 6 years ago so clearly and correctly. We should all read it again before we post another comment.
Here it is at my blog.
We should keep the convo here, but my comment boxes are open as well to anyone who wants to.
LikeLike
I have sent the following to Dr. Clark
==============================
Hello Dr. Clark.
You don’t know me, but I’d like if spossible to get your view on a discussion happening right now on Darryl Hart’s blog. I think you will find it interesting. If you are so inclined, please follow the dialog between Jeff Cagle and I starting with this comment.
https://oldlife.org/2015/04/the-bible-cant-speak-to-all-of-life/comment-page-6/#comment-316401
The dispute will become clear as you read. You are of course not the 4th person of the Godhead, you do however seem to understand Dr. Van Til’s thought and hence I believe you fall on his side. From what I’ve read here.
Hart’s crew and Darryl himself greatly respect you as well. Your attention and contribution would be highly valued I think. Not being pushy at all sir. I’m simply asking.
Thanks,
In Christ,
Greg – Detroit
LikeLike
@ Greg: I don’t take it personally.
I am surprised that you believe that there is mathematically zero chance that the original manuscript of Genesis is different from the Biblia Hebraica, and that there is mathematically zero chance that it has been mistranslated, and that you take such to be a matter of faith, such that another position is agnosticism.
Can you explain more? The Confession, for example, takes the Hebrew text to be authoritative, but does not give the same authority to translations in other languages (WCF 1.8). And inerrancy is generally understood to refer to the original manuscripts, not to reconstructed texts such as we have.
As far as that being unknown in van Til’s seminary — well, here is Machen, who taught at both of van Til’s seminaries:
— JG Machen, “Is the Bible the Word of God?”
So it would appear that Machen would allow a non-zero chance that our current text of Genesis 1.1 could be not in the original, or that the English translations of it might not be accurate.
AND YET
He did not waver in unbelief.
So what say you? Do you disagree with Machen, or does Machen’s position cause you to reconsider? Was Machen an agnostic?
LikeLike
Ok, the semantic brush hacking continues.(not blaming you) I can’t say more tonight Jeff. It’s after midnight and I have to be up at six.
LikeLike
I don’t know how we got into manuscript testimony and textual transmission and criticism. The question is, is the actual non existence of the God of the bible possible?
LikeLike
Greg, the transmission and criticism questions are raised precisely due to the nature of the four asterisks that Jeff carefully articulated. I think these issues need to be parsed a lot more closely and carefully, but I perceive what Jeff is doing and from what I can tell, he’s very cleverly charting a path and I don’t see any of what he is doing as being problematic. I do agree it’s best you get some sleep, your work in your church is more important than these silly blogs. Do take care, there’s always another day when it comes to theology discussions. You ought to attend your local OPC and especially their adult sunday school, these conversations and those in sunday school for adults mirror each other, i can picture the kind of person you are because i have sat through hundreds of sunday schools in the OPC, I digrees…goodnight, man.
LikeLike
Greg, though I be not very perceptive or attentive, in your estimation, I’ve understood that you don’t regard yourself likewise. Pacquiao also thought he’d won the fight last night, and he wasn’t being sarcastic either.
LikeLike
Jeff, where does Machen say:
* Gen 1.1 in the original manuscript might have said something different.
* Gen 1.1 might been tragically mistranslated all of these years. (preposterous)
* Genesis was maybe mistakenly included in the canon. (this is WAY out there for different reasons)
* That the bible might not be the word of God
I am no scholar of textual criticism, but I have taken the time over the years to do a bit of study in that area. More New Testament than old, but some old as well. As far as I’ve ever been aware, there are no significant variants in the easily translated first verse of the bible. NONE of what is in the first three entries in that Machen quote has anything to do with epistemology. Textual variants and canonicty have no bearing whatsoever on the truth or no of Gen. 1:1 for anyone that should be taken seriously by anybody who takes Machen seriously .
The only item on your list that really matters to this dialog Jeff, is the last one. We are talking past each other brother. You are trying to frame the living room while I am still working on the foundation. Seriously. I promise you I am not being difficult for the sake of it. Until we know HOW we know anything at all, any discussion of WHAT we know, is meaningless.
Epistemology seeks to answer that question. “HOW do we know?” Not how do we know this or that, but by what standard of truth is ANYthing known to us at all.
WCF I and II give the Christian theistic answer. The Christian scriptures and the God who reveals Himself therein, are not subject to our insolent investigation. They are themselves the standard by which ANY and ALL true knowledge is measured and therefore made available to us. (think Calvin’s famous scripture/spectacles statement before we go off down that trail) Any particle of alleged knowledge found to be in opposition to them is ipso facto a lie.
Let me ask it this way then. Is it possible that the scriptures are not the word of God? If you answer yes, then please produce a Machen quote saying that the Christian religion could possibly be untrue and not just the liberals, whom he so steadfastly opposed, but indeed the rank ATHEISTS may be right after all as well. If you answer no then we have the same foundation.
Ya know, Dr. Hart you could help us over this hump if you just chimed in for 10 seconds and said, “well… Greg’s actually right here. Machen knew nothing of a possibly untrue bible or Christian God.”. You WOULD survive it. I promise.
Van Til dealt with this routinely, but despite being Machen’s guy, nobody here seems to really care what he taught.
Do you guys really not understand the mortal difference between a certainly true God and a possibly false one? It’s almost impossible for me to even type that.
LikeLike
Greg,
You brought up WCF chapter I, come on, the answer is there. Jeff and I and Darryl subscribe to the confession (I think sean does too, I believe he’s a deacon, Zrim is a deacon in the CRC, or was, not sure how that works, their subscription I mean).
Karl Barth did not believe the Bible is the word of God, he said Christ is the word of God, and that the Bible contains the word of God. I was taught in high school philosophy class (the same guy who taught me geometry in 1996 and calculus during my freshman year) that the bible is not the word of God (he was and is a mainline episcopal, we still keep in contact, he’s a very active episcopalian here on the west coast). His guy is Paul Tillich.
These discussions always take me back to high school class. Of course the Bible is the Word of God. Not everyone agrees. Here, have some Machen:
Greg: I hope you had a good Lord’s Day.
I agree that we’re trying to clear some weeds here. I had this really long response, then I realized that it could be greatly simplified.
Would you say that
Gen 1.1 is certainly a part of the Bible because
(1) The opposite belief would violate a law of logic, or
(2) The opposite belief would contradict all known evidence
?
I hold (2).
LikeLike
Jeff, I do very much continue to appreciate your thoughtful company. (I’m not being rude or dismissive to Andrew btw. He knows why I’m not answering him here.( Also I think Akismet is tagging my domain name. Hence no links for now. Long story for non techies)
Jeff asks: Would you say that
Gen 1.1 is certainly a part of the Bible because
(1) The opposite belief would violate a law of logic, or
(2) The opposite belief would contradict all known evidence
?
(3) The opposite would render logic unintelligible and with it the very notion of “evidence”.
LikeLike
Are you claiming (3) for Gen 1.1 in particular, or for every verse of the Bible?
LikeLike
@ Greg: Posts with more than one link get sent to spam purgatory until freed by an admin. At least, that’s the conclusion of my experiments here.
LikeLike
Jeff asks: “Are you claiming (3) for Gen 1.1 in particular, or for every verse of the Bible?”
Chapter and verse divisions didn’t begin until 1200 years after John died. What matters for my present purposes is that the God of the bible in fact exist. No book or passage of scripture establishing the existence or essential ontological nature of this God is even slightly in question for anyone who should be taken seriously by anybody who takes Machen seriously. Gen. 1:1 is THE seminal declaration from which is spawned the absolute whole of the reality we live in. That’s why I go there first.
@ Greg: Posts with more than one link get sent to spam purgatory until freed by an admin. At least, that’s the conclusion of my experiments here.
Thanks. I did actually know that though. No links at all accept in the web address field. The bottom one where you identify yourself above a comment. What it is that every so often Akismet remembers that my domain name resolves to a residential IP address because the server my so called blog (and all the rest of my stuff) is hosted on is across the room from me right now. It automatically zaps residential addresses no matter where the domain name is found in the comment. Unless told not to. A very helpful Akismet support guy got me going again last time this happened. I appreciate it though. A minor drawback of hosting all your own content.
LikeLike
Greg,
You are doing great, Jeff Cagle is Olts’ finest.
Props bro.
LikeLike
@ Greg:
As often happens in internet discussions, the shape of the argument seems to be in flux. The argument I thought we were pursuing was
Let’s go back to and start with “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.
That is at once, a proclamation AND a command. A command to embrace a specific, narrow and exclusive accounting of the origin of all things.
It is true (objectively certain) because it is the word of almighty God as WCF 1:IV and V quite rightly declare. — Greg, Apr 30.
This was the argument I laid out above.
But now the shape of the argument seems to be (and here, I’m less clear),
No book or passage of scripture establishing the existence or essential ontological nature of this God is even slightly in question … The opposite would render logic unintelligible and with it the very notion of “evidence”.
In the first argument, we believe that God created all things because His word says so. The word of God is the ground of belief.
In the second, we believe that Genesis 1.1 is God’s word because its opposite would render logic and evidence unintelligible. That is: Intelligibility is the ground of belief, which is the usual TAG.
So which of these, or something else, is the argument you are trying to establish? Do we believe that God is the Creator because He has told us so? Or do we believe that God is the Creator because it is logically necessary for it to be so?
LikeLike
Jeff says: “In the first argument, we believe that God created all things because His word says so. The word of God is the ground of belief.”
Yes. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God WCF 1:IV
What could be more self explanatory? The scriptures are SELF (divinely) attested and to be received BECAUSE they are the word of God. Therefore receiving them as such, IS to receive God Himself.
Jeff says: “In the second, we believe that Genesis 1.1 is God’s word because its opposite would render logic and evidence unintelligible. That is: Intelligibility is the ground of belief, which is the usual TAG.”
Yes. The God who reveals Himself in the aforementioned self (divinely) attested scriptures, being the source and definition of all things, is Himself the ground of logic and knowledge. Therefore, logic and knowledge are not possible without assuming Him first. The attempted operation of logic and commensurate acquisition of knowledge independently of Him (an impossibility) IS the very essence of sin. Is this not what the serpent offered our first parents? You can sum up his entire temptation in the 3 words: “think for yourself”.
Jeff says: “So which of these, or something else, is the argument you are trying to establish? Do we believe that God is the Creator because He has told us so? Or do we believe that God is the Creator because it is logically necessary for it to be so?”
They are the same argument viewed from different angles. The scriptures ARE the explicitly revealed mind of the eternal omniscient God. The eternal omniscient God who therein tells us that He is the creator and sustainer of all things, has, in designing us as finite replicas of Himself, seen to it that we are unable to form a single particle of intelligible thought without immediately testifying to His glory. Without Him we truly can do nothing. Including think.
Sinners spend every moment and calorie of their lives suppressing that truth in their unrighteousness. They do not cease today from appealing to the imaginary uncertainty of all things as an escape from the certainty of their Creator. The saints worship and proclaim this God as the true and certain ground of all thought and being that He is. The living word in their heart testifying to the written word in their hands. (WCF I:V)
Well, they’re supposed to anyway, but have lately joined the pagans in declaring the uncertainty of all things and thereby conceding victory to the enemies of their King. A possibly nonexistent god is a certainly false one. An idol of unbelieving skepticism created in the image of autonomous man.
Dr. Van Til spent his entire ministry fighting this uncertainty.
LikeLike
Well, you did warn me that there would be circularity. 🙂
Side note: My emoticons feel no shame or jealousy.
I feel the pull of your appeal to God’s rationality as the basis for our own. And yet, I wonder why Scripture *does* spend a lot of time on Thus Saith the Lord, yet *does not* spend time on And Here’s Why God is the Foundation for All Possible Reason. Likewise the Confession.
It seems to me that the structure of Biblical and Confessional thought is to ground truth in Scripture, not in logically necessary epistemology.
That’s a concern, not a well-formed critique.
Further, I’m a little baffled by your argument re: Gen 1.1.
You seem to be arguing,
(1) God is the ground of rationality
(2) Gen 1.1 affirms that God is the creator of all
(3) Therefore, Gen 1.1 must be in the Bible and correctly translated.
The move from (2) to (3) is not valid reasoning. The Apostle’s Creed affirms that God is the creator of all, and yet is not in Scripture.
Can you clarify your argument?
(I’m stalling for time or playing for clarity in a sense, because I don’t understand the structure of your thought. I didn’t observe van Til reasoning in such tight little circles when I read him)
LikeLike
Jeff says: “Well, you did warn me that there would be circularity. 🙂 “
Unless you are a self existent, eternally omniscient, non-contingent being, and there’s only one of those, that’s how it is.
Clark’s guys (Gordon), have an apocalyptic seizure when you talk this way. Trust me. I have the scars to prove it.
I have 2 close folks in the hospital and other stuff going on. Gym right now. I’ll do my best to have more later. Wear those emoticons with pride brother! 😀
LikeLike
Greg, emoticons are for PCA blogs.
Much more important than these blog comments etc. Take care, comments always open at Oldlife, never forget.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Offline life continues to be very demanding. We’re jist gittin good here Jeff. I’ll have a proper response as soon as I can.
Oh yeah, the Akismet guy says it’s not that. I can’t include any reference to my domain name on this site. The comment vaporizes. Darryl, I would be ever so grateful if you could check your settings to see if your individual blog has zapped my domain name and or public ip address ( 97.69.174.54 ). I’m sure you didn’t do it intentionally as you’d have no cause. I have linked nothing bad from my server. I don’t expect priority treatment on this as at all. Just if you get a chance. Thanks
LikeLike
FWIW – I reached a point that I couldn’t post under a certain e-mail address. It still worked under a different one. It looks like some kind of spam filter or other filter is at work, maybe without Darryl even realizing it.
LikeLike
Take your time. Real life is where we are called.
LikeLike
I appreciate the thoughtfulness Erik, but I can post with any email address as long as I leave the bottom field blank and write no links to my domain name in the body of the comment.
I have been in hospitals and rehab centers all day. Too tired to think anymore tonight Jeff. I do believe real righteousness is done online if the medium is utilized properly. It’s ain’t church, but it IS fellowship. And fellowship is an instrument of God.
LikeLike
Jeff says: “Well, you did warn me that there would be circularity.” 🙂
Unless you are a self existent, eternally omniscient, non-contingent being, and there’s only one of those, that’s how it is. All merely human reason is eventually (epistemologically) circular. Left to ourselves, even the most rudimentary maths and logic, such as 1+1=2, is left in ultimate inexplicability if our own finite reason is all we have. Unless you dispute that, I won’t elaborate further right now.
Praise God, our own finite reason is NOT all that Christians have though. We are new creatures in Christ and have been given HIS mind by faith. We are now empowered to take every though captive to that mind instead of being enslaved to the uncertain finitude of our own. For us, truth and certainty are grounded in the alone true and living God who IS truth and hence certainty itself.
Jeff says: “Side note: My emoticons feel no shame or jealousy.”
For me, emoticons are a helpful tool. They can color a phrase to more accurately portray the attitude driving it. That’s all. We cannot see each other’s faces nor hear each other’s voices. Usually I use them to indicate the non angry nature of something I’m saying. For instance, take a simple question:
“Are you serious?”
This may mean: “You really are a brain dead moron ain’t ya”.
Add a winking smiley and that same phrase becomes “of course I agree, but these people watching here are not gonna get it”.
That’s one example. The use of caps is meant to simulate spoken emphasis in the same manner. It’s meant for the reader to “hear” the phrase with the capitalized words as being accented and emphasized as if we were speaking. This is also why I love speaking to folks on the phone or Skyping is even better. Andrew and I have done both. You’ll notice some difference in the way he interacts with me lately. We have seen one other’s faces and heard one anther’s voices in conversation. Now when he reads me on this screen, he has a much better idea of where I’m coming from. It works the other way for me too.
Jeff says: “I feel the pull of your appeal to God’s rationality as the basis for our own. And yet, I wonder why Scripture *does* spend a lot of time on Thus Saith the Lord, yet *does not* spend time on And Here’s Why God is the Foundation for All Possible Reason. Likewise the Confession.
Before I answer, let me ask this. I feel entitled because you have answered several of my questions with questions, that I have then happily answered. I’ll even use your style 🙂 Which of the following do you hold to be the truth?
If your answer is anything but (1), I’ll answer your question and the inevitable clarification of it that will come after you read this comment.
Jeff says: “It seems to me that the structure of Biblical and Confessional thought is to ground truth in Scripture, not in logically necessary epistemology.”
They’re the same thing Jeff. The written mind of almighty God, along with almighty God Himself, whose mind that written word is, ARE together the divinely logical necessary epistemology. The label “epistemology” is nothing more than a convenient already extant term used to describe the arena of first principles. Our God IS that first principle. Would you propose a different first principle? (hence my list above)
Jeff says: “That’s a concern, not a well-formed critique.”
Fair enough, and that’s a very judicious way to state it. I respect that.
Jeff says:
“Further, I’m a little baffled by your argument re: Gen 1.1.
You seem to be arguing,
(1) God is the ground of rationality
(2) Gen 1.1 affirms that God is the creator of all
(3) Therefore, Gen 1.1 must be in the Bible and correctly translated.
The move from (2) to (3) is not valid reasoning. The Apostle’s Creed affirms that God is the creator of all, and yet is not in Scripture.
Can you clarify your argument?
Non circular logic cannot exist in the arena of epistemology, save only for God Himself. The only “self existent, eternally omniscient, non-contingent being”
(1) The scriptures ARE the written Word of the God they reveal (who IS truth itself) as per WCF I:IV.
(2) Those scriptures declare in their very first simple sentence that this God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth.
(3) Therefore, like God Himself, this statement is truth itself, the denial of which is sinful rebellion.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
Not seen means blind. Ohhhhh we don’t like that do we? That whole 11th chapter, the famed “Hall of Faith” is about people who with nothing but the promise of God believed on His word alone with no other proof or evidence. Yes, when viewed through the eyes of the first Adam this IS blind faith.
NOT to be mistaken for Kant’s divide or Hegel’s (or Barth’s) dialecticism. (That is another whole path altogether.) Blessed be the name of the Lord our God, we are not still dead and blind in the first Adam, but, once again, have been raised to new life and been given the mind of the last. Therefore what is blind faith to the first Adam is sweet glorious truth and certainty to the last.
Jeff says:
“(I’m stalling for time or playing for clarity in a sense, because I don’t understand the structure of your thought. I didn’t observe van Til reasoning in such tight little circles when I read him)
Van Til constantly said that to “prove” the God of the bible would immediately be to “DISprove” Him. Whatever fits between the ears of men ain’t the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Do you realize that this entire dialog is happening because I can’t get Calvinists to say that God certainly created the heavens and the earth? To look Christ hating pagans in the eye and tell them that they are certainly wrong and that they do sin against their creator by their arrogant insolent unbelief? Do you realize that? Do you further realize that this could not possibly have happened until quite recently?
LikeLike
yes, and i attest the beard reflected in his gravatar appears real. a word to the wise..
next.
LikeLike
@ Greg: Do you realize that this entire dialog is happening because I can’t get Calvinists to say that God certainly created the heavens and the earth?
Not quite. Rather, you can’t get this Calvinist to say that your particular version of “certainly” is what most Calvinists have meant by “certainly.”
More later.
LikeLike
And there still remains the possibility of some semantic haze that is keeping us from seeing that we might be saying essentially the same thing. I will await your response. Whenever you have time.
Words have power. God’s word has HIS power. The internet is the most awesome platform for proclaiming God’s word that has ever been known. It cannot replace the assembly of the saints, where the word, sacraments and discipleship take place. It also dos not replace face to face evangelism, but anybody who thinks God’s work is not done online is deluding themselves. I pray that every stroke of this keyboard be in subjection to the Word and the Spirit, be pleasing in His sight and accomplish all that it is sent forth to do. Which is completely up to God. Not me.
This is not pointed at you btw Jeff. I’m just speaking generally.
LikeLike
Greg: Praise God, our own finite reason is NOT all that Christians have though. We are new creatures in Christ and have been given HIS mind by faith. We are now empowered to take every though captive to that mind instead of being enslaved to the uncertain finitude of our own.
Are you saying that “the mind of Christ” refers to enhanced mental capacity such that we have a new capacity for absolute certainty?
Greg: Which of the following do you hold to be the truth?
(1) The God of the bible (WCF I, II, III, IV and V) is the foundation for everything, including all possible reason….
(1) is closest to my view. I would say that God’s nature is reflected in creation, such that rational thought is not merely a game, but reflects reality. It is an analogue of God’s reasoning.
I do not believe that humans are capable of perfectly checking their own reasoning, such that they can have absolute certainty in the results of their own (or anyone else’s) reasoning. At any point, it is possible to make an error in logic. Or put another way, I do not hold that logic is infallible, not because it is of itself errant, but because humans (nor machines) are capable of using logic infallibly.
A humorous example. Does 1+1 always equal 2? (Leaving aside picayune issues like base 2 notation or the field F2 or elliptic curves). You might think that arithmetic would be the most obvious and easily checkable place for human reasoning to be capable of infallible certainty.
And yet this. Even computing machines, theoretically manufactured so as to have provably correct arithmetic, are capable of computation errors.
The bottom line is that we don’t know what we don’t know. The reasoning error that causes us to lose the chess game is the error we don’t see.
Even accepting that the God who created all is the source of rational thought (and I do), I cannot point to any piece of my own reasoning and say, “This is infallible, incapable of being errant.”
Would you agree?
LikeLike
Watching the dialogue with interest. For Turretin on the question of certainty, see Institutes 2.4.22. On the question of manuscript corruption, see 2.5.5 and 2.5.10.
LikeLike
Jeff asks: “Are you saying that “the mind of Christ” refers to enhanced mental capacity such that we have a new capacity for absolute certainty?”
No sir, if defined as increased intellectual acuity or acumen, we do not gain mental capacity. What we gain is a new nature and with it a new W-w as a result of the indwelling power and presence of the Holy Spirit, gifted to us now justified adopted members of the family of God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Intelligence and logic do not change. Our beliefs about their source and the use to which we put them is what changes. Having the mind of Christ does not mean that we now have personal omniscience. It means that we are freed from sin and death to now trust in HIS omniscience.
We are now certain, not in ourselves, but by faith in HIS truth and certainty deposited in us in the new birth. The things of God which were once foolishness to us are now life and truth. It’s ALL Jesus and it’s ALL gifts of grace. I suspect this may have been a huge sticking point for you. I hope this helps.
Jeff says: “(1) is closest to my view. I would say that God’s nature is reflected in creation, such that rational thought is not merely a game, but reflects reality. It is an analogue of God’s reasoning.”
Indeed. I agree. If you thought I wouldn’t, I’d be curious to know why. As far as this goes, I find no fault with it. This is what Romans 1:18ff teaches.
Jeff says: “I do not believe that humans are capable of … using logic infallibly.”
Neither do I. We are back to the original question though. In the passage in the first of Romans that you alluded to, God says that ALL men know Him because HE has made Himself known to them. Are we to allege that He has not done so infallibly and in such a way that our knowledge in this instance is also infallible so that we are with out excuse? I mean, IF the atheists just MIGHT be right and the scriptures and Christianity all wrong, then that sounds like an excuse. No?
Jeff asks: “Does 1+1 always equal 2?”
In real day to day life? Yes.
Jeff says: “(Leaving aside picayune issues like base 2 notation or the field F2 or elliptic curves).”
I’ve dealt with this kinda stuff numerous times in the past. (Violet’s crew for instance hit me with this hard. It’s on my blog under VioletWisp”) Exactly this.
Non base 10 systems and digital binary numbers are used to show that maths and logic aren’t really certain. That’s abstract theoretical gobbledygook and is of no use in REAL day to day life. Fact is we couldn’t even recognize the theories unless examined against the standard of conventional everyday decimal math and what amounts to old Newtonian logic.
Jeff asks: “You might think that arithmetic would be the most obvious and easily checkable place for human reasoning to be capable of infallible certainty.”
Oh no sir. If you’ll remember, I’ve said repeatedly that we can’t even account for something as rudimentary as 1+1 equaling 2 if left to ourselves. We ARE certain THAT it does. At least we sure DO live that way, but can’t explain how or why.
Jeff says: “Even computing machines, theoretically manufactured so as to have provably correct arithmetic, are capable of computation errors.”
Yes, but this is proving my point. The FPU calculation errors are explicable by omitted instruction table data. Hence logic and base 10 math DO explain the binary flaw. Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re driving at. As I also said before. Even apparent quantum uncertainty is only recognizable to us because standard logic tells us about it. If 1+1 did not equal 2 in regular day to day life then coherent intelligibility would be altogether impossible. Why? Because God….
Jeff says: “The bottom line is that we don’t know what we don’t know. The reasoning error that causes us to lose the chess game is the error we don’t see.”
Ok, but Jeff, this is another formal, non epistemological statement. It does not deal with first principles. It is governed by first principles. Once committed, we DO see that there was an error. Or else how could we know there was one? There is no mystery here. Only faulty chess skills. 🙂
Jeff says: “Even accepting that the God who created all is the source of rational thought (and I do), I cannot point to any piece of my own reasoning and say, “This is infallible, incapable of being errant.”
Why would it follow that infallibility, that is, being INcapable of error, would be a necessary condition for merely recognizing certainly true information when presented with it? Especially when we are not the source of this certainly true information, but merely the receivers of it. It is a simple non sequitur to assert that less than stellar Chess skills must translate into uncertainty regarding the direct self revelation of the supreme deity who declares the inexcusable state of those personally pickled by Him in this self revelation. You have a confusion of categories here sir. Again. Unless I’ve misunderstood you.
LikeLike
Again, I’ve enjoyed reading the interactions Jeff & Greg.
Jeff – are you an officer in the church? OPC?
Greg, I get your point about base 10 being the colloquial number system but to state the things you do about binary and other number systems gave me a good chuckle considering your posts, the website, and your computer that your bot-posting-self posts from, all make use of binary and other number systems (compression).
As you were.
LikeLike
Chris, JC is a PCA elder.
Here’s his blog (butterflies)
http://jrcagle.blogspot.com/?m=1
LikeLike
Of course I understand that Chris. I’ve been a computer guy for 16 years. ALL forms of math make use of the SAME logic. Maths and logic are not identical. I should clarify that. Regardless of the specific arrangement of numbers, they are still numbers and the same subjective framework of conscious logical navigation of our world abides with both. The digital system is just as certain and for the exact same reason as the base 10 system. I only use the equation 1+1=2 because it is a convenient and universally recognized specimen. .
Binary math speaks exactly nothing to the uncertainty of our God. It is a distraction I’ve seen numerous time from people trying to wiggle out from under the certainty of their master. I don’t think you’re dong that. (or Jeff) That’s not what I mean. It’s just uncanny how we always wind up steering through that neighborhood.
LikeLike
you guys should listen to Dr. Poytress redeeming mathematics from Christ the Center. It’s fascinating, Poytress got his PHD from Harvard in math, if I remember correct. You won’t regret listening to it.
[2]
LikeLike
@ David R: Good catch.
@ Greg: Intelligence and logic do not change. Our beliefs about their source and the use to which we put them is what changes. Having the mind of Christ does not mean that we now have personal omniscience. It means that we are freed from sin and death to now trust in HIS omniscience.
We are now certain, not in ourselves, but by faith in HIS truth and certainty deposited in us in the new birth. The things of God which were once foolishness to us are now life and truth. It’s ALL Jesus and it’s ALL gifts of grace.
Yes, I’m good with that.
Greg: Binary math speaks exactly nothing to the uncertainty of our God. It is a distraction I’ve seen numerous time from people trying to wiggle out from under the certainty of their master. I don’t think you’re dong that.
Right. The reason I asked us to leave those aside is that each is compatible with reason once terms are properly clarified. So we are in agreement: There’s nothing about binary arithmetic that casts doubt on mathematical certainty.
But I do take issue with the “abstract gobbledygook” comment. 🙂
JRC: “Even computing machines, theoretically manufactured so as to have provably correct arithmetic, are capable of computation errors.”
GtG: Yes, but this is proving my point. The FPU calculation errors are explicable by omitted instruction table data. Hence logic and base 10 math DO explain the binary flaw. Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re driving at.
I think you are indeed misunderstanding, but the point is a difficult one to express clearly. You are speaking from the point of view of having already discovered, located, and fixed the error. Now that we know the end of the story, we can look back and say, “Aha, it all makes sense now! There was a reason.”
Until that fix had happened, the researcher was in the uncomfortable position of having an apparently provably correct program giving an apparently wrong answer. The only possible solution was that the logic practitioner (that is, the Pentium FPU) was fallible, as any practitioner can be.
In other words, I am drawing a distinction between logic and the logician, and I’m pointing out something obvious but necessary: Even if logic is mathematically certain, the logician is not certain (in the same sense) — because he cannot guarantee the infallibility of his own reasoning. This is why journals check proofs.
I think you agree, but are not comfortable with some of the implications I’m drawing?
Keep in mind that this is NOT an argument for epistemological despair. I write proofs and check proofs like any other math guy. The only argument that I’m making is that the kind of certainty that we do legitimately have is not mathematically absolute, and it is not at any point free from “but I could have reasoned incorrectly.” I don’t live under a cloud of doubt, any more than I fear being gored by unicorns.
LikeLike
Jeff says: “The only argument that I’m making is that the kind of certainty that we do legitimately have is not mathematically absolute,”
This sounds like you’re falling back on the idea that mathematics lend themselves to a higher level of probability than God. Neither of which are truly certain.
Jeff says: “…and it is not at any point free from “but I could have reasoned incorrectly.”
Does this apply to essential gospel truth such as Gen. 1:1? Is it possible that the Christian faith be false and the atheists be right? For all of our seeming to get closer and closer, I am still seeing you as propounding an ultimate probably as being the best God can give us. Say it ain’t so.
I have a men’s meeting tonight. Will be back later. I had more, but your answer to this is most important.
LikeLike
The tension in this discussion is resolved via the archetypal / ectypal theology distinction underlying Clark’s QIRC terminology. We can’t transcend ourselves and get God-level certainty as if we see the world axiomatically. We’re dependent on our senses, experiences, intact mental faculties, and general grasp of language to extract meaning from anything, all of which introduce uncertainty before anything like textual-critical questions.
“mathematical certainty” is also counterintuitive or at least conversationally uncommon. If you say to a mathematician that you’re 99.99999% sure that your spouse is faithful, they might toast you or ask for marital advice; if you’re the spouse in question, you probably won’t feel that way regardless of your mathematical maturity. Similarly few believers are going to leap at advertising a 0.000000000000001% chance of Genesis 1:1 being uninspired, even if it is in fact describing a huge apologetic advance in helping their unbelief.
LikeLike
Unless I have drastically misunderstood him, I disagree utterly with pretty much everything thomist Mike K says above. I do not want to get sidetracked away from Jeff though. We have a lot of time invested here.
LikeLike
Jeff says: “You are speaking from the point of view of having already discovered, located, and fixed the error.”
Yes, I’m speaking from the point of view of already having been raised from death and self exalting sin, and having my errors fixed by being born into new life and a new mind in the risen Christ.
It’s not that I’ve transcended mySELF. The transcendent Christ has given me His mind by faith. In myself I’m not even sure 1+1=2. In HIM? I’m sure of everything (epistemologically).
When I humbly (yes humbly and graciously) lock horns with atheists, I concede nothing and give no quarter. I stand on the rock of the revealed word of the living God and call them in His name to forsake their autonomous rebellion, trust in the blood of Christ as payment for it to their Master and walk in newness of life and mind in Him.
so much as a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance (chance? In a reformed universe?) that this gospel is untrue, then it is 100% false.
LikeLike
On my view screen, the line truncates the final digits, so I get all zeros. I think there’s a hidden message about rounding there. 🙂
Seriously, though:
JRC: The only argument that I’m making is that the kind of certainty that we do legitimately have is not mathematically absolute
Greg: This sounds like you’re falling back on the idea that mathematics lend themselves to a higher level of probability than God. Neither of which are truly certain.
Read this more literally. There is a kind of certainty that we have agreed to call mathematical certainty that corresponds to theoretically 0 % chance of error. We don’t have to call it “mathematical”; we can call it “Gregorian” if you like.
I’m simply saying that believers have a kind of certainty, but it is not Gregorian because of our creatureliness.
JRC: “You are speaking from the point of view of having already discovered, located, and fixed the error.”
Greg: Yes, I’m speaking from the point of view of already having been raised from death and self exalting sin, and having my errors fixed by being born into new life and a new mind in the risen Christ.
That was a dramatic recasting of my point. 🙂
Greg: Is it possible that the Christian faith be false and the atheists be right? For all of our seeming to get closer and closer, I am still seeing you as propounding an ultimate probably as being the best God can give us. Say it ain’t so.
It ain’t so. God can give and has given us His infallible word.
We have fallibly
* Identified that word (canon selection)
* Collated that word
* Translated that word
In other words, God has not directly dumped His infallible word directly into our brains. Instead, there is a supply chain that consists of several fallible steps. Do I have any remote doubt about those steps? Do I question the authenticity of Gen 1.1? I do not. But I do acknowledge that the supply chain is real and fallible.
Now, you seem to want to circumvent the chain by directly arguing that God is a logically necessary being: No God => no logic; logic, therefore God.
And that’s an interesting argument, for which I have some sympathy (but then, I also like Anselm and Plantinga, so there’s that). However, its key weakness for a believer is that it grounds God’s existence in something other than His word.
In other words, your certainty appears not to be resting in the Word of God, which is infallible yet fallibly transmitted to you. Because that kind of certainty is insufficient for you, you instead rest your certainty in the soundness of the argument that God is a logically necessary being.
I’m uncomfortable with that. Especially when you go further:
Greg: so much as a .000000000…01% chance (chance? In a reformed universe?) that this gospel is untrue, then it is 100% false.
In other words, your argument from logical necessity is your whole hope; if it fails, then God necessarily does not exist (in your view). That’s actually alarming, in that most believers throughout the ages have not known of or cared about logical necessity.
Rather, they heard the word of the Lord and believed.
It is important to me that our ground be and remain the Scriptures.
Side question: you seem to indicate that you are uncomfortable with the notion of probability in general. Is that one of the sticking points?
LikeLike
I’m re-encouraged Jeff. I think we’re maybe in different paragraphs of the same page now. I’ll need to figure out better way to express a couple ideas. Closer, but still talking past each other. Can’t be tonight though.
Probability is impossible at the epistemological level. All sorts of things may be probable to varying degrees on the formal level. Probability is the proportional state of being more or less certain. A thing is probable in direct proportion to it’s nearness to certainty.
How can there be more or less of something that doesn’t exist? If first principles are merely probable there is no certainty for there to be more or less of. There IS however certainly at the epistemological level. Guess where from. 🙂
I cannot properly formulate the rest of what I what to address tonight. .
LikeLike
“On my view screen, the line truncates the final digits, so I get all zeros. I think there’s a hidden message about rounding there. :-)”
Assuming it ends after the half-zero, the sample space’s cardinality is at least three orders of magnitude higher than the most liberal estimates of the number of elementary particles in the universe. To me, this is a brilliant illustration of the need for both the archetypal / ectypal distinction and STEM education, but alternatively one can nod and claim to have received the omniscience of the divine person of Christ wrt epistemology at regeneration.
LikeLike
Jeff says: “Read this more literally. There is a kind of certainty that we have agreed to call mathematical certainty that corresponds to theoretically 0 % chance of error. We don’t have to call it “mathematical”; we can call it “Gregorian” if you like.”
I call it God. Or epistemological certainty. Or mathematical certainty. While not strictly synonymous, logically, philosophically speaking, these are interchangeable in usage to me. The first IS the last 2. Though the last 2 are not the first. God IS also love (1 Cor. 13), but love is NOT God.
We can go with GREGORIAN if that makes things simpler.
Jeff says: “I’m simply saying that believers have a kind of certainty, but it is not Gregorian because of our creatureliness.”
All men (chicks too), sinners and saints alike, have Gregorian certainty because God Himself has seen to it. It’s not their own and they KNOW it. HE is that certainty and they KNOW that too. There is no escape. We are supposed to be reminding them of that. Not conceding defeat by allowing that they might be right.
Jeff says:
“We have fallibly:
* Identified that word (canon selection)
* Collated that word
* Translated that word”
And yet as the all wise designer of universe would have it, NONE of these fallibilities has succeeded in obscuring Gregorian certainty in His image bearing creatures. The standard is Hm. Not our fallibility. Bless His holy name. He in effect, swears by Himself as there is none greater.
Jeff says:” In other words, God has not directly dumped His infallible word directly into our brains. Instead, there is a supply chain that consists of several fallible steps. Do I have any remote doubt about those steps? Do I question the authenticity of Gen 1.1? I do not. But I do acknowledge that the supply chain is real and fallible.”
” However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” (Romans 8:9)
“…But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,” (Romans 8:11)
“The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,” (Romans 8:16)
“For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Cor. 2:16)
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1 Corinthians 6:19)
“Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16)
“…God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Col. 1:26)
“Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:6)
“Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.” (2 Timothy 1:14)
“…by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.” (1 Peter 1:4)
I wouldn’t say that the brain is the precise location, but yes He has put His word IN US. He has put HIMSELF in us. CHRIST in us. Word, Spirit, nature, mind etc.. That being the case, now I know why I was so certain that 1+1=2 when I was pagan. And now I know why other pagans go so far out of their way to avoid that certainty. I’d like Sean and sdb to tell us why they go so far out of their way to avoid it. Dr. Hart too actually.
Jeff says: “In other words, your certainty appears not to be resting in the Word of God, which is infallible yet fallibly transmitted to you. Because that kind of certainty is insufficient for you, you instead rest your certainty in the soundness of the argument that God is a logically necessary being.”
Here’s where I think there has been a great gulf fixed between us. Properly understood (and it many and maybe even most times is not), all truth is indeed God’s. I feel safe in assuming you’ll agree. The definition of W-w I bring to these discussions is again, a comprehensive framework of theology, philosophy and ethics through which all of life is interpreted. Scripture is the foundation and anchor of the authentically Christian theistic W-w.
It should be clear by now that I affirm in full WCF I:I. I unashamedly and boldly declare plenary verbal inspiration of the 66 book canon in the autographs. Do NOT mistake my view as having any Barthian influence whatsoever. That said, an infallibly transmitted collection of scripture is not required for the Word of God to be infallibly transmitted thereby. None of the doctrinal pillars of the faith are imperiled by the human elements providentially involved in the collection and transmission of the text, anymore than they were by it’s being written through men in the first place.
Every bit of logic you see from me here rests squarely upon the consideration of God’s natural revelation in and around us, viewed through the lens of His special revelation in scripture. The Christian theistic epistemology I preach would be impossible without the infallibly transmitted Word of God, brought to us in fallibly transmitted scripture. The certainly of that Word, along with the certainty that word gives me in my examination of myself, my fellow creatures and the universe, together infallibly testify to the unassailable truth and certainty of the God who is the source of all. THAT reigns over my fallible response. Not the other way around. In other words, HE does the transcending for me.
Jeff says: “In other words, your argument from logical necessity is your whole hope; if it fails, then God necessarily does not exist (in your view).”
Please see above. This here is an ultimately meaningless hypothetical “IF” Jeff. What I am propounding is the very mind of the alone true and living God. By definition, it CANNOT fail.
Jeff says: “That’s actually alarming, in that most believers throughout the ages have not known of or cared about logical necessity.”
I just know you’re gonna hear me one of these times brother. 🙂 Every believer… AND unbeliever, lives every second of their lives in incurable bondage to logical necessity (God’s truth and certainty). Like water to a fish, in Him (AND HIS inescapable logical truth and certainty), they live and move and have their being. HE is the most basic fact of all. The one and only uncreated one from which all other facts proceed.
It is the most natural thing in the world for the children of the first Adam to suppress that truth in their unrighteousness. To constantly push it from view. This is the essence of rebellious unbelief and the nut of the Romans 7 war fought by every saint, including this one, all the days of this life. The spirit says: “God is right”. The flesh (old nature) says: “He might be, but I don’t care. I’m gonna think and do it my way”.
Jeff says: “Rather, they heard the word of the Lord and believed.”
AMEN!! And the intellectual (philosophical) component of that belief is everything I have been discussing. Their being able to specifically articulate that is irrelevant. Most Christians can barely articulate what truths are in the Nicene creed. Or a veritable library of books you consider to also be biblically true. I do not do this with new converts. Nor do I usually evangelize half coherent street people with a lecture on biblical epistemology. The truth and certainty of our God DOES however under gird every thought I think and every syllable that falls from my lips. It is THAT confidence that drives my now 30 plus year old, new life in Christ.
Jeff says: “It is important to me that our ground be and remain the Scriptures.”
Couldn’t possibly agree more.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say that the brain is the precise location, but yes He has put His word IN US. He has put HIMSELF in us. CHRIST in us. Word, Spirit, nature, mind etc.. That being the case, now I know why I was so certain that 1+1=2 when I was pagan. And now I know why other pagans go so far out of their way to avoid that certainty. I’d like Sean and sdb to tell us why they go so far out of their way to avoid it. Dr. Hart too actually.
I am being told by my partner, that the above paragraph may possibly be misunderstood. This should not be taken as meaning that I believe the union with God in Christ passages indicate any of those blessings or benefits to unbelievers.
What I mean is, now that I have myself received those blessings and benefits, it is by and through them that I now know where truth and certainty, even among the lost, ultimately comes from.
LikeLike
@ Mike: Thanks, and I agree.
LikeLike
Greg, I’m sorry, but I’m lost.
(1) Do unbelievers have the kind of certainty you are describing? If so, then where does the “mind of Christ” line of reasoning fit in? If not, then where does the “certainty about 1+1=2 when I was a pagan” fit in?
(2) Computers, of course, use logic and are programmed to do so (FPGAs!) without, of course, having any notion of epistemological certainty. They just do what they do.
Wouldn’t an atheist simply reply that we also just use logic without having any guarantee of its certainty? If I were an atheist that would be my move. Logic, he might say, is not guaranteed to be certain, but is empirically verified to give satisfactory results. Here comes Quine …
(3) There are two places that the Confession speaks of assurance. The first is in the discussion of the Word.
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
The second is in the discussion of our assurance of salvation
I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish): yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.
This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
In both cases, I understand the persuasion of the Spirit to be something other than or different from either our logical or our empirical faculties.
Agree or disagree?
LikeLike
I’ll skip the unbelievers defense for now. (that’s another whole room in this house. I have desk in there already, but that will get us off track at the moment)
Jeff asks: “(1) Do unbelievers have the kind of certainty you are describing? If so, then where does the “mind of Christ” line of reasoning fit in? If not, then where does the “certainty about 1+1=2 when I was a pagan” fit in?”
From a previous page, to Sean:
=====================================================================
[There is]a foundational difference between epistemological knowledge and formal knowledge. At the formal level 1+1=2 for absolutely everybody. The form and formal function are identical because of the image of God present in all men, through which God’s common grace operates. At the epistemological level, the level of first principle and heart commitment, is where there exists an eternally radical antithesis. To those raised from rebellion and death in the first Adam to the life and mind of Christ in the last, 1+1=2 because of the ordered mind of the creator God whose image they bear and thoughts they think after him on a finite derivative scale.
To the mind still dead in sin, 1+1=2 for literally any reason at all other than the truth found for us now only in Christ. They will believe absolutely ANYthing else, not because that’s what they actually believe epistemologically, but to escape from believing what I believe epistemologically. Epistemologically, they KNOW where that knowledge comes from according to the first of Romans.
So you see Sean, the unbeliever’s campaign of rebellion against his God, is financed with capital that has been borrowed, indeed stolen, from God’s own bank. What you call “confusion” on Van Til’s part is actually the very brilliance of his approach to fallen man, missed by a shallow and dismissive reading on your part. The saints have at once, fully everything and nothing in common with sinners.
=====================================================================
Same facts. 1+1=2. Commonality with sinners. (formal knowledge)
Different heart. How and why 1+1=2. Antithesis with sinners. (Epistemological knowledge)
Both forms of knowledge are archetypal in God and ectypal in us. Well, God’s can only be archetypal. (that’s not what I’m rejecting from Mike)
We can never have God’s knowledge in and or of ourselves. We are plugged in to HIM and HIS knowledge in the new birth, having been justified and thereby qualified for this fellowship and made new creatures in Christ, old things passed, new things here. Once I was blind and now I see. The intellectual (philosophical) component of that is what we have been discussing.
Jeff says: “In both [sections of the confession], I understand the persuasion of the Spirit to be something other than or different from either our logical or our empirical faculties.”
Logical and empirical are not the same. Certainly the empirical is excluded. (at least the way I’m conceiving of it’s use here) It’s not that I flatly disagree with your postulation either. I do have trouble though with God’s infallible assurance NOT addressing, engaging or it sounds like you’re saying even including the intellect at all. Is this not the very definition of mysticism? And dare I say “pietism”?
For myself, I hasten to clarify that my arguments to this point have addressed already regenerate believers. Not how they get that way. Once in possession of this “infallible assurance”, are we now to proclaim it fallibly to the world?
Allow me please to just ask you plainly Jeff. Would you tell an atheist acquaintance that your assurance of salvation is as infallible as God Himself like the confession says, or that it might be all wrong and the atheist might be right, like sdb and Sean say? He can of course correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect you can throw Mike k. in there with them too.
That’s a very simple question sir. It requires only 2, or at most 3 keystrokes. Yes or no. And if it’s NOT that simple for you? I really hope you ask yourself why. Your argument is with the divines. Not me. I am assuming nothing here. I don’t know what you’re going to say. Which already bums me out, but I’ll live.
I am honored by your conversation in any case. Sincerely.
LikeLike
What’s up Jeff?
LikeLike
It looks like we have a silent, unexplained withdrawal from Jeff. I admit my disappointment.
LikeLike
Unintentional, good sir.
LikeLike
You guys missed your window. Old Life has moved on to prayer meetings.
LikeLike
@ Erik: That seems uncertain.
LikeLike
Greg, you have the good fortune of having Jeff for your conversation but if you have time for an aside I wonder if you’ve ever used Van Til’s apologetic as an apologetic, i.e., as a way of talking to unbelievers.
LikeLike
JRC: In both [sections of the confession], I understand the persuasion of the Spirit to be something other than or different from either our logical or our empirical faculties.
GtG: Logical and empirical are not the same. Certainly the empirical is excluded. (at least the way I’m conceiving of it’s use here) It’s not that I flatly disagree with your postulation either. I do have trouble though with God’s infallible assurance NOT addressing, engaging or it sounds like you’re saying even including the intellect at all. Is this not the very definition of mysticism? And dare I say “pietism”?
Sorry, I think I was unclear. I was trying to say that, while we have distinct logical (i.e. deductive) and empirical (i.e. inductive) faculties, our assurance that the Bible is God’s Word and also our assurance that we are saved appear to be grounded in yet a different faculty.
Certainly, both faculties are involved. I hear the Word, or read it, and construct its meaning — which is both an empirical and also deductive process. I understand it (notitia) and assent to it. But trust fiducia is not empirical nor is it deductive.
So if having fiducia is pietistic, well …
But I don’t think you were trying to say that.
I’ll put this another, more van Tillian way. The reason that a believer receives the Word in faith and an unbeliever does not has nothing to do with either deductive or inductive abilities. It has to do with presuppositions, those beliefs of the heart that of which we are not fully cognizant. What the Spirit does in creating faith is changing the heart, not improving the intellect.
—
GtG: Would you tell an atheist acquaintance that your assurance of salvation is as infallible as God Himself like the confession says, or that it might be all wrong and the atheist might be right, like sdb and Sean say?
I would say that my assurance is that Jesus died for sinners, and that all who trust in Him will receive eternal life, and that those truths are worth going to the stake for.
LikeLike
I’m with Muddy. You indicated above that you speak with unbelievers. Does van Til help the evangelism process for you?
In my conversations with non-believers, I find that few have affinity for the “ontological proof” family — Anselm, Plantinga, TAG.
LikeLike
Greg,
Have you found Van Til to be effective in reaching crack addicts sans teeth?
LikeLike
Jeff says: “Unintentional, good sir.”
Ok. I was wondering. This can be a time consuming topic I know. No problem. Now that I know, take your time.
Erik says:”You guys missed your window. Old Life has moved on to prayer meetings.”
Nonsense skipper. There’s always time for epistemology. I AM interested in that Pew research poll.
LikeLike
How Greg feels as he waits for Jeff..
Don’t worry, we all like you bro, I just had to send that along to my favorite giffer/emoticator at oldlife
😈
LikeLike
Oops. Didn’t refresh the page first.
Muddy asks: “Greg, you have the good fortune of having Jeff for your conversation but if you have time for an aside I wonder if you’ve ever used Van Til’s apologetic as an apologetic, i.e., as a way of talking to unbelievers”.
Yes, but only certain ones. Actually if anybody has quite a bit of time on their hands, you can witness Greg the Terrible try his hand at the argument from morality with Brian Hanson starting on THIS page. Erik says he likes to watch me pound somebody in a debate (in Jesus name 😉 ) Brian was battered and bleeding there and I was very civil to him. I rarely wield the classics, but was in the mood that day.
As he kinda retreated out of that, there’s a Frenchman named “Kamui” (who I almost wrote a book with. Actually still might) English is his third language and he has three earned philosophy degrees from major French universities, including doctorates in philosophy and the history of philosophy. THAT boy puts my hat in my hand. Maybe the single most terrifyingly intelligent man I’ve ever personally encountered. That was like 2 1/2 years ago and we never got back to it, though we’ve emailed since then.
Total pagan, but holds a system of sorta pan-deistic epistemology that asks ALL the right questions and follows natural revelation right into the throne room of God Himself and then refuses to bow (long story). I thought he was a believer and maybe even a Van Tilian when we first met because he was defending me. For like 2 days. But nope. One of my all time favorite pagans. We got to be friends. I still pray for him and we’ll lock horns again. That dialog was one of several we had.
Erik (and Jeff actually) ask: “Have you found Van Til to be effective in reaching crack addicts sans teeth?”
I tell them self willed sin is what’s killin them and only faith in Jesus Christ can fix it. Van Til in a word.
LikeLike
Greg The Terrible
Posted May 16, 2015 at 11:18 pm
Erik (and Jeff actually) ask: “Have you found Van Til to be effective in reaching crack addicts sans teeth?”
I tell them self willed sin is what’s killin them and only faith in Jesus Christ can fix it. Van Til in a word.
I dunno. Most of the pagans I know are teetotaling vegan environmentalists. [Come to think of it, so was Hitler, but that’s unfair. But only a little.]
LikeLike
Sin is what’s killing them too tom
LikeLike
Greg The Terrible
Posted May 17, 2015 at 12:16 am | Permalink
Sin is what’s killing them too tom
I think of Redd Foxx: “Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing.”
I don’t know if “sin” is the proper tool for this equation. There are ascetics [pagans, Buddhists, whathaveyou] who do little that could be classified as sin. I suppose you and Van Til [Calvin?] have some more expansive meaning of “sin,” and you appear to be going to the “noetic effects of sin” thing.
Still, I wonder if that’s the only way to get to wherever it is you’re going.
“Even Van Til has a theology of Natural Law. Saying that there are noetic effects of sin which impugn our reason does not imply that the Law is not written on our hearts or that God has not revealed himself to all men such that they are without excuse.”
If you see where that’s going. Loosely we could call anything “sin” that frustrates man’s teleology–to know and love God, “our hearts were made for thee,” in this life to live in accord with the natural law. That teleology is even the Christian understanding of “human flourishing”–whereas mere good health and following the Golden Rule are insufficient, for they do not embrace all of what man is, for they ignore what is more-than-material [metaphysical, teleological] about him.
Although apparently well-fed, he is starving. I think this is in the neighborhood of what you’re saying, yes?
LikeLike
No offense Tom, but Jeff gets my next comment.
LikeLike
Merci, Mr Turrible. I can wait. I know what it’s like to try to keep up with one’s fan mail. 😉 Indeed Mr Cagle seems to have lost track of you while sending me some!
After the unproductive nonsense of this very evening, I found your comment refreshingly thoughtful and after spending half an hour doing my homework on what you were talking about and thinking on it, typed the above considered reply.
[I would have typed faster but some folks around here think very slowly, when at all.]
A reply is unnecessary, unless you have more to add. Thx for being you.
LikeLike
So what is “certainty”, Greg?
I understand deductive certainty. You begin with axioms that are self-evidently true, reason with logic, et voila! Certain results.
But Gregorian certainty is not deductive certainty.
I also understand inductive certainty in terms of confidence intervals. You sample a phenomenon to death, construct confidence intervals, and if you get to a point that only a fool would bet against you (“Do you really think that if I drop this book, it won’t fall?”), then you have inductive certainty — obviously of a lesser quality than deductive certainty.
But Gregorian certainty is not that, either.
What’s left? Well, there is faith. I understand the Confession to be speaking of faith in the quoted passages above.
But Gregorian certainty is not that, either.
So what is it?
LikeLike
How would you feel about winding this down with, say, three more posts each?
LikeLike
Put the old mare down in a humane way. I like it…
LikeLike
Greg,
Save some love for Tom.
LikeLike
Always been a fan of the rule of three here, with EC here. Put the mare down nice and neat.
LikeLike
You’re under no obligation to continue Jeff. I’m not going to proclaim you a coward if you decide to quit after 3 more, but I can’t think like that. You have good stuff here. I’m working on a response and now you have your certainty question, which is also excellent.
God is certainty. Not my cognition of Him.
How dare I tell a pagan that our finite AND sinful minds rule over His? What arrogance to allow for even the slightest possibly that my creator might not exist. Every kind of certainty you named is formal. God is Himself the epistemological certainty that defines all those. Indeed who defines EVERYthing.
LikeLike
“How dare I tell a pagan that our finite AND sinful minds rule over His?”
A core error for amateur presupps: muddling epistemology and ontology.
LikeLike
Jeff says “Sorry, I think I was unclear. I was trying to say that, while we have distinct logical (i.e. deductive) and empirical (i.e. inductive) faculties, our assurance that the Bible is God’s Word and also our assurance that we are saved appear to be grounded in yet a different faculty.”
What are your thoughts on what that faculty is? I agree btw. (I’m pretty sure)
Jeff says “Certainly, both faculties are involved. I hear the Word, or read it, and construct its meaning — which is both an empirical and also deductive process. I understand it (notitia) and assent to it. But trust fiducia is not empirical nor is it deductive.”
I think I agree again, but I don’t see trust as being exactly the same as assurance. (nevermind. That’s a nitpick for now)
Jeff says “SSo if having fiducia is pietistic, well …
But I don’t think you were trying to say that.”
No I wasn’t.
Jeff says “I’ll put this another, more van Tillian way. The reason that a believer receives the Word in faith and an unbeliever does not has nothing to do with either deductive or inductive abilities. It has to do with presuppositions, those beliefs of the heart that of which we are not fully cognizant. What the Spirit does in creating faith is changing the heart, [thus resurrecting] the intellect.”
Fixed that for ya 🙂
——————————————————
GtG: Would you tell an atheist acquaintance that your assurance of salvation is as infallible as God Himself like the confession says, or that it might be all wrong and the atheist might be right, like sdb and Sean say?
Jeff answers: “I would say that my assurance is that Jesus died for sinners, and that all who trust in Him will receive eternal life, and that those truths are worth going to the stake for.”
Why won’t you close this door? People fly airplanes into buildings and blow themselves up for a lie.
LikeLike
https://oldlife.org/2015/05/you-can-make-this-up/comment-page-1/#comment-322447
It was half tongue in half cheek and I was specifically not thinking of you Jeff.
LikeLike
No offense taken. Is this thread alive or dead? It seems to have hit a ttl limit.
LikeLike
JC, comments are always open.
LikeLike
What does “ttl” mean? The only ttI I know of is TIME TO LIVE
As far as I was concerned it was still alive. I’ve checked every day to see if you responded.
LikeLike
@ Greg: That was the ttl I meant. As in, the ping had expired.
I guess I’m still holding on the question of what the nature of this certainty is.
LikeLike
Well, as I said above Jeff. God Himself is certainty. Being truth itself (WCF I:IV) He is also certainty itself as there can be no such thing as an “uncertain truth”.
God:
Once again. He being the origin and definition of all that is or ever could be, it is both biblicaly nonsensical and idolatrous to attempt to find epistemological certainty anywhere else. To deny certainty altogether IS to embrace the post modern W-w and call the omnipotent creator of heaven and earth a liar. Not to mention the Westminster Assembly.
The intellectual component of Adam’s fall into sin IS uncertainty (hath God said?) Cantor and Boltzmann drove themselves mad trying to resolve infinity without the God of WCF II. In Cantor’s case at least (if I remember right), he even DID attempt to assert some concept of god into His infinitely divisible infinities in an effort to save his sanity. OUR God and no other solves His problem, but he was willing to descend into despair rather than stop suppressing that truth in his unrighteousness. Which is exactly what we should expect from sinners.
What we shouldn’t expect is for the theological descendants of the reformation to join them. Any god who is one centillionth of a percent uncertain is one created in the image of autonomous Adam and a figment of his rebellious imagination.
As I also said above: “God is certainty. Not my cognition of Him. HIM.” Before ever He said “Let there be light” He was certainty itself. Our now presence on the scene doesn’t change that. ESPECIALLY after the fall. WE are now uncertain in our finitude AND fallenness. It is an absolute outrage to exalt my finite corruption over God’s eternal truth and certainty, and grant to His enemies that they may be right in their insolent denial of Him.
No Muddy Gravel, I have not confused epistemology and ontology. In the case of the God of the Christian scriptures, they do however define each other. Our epistemological certainty is founded squarely upon His ontological certainty. He being the ground of all being is also, by definition, the ground of all certainty. Our creation in His image thinks this certainty after Him while adoringly recognizing our reliance on Him for it.
LikeLike
Greg, you say that God is necessary but your type of argument at best proves the existence of certain attributes that we associate with God.
Think about Aquinas’ (Aristotle’s) argument that there must be a first cause. If he proved anything he proved a being that has creative power. Or the argument from design, in which we think of creation like a watch – what is proven is not the Christian God but a being with the attributes of power and intelligence.
So when you tell us God is the necessary presupposition for logic, what have you proven? One could be sympathetic with your epistemological argument but realize that you have proven the necessity of only certain attributes. You then associate all the other attributes of God with those attributes and see God. But two or three attributes does not require a trinity, a Son of God, a holy God, a loving God, etc.
Now, if you want to say it is enough for one kind of argument to establish certain attributes but not others then fine. But you appear to be saying the Christian God is an absolutely necessary presupposition. Tell us why the God of deism doesn’t work as well.
LikeLike
In this discussion Muddy, certainty is ALL I’ve been after. All of God’s essential and incommunicable attributes are as necessary as His absolute certainty and in fact flow from it(for lack of a better way of stating it). Including His triunity. As well as His comprehensive decree and meticulously and mysteriously deterministic providence. Which of course then invokes the three omni,s. Power, knowledge and presence. Once down this path, the rest such as His holiness, love and covenant making nature take care of themselves.
We simply have been focused on certainty itself so far and I’d like to stay there for now until settled if possible.
I hasten to reiterate, as did Van Til relentlessly, that the God of the Westminster Divines (the bible), cannot be “proven” by investigation or examination as this would subject Him to standards external to Himself. An unthinkable impossibility to those holding a proper conviction of His majesty. No, He is Himself the standard upon which the barest of human thought is made possible. This is why even allowing the remotest possibility of His nonexistence is monstrous folly to say the very least.
That has been my most indignant and heartfelt lament since this started with Sean and sdb declaring skepticism to be true by siding with the blasphemous unbelieving world and allowing them the possibility of being right.
LikeLike
Greg The Terrible
Posted May 25, 2015 at 6:58 pm | Permalink
He is Himself the standard upon which the barest of human thought is made possible. This is why even allowing the remotest possibility of His nonexistence is monstrous folly to say the very least.
How Thomistic.
LikeLike
Greg, you’re either preaching or you’re arguing. If you’re preaching the God of the Bible we will say “amen” but if you are presenting an argument, that argument can be critiqued on any number of grounds. If you claim that God is necessary, you are making an argument that he comes at the beginning of the argument rather than as the conclusion of the argument. So it’s a matter of rhetoric whether you are offering a “proof” for God or not.
So, back to my point, an argument is being made that something is necessary before argument begins. What is it that is “necessary” in an apologetic sense? I say it is certain attributes that are necessary. What you are doing – and I think what Van Til did – is a bit of preaching where it is asserted that the God of the Bible and the revelation of the Bible is necessary. But he didn’t connect the dots adequately, relying on assertions that make us all want to say “amen” without providing adequate argumentation.
LikeLike
Muddy says: “relying on assertions that make us all want to say “amen” without providing adequate argumentation.”
Here’s the problem Muddy. At the epistemological level, “assertions”, that is to say, statements of faith, are all we have. For the reason I have been presently advancing. Archetypal epistemological knowledge belongs to God alone. Ectypal knowledge at the epistemological level, the only kind we’re capable of there, is by definition taken on faith. (the assurance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen) This means that your demanding “adequate argumentation” for the first principles of epistemology is both to miss the point, and to demand the impossible.
TVD, I bet you’re a nice guy and we’d get along great, but you’re clueless. Of both Aquinas epistemology and Van Til’s. OR, you were just bored and felt like typing something.
LikeLike
Greg The Terrible
Posted May 26, 2015 at 8:21 pm | Permalink
TVD, I bet you’re a nice guy and we’d get along great, but you’re clueless. Of both Aquinas epistemology and Van Til’s. OR, you were just bored and felt like typing something.
Sorry to confuse you. If you understood Aquinas, you wouldn’t have to be a Van Tillian. Muddy’s quite right that Van Til’s “presuppositionalism” is circular reasoning.
The very mention of the “Catholic” Aquinas sends certain Protestants into a tizzy, but Van Tillian argument-by-assertion is what gets them into trouble in the first place.
https://epistole.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/an-apparent-apologetic-method-in-aquinas-a-critique-of-certain-van-tilianisms/
Further, it leaves you only speaking a sort of Esperanto, where you make sense only to each other, few that you are. You cannot function outside the bubble. You are useless on Mars Hill.
LikeLike
You say “you’re clueless.” I’m fine with blunt but I’ll return the favor and say, Greg, that you are in over your head. You have the requisite diligence to learn what you are talking about and you may have the requisite intelligence but you simply aren’t educated. You haven’t gone through the history of philosophy to be able to have a context for Van Til. You don’t have a sense of what real philosophers produce as opposed to what Van Til produced. You’ve never been challenged by professors to take the next step and then the step after that in you analysis. You are pretty much maxed out with parroting CVT; critiquing him is beyond your reach. So, look, enjoy him all you want but you might to be more humble when you talk about him; you may even want to entertain the idea that you have not understood what I have said.
LikeLike
OK, I’ll give dialogue another chance.
Greg, CVT’s job was to do apologetics. As such, his task was to advance arguments for the God of the Bible. So what did he do to convince others of the God of the Bible? “You should believe in the God of the Bible because….”
LikeLike
The clueless crack was to TVD Muddy.
LikeLike
Greg The Terrible
Posted May 26, 2015 at 11:57 pm | Permalink
The clueless crack was to TVD Muddy.
You say “you’re clueless.” I’m fine with blunt but I’ll return the favor and say, Greg, that you are in over your head. You have the requisite diligence to learn what you are talking about and you may have the requisite intelligence but you simply aren’t educated. You haven’t gone through the history of philosophy to be able to have a context for Van Til. You don’t have a sense of what real philosophers produce as opposed to what Van Til produced. You’ve never been challenged by professors to take the next step and then the step after that in you analysis. You are pretty much maxed out with parroting CVT; critiquing him is beyond your reach. So, look, enjoy him all you want but you might to be more humble when you talk about him; you may even want to entertain the idea that you have not understood what I have said.
LikeLike
Greg, Muddy, TVD and Jeff,
Have you ever listened to this?
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/episode-14-from-presuppositional-pca-to-rome/
LikeLike
Susan, I have profited from some first-rate Catholic philosophers. But they were, indeed, philosophers and not propagandists. Speaking of which, is there a Catholic-convert propaganda phase like there is a Calvinist cage phase? Because if there is, you’re in it and I hope you pass through it quickly.
Greg, do you have Jerusalem and Athens? If you want to talk a bit longer there are some handy quotables in there.
Ah, now I see you were cracking on Tom. Well that’s his payoff here, so I assume everyone’s happy on that exchange.
LikeLike
*
I’m sorry I haven’t met your guy’s lofty standards. I do the best I can with what I have to work with. It is interesting that TVD would join you in your ad hominem criticisms. The topic of this discussion is whether it is legitimate to tell unbelievers that we could be all wrong about the Christian religion and they could be right? This talk of my educational shortcomings, which I have been quite up front about, or what “real philosophers” or even what Van Til thought or did are relevant here only insofar as they may serve that end.
I’m an amateur and a layman. Never claimed anything more. Now, dazzle me with your degrees and erudition Muddy and tell me whether it is in accord with the scriptures and historic reformed orthodoxy for Sean and sdb and Dr. Hart to tell the pagan world that the God of WCF II might not exist and their uncertainty may be right after all. Adding a why to that would be even better. Pretend one of your more worthy peers has asked the question. Can you do that?
Susan? Tom? What about you? Does your contention for the Roman Catholic faith rise any further than high probability? Any further than the claims of post modern skepticism?
LikeLike
Ding
LikeLike
Greg,
Chiding someone for doubt is akin to telling a depressed person to “snap out of it”. Neither is helpful.
If you have arguments for the God of the Bible, by all means make them, but do it with humility as opposed to arrogance.
LikeLike
Greg, you can’t come in here, berate people, throw furniture around, and then whimper when you get some straight talk back. Did you ever see Dirty Harry get whiny? (Oops, maybe not the best reference for you.)
So I put a question on the table and directed you to a resource that we might have in common. If you pick it up I can go down the CVT trail a bit.
“The topic of this discussion is whether it is legitimate to tell unbelievers that we could be all wrong about the Christian religion and they could be right?” Or maybe the topic is whether CVT is a canonical Reformed apologist – The Final Word – or if his work was designed to respond to a particular intellectual climate that is no longer. Or maybe it’s something else.
Again, CVT did apologetics. He said we should believe in the God of the Bible because ___________. Fill in the blank – a summary will work.
LikeLike
Greg, don’t get frustrated. We’ve all been there (angst over these blog convos). Sometimes I am saved by the fact that my tomes are lost to the gremlins of the interweb after I hit “post.” One day at a time, and when it doubt, sleep on a comment instead of posting. We are on the same team here. Remember who the real enemy is..
LikeLike
Thanks for stepping in, Muddy.
I’m not sure why Greg is being strung out like this. Nobody gives a rat’s behind about his views of Van Til and epistemology.
One needs credibility, usually degrees and something to say, to be paid attention to in areas of what would be considered loftier leisure reading.
LikeLike
Predictably, I don’t see my answer Muddy. Again, pretend I am one of your more worthy peers and pretend Cornelius Van Til was never born.
And Erik, you need to make up your mind brother. One minute you are chiding me for not being, I guess bombastic enough, and the next you’re telling me not to be arrogant? I beleiev it was you who advised me to resist these guy’s attempts to make things about me. That WAS you. What you see from me is what was once known as “conviction”. In today’s church of equivocating, limp wristed weaklings it is called “arrogance”. I don’t care. I hold the actual “oldlife” standards.
Machen is very highly revered on this site and regardless of whether he thought he needed a Dutchmen or not, the man who was principled enough to leave Princeton and found Westminster thought highly enough of Van Til to enthusiastically recruit him for his fledgling seminary, jumping through some significant hoops to get it done. That is my point in using him. Attack me and you’re attacking him and by extension, Machen. That is really my only use of him in this entire dialog.
Like every apologetic method, Van Til’s was merely his doctrine of God expressed in that arena. Truth be told, I’ve been souring on the whole enterprise of “apologetics” for a while now and been wondering if Kuyper might have had a point after all. What I’ve been doing here would be polemics and not apologetics anyway.
Jeff and I have been, from my point of view anyway, having a passably productive grown up conversation. Should I see this as a problem?
LikeLike
Greg, I’m not going to pretend my heart is broken but there should be no mistake: you have refused to answer a question about CVT that is both fair and basic. If you can’t even begin to talk about why CVT says we should believe in the God of the Bible then what is the point of all the reading you’ve done? And admit you’re just been raving.
Now your defense is “attack me and you’re attacking Machen”? He hired a guy (CVT) who did some interesting and provocative work in apologetics. What don’t you understand about the possibility that he did good work in his academic environment but he’s not sacred writ?
LikeLike
I thought we already did the whole finite creature epistemological limitations. Isn’t this what this whole thing boils down to? I guess it’s fine to argue who’s got the tightest, roundest circle, but those arguments are inevitably circular(get it), and the whole point, I thought, was to recognize a common ground of creaturely limitation. Faith is still lauded as the means by which I express my belief in God. We don’t argue sight, even epistemologically construed, we argue historic reality-incarnation and resurrection. But, even Jesus recognizes the setup this side of the resurrection; ‘blessed are those who believe and haven’t seen'(contrast to Thomas’ faith and requirement). Faith is still the bridge and the confession speaks rather candidly about the waxing and waning of that faith. Nowhere is it posited that this side of glory, doubt is to be or will be eradicated. I know in part and I ‘see’ in part, dimly.
LikeLike
Sean, do you see a valid role for apologetics or philosophy?
LikeLike
Remember, Greg:
http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/1+cor+8%3A1-3/
LikeLike
Well, the credentials thing is overblown sometimes. For one thing, folk with Master’s degrees often (not always) have more horse sense than PhDs.
But for another, elders in the church are called to be competent to teach, with or without a degree — and they are the ones called by the church and authorized to make declarations per WCF 31.
So that’s an important boundary. We can debate theology and philosophy here, but the elders of the church make the declarations, not the PhDs.
Now, school does a couple of important things for you: Exposure to the landscape, and training in habits of thought and argument.
So carry on Greg and Muddy (good questions, btw). Greg, consider that your exposure and habits of argument may be different from (not saying inferior to) the standard terminology, and consider how you might bridge the gap.
LikeLike
@ Susan: I haven’t heard that. I find the differences in flavor between Bahnsen and Frame to be significant, such that they probably represent two genuinely distinct branches of van Tillian thought.
LikeLike
Greg, there are some sticking points here.
(1) “God is certainty.”
Because this is not literally true, as in “the being God is the same as the abstract concept of certainty”, I have trouble understanding what you mean.
I provisionally think that you mean that “because God’s knowledge is perfectly true, His knowledge is the ground for our belief that truth exists.” But I’m really unsure about that gloss.
If it helps, I have the same comprehension problem when the Clarkians say that “God is logic.”
(2) The argument I’ve seen so far has been that without God’s existence, no knowledge is certain. And actually, I’m sympathetic to that view. But doesn’t that simply prove, not that God exists, but that “If any knowledge is certain, then God exists”?
In other words, I don’t think you get God’s existence from the argument, but rather a conditional. The unbeliever could always play the Total Uncertainty card to evade the force of the argument: “No knowledge is certain; therefore, God might not exist.”
(3) You say, “there can be no such thing as an “uncertain truth”.”
Is that so?
P: Near the surface of the earth, an object in free-fall will accelerate at 9.8m/s/s
Is that statement true? If not, would you bet against it? If so, then is it certain? After all, it is empirically derived, and I think I recall that you don’t ascribe certainty to any empirical statements.
The point of my question is that you seem to be confusing true and provably true.
LikeLike
how can I put this….
On a public forum with all kinds of views and talents and educations and temperaments….
if you insist on getting on a high balance beam about theology or holiness, you are going to have birds of prey descend on you, people throwing tomatoes, and people setting fire to both ends of the balance beam for kicks.
I think it was John McArthur’s essay I read about a hierarchy of teaching about theology, basically stating that you honestly have NOTHING to tell people unless they are realistically below you.
Starting with Jesus at the top, then the Apostles, it works down through Ph.D.s and the ordained and right down to (my guess) reading Scripture to the comatose in chronic care.
LikeLike
And we’ve all cringed to watch self-taught people think their reading at the kitchen table allows them to “debate” scholars and noted pastors/theologians.
One keeps endlessly arguing about Republication, he’s been sent packing from most of the good sites that I find to be helpful with the Reformed faith.
Star****ing at it’s worst.
LikeLike
Muddy, I do. Awww. I do, after a fashion. To the degree it begins to depart from Paul’s historic considerations, I really struggle with it’s effectiveness and necessity. When Paul wants to push the point, he goes to the resurrection and eyewitness testimony. These are hardly esoteric and rigorously constructed syllogisms upon which he is resting the fidelity of the faith. In fact, he goes this route so as to shame and offend those whose ‘faith’ rests upon such considerations. The foolishness of the cross, preaching and even the sacraments(simple, plain) seem to be part of the polemic against they philosophical presups of the world.
LikeLike
Plus, after taking all my philosophy, religion and logic classes, the big takeaway, I remember, is that each subsequent philosopher tended to unwind the prior. We do tend toward always learning and never knowing and forever chasing our tails. Not that there wasn’t benefit, but the scriptures seem to argue in a different manner, even one that the writers are aware will generate scorn. The manner seems to matter.
LikeLike
Sean, I’m drawn to them from time to time but maybe it’s just my version of word search puzzles. I tend to think apologetics is more useful to intellectually satisfy believers than to reach unbelievers. As for philosophy, I’m on the fence as to whether it is directly useful or if it’s indirectly useful – like weightlifting might be for basketball.
In other words I enjoy the stuff in some moods but Ecclesiastes never stops whispering to me.
LikeLike
Sean, my recollection of Francis Schaeffer’s grand theory of knowledge and theology is that a philosopher would try to devise a “unified theory” of the way things are, then the next would destroy the circle and build his own, and then one day, straight through the present, no philosopher argues that such a circle should exist.
Or something like that…
LikeLike
A general note – we get an endorphin bump when we can show someone else up, and really all we are doing when we hit “post comment” is this.
Mortification of spin (www[dot]mortificationofspin.org/mos/podcast/37070) was good on the drive in to work.
I’d also like to leave you with some of my M’Cheyne listening from my drive, emphasis mine:
Next.
LikeLike
@AB: Thanks for that.
LikeLike
Jeff, no problem. That logic thing with the cards and colors was great. You are no doubt a great teacher, and what a blessing to be able to have an impact on the lives of young people. I remember with admiraton my high school math and philosophy teacher, we still keep in contact (I mention him here quite a bit). Grace and peace, have a muddy proverb while I’m at it, as I prepare for another day of excel spreadsheets:
FWIW, Greg and Francis have this in common:
That should be my 3 comments + however many more for the day. I’m out.
LikeLike
Guys.
The question is, can we tell unbelievers that the God of the standards has a certain claim on their life and that they’re assessment to the contrary is fatally and eternally and in every other way utterly false? THAT is the question.
Kent. God has given me cast iron skin. My problem is when they want to talk all about me instead of what I’m saying.
Sean I actually have very large sympathy for this:
“Muddy, I do. Awww. I do, after a fashion. To the degree it begins to depart from Paul’s historic considerations, I really struggle with it’s effectiveness and necessity. When Paul wants to push the point, he goes to the resurrection and eyewitness testimony. These are hardly esoteric and rigorously constructed syllogisms upon which he is resting the fidelity of the faith. In fact, he goes this route so as to shame and offend those whose ‘faith’ rests upon such considerations.”
And ESPECIALLY this: ” When Paul wants to push the point, he goes to the resurrection and eyewitness testimony. “
Where does Paul (or any other biblical author) concede that he may be all wrong and ANYbody opposing him might be right? EVER? The Divines? Where? Now did ya hear that? THAT is the question. THAT question. (Knocks on forehead, hello???!!)
Muddy you keep asking a question which I have answered repeatedly, but which answer it seems you don’t like. It is ALSO totally irrelevant to the dialog I have been trying to have for a couple weeks now, to this point really only with Jeff because he doesn’t appear to have the same hangups you do.
Where does Paul (or any other biblical author) concede that he may be all wrong and ANYbody opposing him might be right? EVER? The Divines? Where? Now did ya hear that? THAT is the question. THAT question. (Knocks on forehead, hello???!!)
Your syrupy, feigned compassionate and understanding condescension of my limitations and diversion to other considerations do not substitute for an answer. It was the declaration of probability as the basis for the God of the reformed faith and possible error in that regard that started me on all this. Because that is NOT the historical view. Hart knows this better than anybody (don’t ya Darryl?) Except for Jeff I have gotten a steady stream of juvenile insults and irrelevant mental masturbation from all of you lettered giants. You’ll just have to forgive me if I have not been all that awestruck.
Jeff, I’ll get to you and continue to appreciate your company. In my view Frame is not Van Tillian at all. I think I already said that Van Til dies the proverbial death of a thousand qualifications in his hands. *
LikeLike
thoughts greg?
AB says: A general note – we get an endorphin bump when we can show someone else up, and really all we are doing when we hit “post comment” is THIS
I had to fix Andrew’s link. 🙂
LikeLike
Greg, I see where you have stated 3 times that you have answered the question but I see no answer. The answer is that CVT argued that the God of the Bible is a necessary presupposition for intelligible thought. This is altogether consistent with his dialogues in which he hypothetically takes on the presupps of his opponent to show they are not capable of supporting intelligibility. And, BTW, he doesn’t escape the charge of using his autonomous reason while God hangs in the balance – he had to formulate that argument which is based on epistemological concerns rather than the “self-attesting” Christ.
But it sounds like you don’t want to talk. Just don’t claim that your thundering is anything other than your own.
LikeLike
Muddy,
“Speaking of which, is there a Catholic-convert propaganda phase like there is a Calvinist cage phase”
Hey, I was trying to be of help. It looks from here like you guys were staring out at the ocean, wondering if the land in the distance is in fact land or a mirage..
Besides, to convince me that its propaganda you need to tell me how. Bald assertions are not the same as arguments. How can we mutually determine what is the truth if we call each others starting places complete hogwash, or worse, maliciousness? That kind of discrediting of your Catholic interlocutor’s name( not arguments) could also be considered as propaganda coming from the Protestant side.
I’d really love to hear yours( or anyone’s feedback). Really would:)
Have a glass of wine and give it a hearing. Both the interviewer and interviewee are respectful to Protestants.
LikeLike
Where does Paul (or any other biblical author) concede that he may be all wrong and ANYbody opposing him might be right? EVER? The Divines? Where? Now did ya hear that? THAT is the question. THAT question. (Knocks on forehead, hello???!!)
In 1 Corinthians 15:12-19:
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Paul allows for the possibility in order to buttress the thrust of the reality. By removing the possibility, Greg, you make the apologetic project just plain stupid. You’re no Paul.
LikeLike
My read of van Til is similar to Muddy’s, esp.
The answer is that CVT argued that the God of the Bible is a necessary presupposition for intelligible thought. This is altogether consistent with his dialogues in which he hypothetically takes on the presupps of his opponent to show they are not capable of supporting intelligibility.
LikeLike
Susan, just another website, another podcast, another blog. It needs to get in line with all the rest, I can guarantee, no one will listen to that.
Praying for you to get out of your convert cage phase,
Andrew Buckingham
LikeLike
Well, OK, Susan, you were trying to help so thanks. But can you see how a link to CTC may not be all that appealing here? Of course you can. Can you see how that could be interpreted as part of a propaganda offensive? Sure you can. If you’re asking me to prove that you are a propaganda-phase convert, that would require going through a bunch of old comments and making the subject all about you. I don’t think either one of us wants that. Maybe this blog has a backstage widget that could take a poll for the question “Is Susan a propaganda-phase convert?” but probably not.
Here’s the thing: we Presbyterians could begin criticizing Presbyterians on Friday and not be done by the end of a three day weekend. But you present idealized doctrine, idealized history, etc. At some point you won’t do that any more. The only question is whether you will then be a realistic Catholic or so disenchanted by reality that you be something else.
LikeLike
Muddy,
I tend to think apologetics is more useful to intellectually satisfy believers than to reach unbelievers.
I have to agree with this assessment. Apologetics seems to be most useful for those already convinced. I know few, if any, who have heard an apologetic argument and been convinced who weren’t already Christian. This isn’t to say apologetics is useless with nonbelievers; we just have to be more realistic about our expectations.
LikeLike
Unbelievable. Really sumthn else guys.
“Where does Paul (or any other biblical author) concede that he may be all wrong and ANYbody opposing him might be right? EVER? The Divines? Where? Now did ya hear that? THAT is the question. THAT question. (Knocks on forehead, hello???!!”
Can somebody other than Zrim answer that please? Pretty please with sugar on top?
Also can somebody aside from me please help Zrim understand that Paul is not allowing for the possibility of the falsehood of the resurrection, but is instead rebuking the Corinthian church for entertaining that very possibility? Please? That arguing “hypothesis” as a literary device is not the same as declaring something truly possible. With sugar on top I’m asking? I did it already, but he doesn’t listen. Must have been at Erik’s place because I can’t find it here now.
Forget Van Til please. PLEASE? And answer the question above.
(I’m still planing response when I can Jeff)
LikeLike
” But you present idealized doctrine, idealized history, etc. At some point you won’t do that any more. The only question is whether you will then be a realistic Catholic or so disenchanted by reality that you be something else.”
But, Muddy, one man’s “fair game doctrine”, is another man’s “idealized doctrine”. You guys will always be shooting at the other guys ducks. Presup against Presup….that’s a real cage. What’s the mechanism that will make it stop?
LikeLike
Sorry, Steve. Greg is right.
Also can somebody aside from me please help Zrim understand that Paul is not allowing for the possibility of the falsehood of the resurrection, but is instead rebuking the Corinthian church for entertaining that very possibility? Please? That arguing “hypothesis” as a literary device is not the same as declaring something truly possible
Amen!
LikeLike
Greg and Susan, have you considered that without allowing for the possibility that Christ is not raised and we are of all men most pitiable that it takes the wind out of the sails of the fact that he is raised and we are of all men most enviable? But the way you would have it, it’s all ho-hum (because how could any of it been anything else?). That is, until you get piously sentimental about it.
LikeLike
Susan, “How can we mutually determine what is the truth if we call each others starting places complete hogwash, or worse, maliciousness?”
It won’t happen by Ireland voting for SSM and Roman Catholic converts telling us and telling us and telling us how Roman Catholicism is all sure-fired superior.
What will it take for that little dose of reality to register in your noggin?
LikeLike
“Presup against Presup….that’s a real cage. What’s the mechanism that will make it stop?”
I will never lose any sleep over presupp. I don’t feel a need to go to the Pope every time something is not definitive. I don’t feel any need to go beyond “everything is bad, but Presbyterianism is the least bad.” Why do you?
LikeLike
Susan, don’t be so easy on yourself. Lots of other Roman Catholics, like Robert Royal, Ross Douthat, Boniface at Unam Sanctum, Perinacious Papist for starters recognize the warts in Roman Catholicism. You never do.
LikeLike
Muddy,
I feel like I owe you an apology for being bit snarky. I was serious about trying to help, but I was also perturbed that you rejected what I really believe is a good smart voice in the conversation. I mean, you decided not to listen because of it’s coming from a Catholic site? What if I’m right and it will honestly help?
Darryl,
The Catholic Church in Ireland hasn’t changed, even though the population is against her teachings. I don’t know how it works with the reception of Holy Eucharist, but if a person isn’t practicing same sex union, there isn’t a mortal sin. Just like if someone who has the struggle with same sex desire can receive Jesus in the Eucharist as long as they have falling into the sin act. If they do that, they go to confession, and pick up and try again. God is merciful.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Yes the Church has warts. I’m a part of her, and I have many many warts.
LikeLike
Greg, I’m against trying to improve on other’s worthy responses. Sometimes repitition(RC school upbringing) is the answer.
“Paul allows for the possibility in order to buttress the thrust of the reality. By removing the possibility, Greg, you make the apologetic project just plain stupid”
Susan, you mean the Irish Catholic church which Shuttered it’s embassy to the Vatican for two years because of the Vatican throwing the Irish bishops under the bus in the sex abuse scandals. The very same bishops who are now lined up with Kasper on needed reforms and an dominant, maybe the dominant Catholic country who just told the Vatican to stay out of their bedrooms and get with the times?! Which Irish Catholic church do you have in mind? You’ve really got to get out more. Give it a few more years.
LikeLike
“I’m a part of her, and I have many many warts.”
TMI.
Also, if you were snarky, I wasn’t perceptive enough to pick up on it. But, please, put your hand on the Catholic catechism, put your hand in the air, and swear that you are shocked – shocked! – that I didn’t go running to Bryan Cross to sort things out for me.
LikeLike
Susan, the Irish bishops aren’t looking too good, either.
What next? The invisible church?
LikeLike
I’m sure Susan is ready to fully defend whatever could possibly happen next.
Just a hunch.
LikeLike
Paul via Zrim: if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised….
Greg: Where does Paul (or any other biblical author) concede that he may be all wrong and ANYbody opposing him might be right?
Susan: Also can somebody aside from me please help Zrim understand that Paul is not allowing for the possibility of the falsehood of the resurrection, but is instead rebuking the Corinthian church for entertaining that very possibility?
I think we’re having trouble here because the term “possible” is ill-defined in this discussion, much as the term “certainty” is ill-defined.
Do you mean “logically possible” or “possible given what else we know about the world”? Those two are not at all the same. It is logically possible that Jello meteors could fall to Earth from space. Given what else we know about the world, it is not possible for that to happen.
(i.e.: even if there were a space-born Jello source, the Jello would vaporize on entry)
So that’s the second kind of impossibility.
But of the first kind, logical impossibility, then … If we are making any kind of an argument from contradiction, then we must first suppose that the opposite is logically possible.
So for example.
Commentary: Although the subject matter is different, this is the exact form of Paul’s argument. He wants to show that Christ is raised. He begins with the hypothetical “Suppose he is not raised.”
In our proof, we are therefore taking it as logically possible that such a triangle exists. Now, we don’t actually think this is so, but — key point! — we haven’t proved that fact yet. We’re about to. So at this point in our reasoning, as far as we know, it is logically possible to make such a triangle ABC.
Same thing in Paul’s reasoning. He thinks Christ is raised. To prove that, he must speak in terms of a logical possibility: Suppose Christ is not raised.
Commentary: Now, at the end of our proof, we can say that, yes, it is logically impossible for such a triangle to exist. But until we had proved that fact, we did not have … wait for it … certainty on that.
Likewise with Paul and the Corinthians. He says, “Suppose Christ is not raised. Then our preaching and your faith are in vain, and you are still in your sins. And this contradicts what you know to be true. So Christ must be raised.”
Here at the end of the proof, we see that Christ’s not-being-raised would contradict what else we know about the world. So it is impossible in the second sense above. But it was logically possible when Paul raised it as a hypothetical.
This is a subtle point, but I think Zrim has the right of it.
And in fact, all that Paul shows, strictly speaking, is that
EITHER Christ is raised OR (Our preaching is in vain AND Your faith is in vain AND you are still dead in sins).
The atheist might well bite the bullet and take option (b). So even there, Paul does not prove “certainty without a doubt.”
LikeLike
Muddy says: “I don’t feel a need to go to the Pope every time something is not definitive.”
This IS definitive and no pope required. Your denial of it is a betrayal of God AND His faithful servants who set forth His foundational truth for us in the clearest language possible. I don’t care what degrees you have. Answer this question please:
Until you answer THAT question Muddy, which it appears Jesus will return before you will, nothing else you say in this conversation will have any relevance.
Zrim, ya gotta knock it off man. I beg of thee. It’s painful. 1st Corinthians 15 cannot even be accidentally construed to be saying what you would have of it. He is reproving therm for entertaining doubts about the resurrection at all. Not saying how cool it is that they have listened to false teachers who deny the resurrection so they can now have some ying for their yang. Nobody else is gonna say a thing about this huh? Schoolyard cliques rule around here it appears.
It looks like they will find my skeleton slumped ever this keyboard before anybody is going to take a grown up stab at that question.
LikeLike
Greg, it’s not schoolyard cliques, it’s efficiency. It’s also delegation in a virtual, community kind of sense. We’ve got a licensed historian, pastors, lawyers, teachers, english grads and other assorted professionals who regularly participate. It’s just good sense and good manners to give way and listen when those folks are wheeling and dealing in their areas of training and employment.
LikeLike
Most will be very happy that I may actually quit this conversation.
Jeff, you are participating in good faith I believe so my frustration in your regard is actually worse because I really WOULD like to be able to get over this wall with you. This just may be my last attempt, because as much as I hate to admit it, I think I am out of ways to approach this here at this time.
Would Paul, or the divines tell unbelievers that everything he has been doing might be wrong and they might be right? Or would he tell his sheep to tell unbelievers that? NOT for the sake of argument (which I already granted), but AT THE ARCHETYPAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL level of very first principles where only God dwells directly.
Yes, I JUST said that only God can have that knowledge in Himself, internally (directly). But, and PLEASE get this part, When we preach Him to unbelievers do we do it from HIS ARCHETYPAL EPISTEMOLOGICAL certainty or from our own ectypal UNcertainty that claims no more authority than they already have? They get to keep their house and Jesus will give them some new furniture?
I’m not trying to be a jerk brother. I simply don’t know how else to ask this anymore.
Zrim. Is Jeff’s explanation what you actually meant? That’s an honest question man. I really want to know.
LikeLike
sean
Greg, it’s not schoolyard cliques, it’s efficiency. It’s also delegation in a virtual, community kind of sense. We’ve got a licensed historian, pastors, lawyers, teachers, english grads and other assorted professionals who regularly participate. It’s just good sense and good manners to give way and listen when those folks are wheeling and dealing in their areas of training and employment.
Which of these is Zrim?
LikeLike
Greg, right, right. So if Jesus’ bones were discovered tomorrow you’d still believe because it just couldn’t be otherwise. Some would call that one massive example of religious denial and rightly accuse you of operating on pure religious (even cultic) fantasy. Your reasoning is fundamentalism dressed up in a lot of hifalutin philosophy. If you can’t hold out the possibility of being wrong, how do you ever expect to get anywhere with any unbeliever? It’s pure arrogance and you’ve fooled yourself into believing is justifiable because you do all for Jesus.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 27, 2015 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
Susan, don’t be so easy on yourself. Lots of other Roman Catholics, like Robert Royal, Ross Douthat, Boniface at Unam Sanctum, Perinacious Papist for starters recognize the warts in Roman Catholicism. You never do.
D. G. Hart
Posted May 27, 2015 at 4:14 pm | Permalink
Susan, the Irish bishops aren’t looking too good, either.
What next? The invisible church?
Don’t let them bully you with the same illogic over and over again. These gleeful “the Catholic sky is falling” posts seem pithy to someone whose church only started in the 1930s, but when a church is around for 2000 years, it’s clear these little bumps in the road come and go all the time.
Besides, whatever’s ailing the Catholic Church ails the Presbyterian worse, except instead of losing members, they bleed entire congregations hundreds and thousands at a time.
Why, with only 30,000 members left in the only “true” Presbyterian Church left, “invisible” is a pretty accurate description.
LikeLike
Greg, Zrim is a professional metrosexual wormboy. At least that’s what he claims. He also doesn’t suck at english. Which means he can get schoolmarmy on you, but you just blow past those moments. Still, when it comes down to reading comprehension, he’s almost as good as moi(sometimes better-I’ll regret that I’m sure) and I’m amazing.
LikeLike
Yeah, let’s take a break. Sometimes I just need to percolate.
I would say that when speaking to unbelievers, we all (whether consciously or no) operate at the ectypal level. Even TAG works like that: God’s existence is shown to be the only option left standing. So we have to begin with “suppose God doesn’t exist. What does that entail?”
—
Fwiw, I see Muddy’s questions as sincere, and certainly Zrim’s point also. There’s some mutual frustration because of completely different mental models.
LikeLike
Zrim says: “Your reasoning is fundamentalism dressed up in a lot of highfalutin philosophy.”
My reasoning is well represented in historic reformed orthodoxy. Yours is well represented in modern atheistic skepticism.
Zrim says: “If you can’t hold out the possibility of being wrong, how do you ever expect to get anywhere with any unbeliever?”
I’ll just leave this here speaking for itself and you may carry on as you were sir.
I have officially as of this minute given up on anything of substance from you Sean. (which is a real shame because you are one sharp guy) I’m sure you’re just devastated over that.
LikeLike
Jeff says: “I would say that when speaking to unbelievers, we all (whether consciously or no) operate at the ectypal level.”
Ok. We can hold right here for now.
Jeff says: “Yeah, let’s take a break. Sometimes I just need to percolate.”
Fair enough. 🙂 I really am just trying to have a grown up conversation about things that many other people aside from myself have also considered important.
LikeLike
Tom, you are such a silly silly man 😛 Here, this is what we presbys are up to. Thanks for pointing out our faults, we know we have them. With every suggestion you make, we are ever more inspired to improve. Keep up the good work, you silly man!
LikeLike
Greg, you hurt my heart. But, flattery will get you everywhere. It’s a matter of approach. Paul lays out in 1 cor 2 a purposeful tact of engagement that bypasses the philosophical abstractions. He does it not because he’s unable but to shame the wise. Paul’s ‘argument’ is that the wisdom of the world gives itself to boasting and the cult of personality. We see this all the time in our own circles, Van Tilian and Thomistic, for example. Instead Paul puts forth the cross and preaching and resurrection from the dead. There’s a purposeful and necessary(tilling the ground) polemic involved in this approach. We don’t get to do a workaround through christian presupp. and essentially overcome the offense and the charge of foolish and foolishness and call it Christian. Paul grounds the faith in historic reality as an assault on philosophical abstractions and universals. We don’t exactly follow Paul nor have the mind of Christ when we turn around and make of the faith a competing philosophical school.
LikeLike
That’s right, Susan, don’t stop believin‘.
LikeLike
Or, Susan, maybe that’s why reform won’t happen.
LikeLike
Sean. Everything else aside. No sarcasm or anything. I am incapable of communicating with you. What you ascribe to me in this last comment is so far from anything I have said I may as well be just beating on the keyboard. No offense. Seriously.
LikeLike
greg, let’s try to follow the rules.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted May 27, 2015 at 9:54 pm | Permalink
That’s right, Susan, don’t stop believin‘.
D. G. Hart
Posted May 27, 2015 at 9:55 pm | Permalink
Or, Susan, maybe that’s why reform won’t happen.
Whip that dead horse, Darryl, whip it good! La-la-la the Catholic Church is falling! The Catholic Church is falling! Oh happy day, they’re as messed up as us!
Do not let anything penetrate your anti-Catholic force field.
http://www.dfwcatholic.org/bishop-vasa-co-authors-handbook-on-family-to-counter-confusion-over-church-teaching-12658/.html
LikeLike
Tom, you’re a hoot.
Take care.
LikeLike
Is Red Cardigan anti-Catholic?
Or naming names?
LikeLike
Greg, you can’t just attribute anything to me that snap crackle pops in your head. I’ve denied you nothing but your Cornelius Van Til Chair of Apologetics in OL University.
Sometimes I say “if I was as insightful as Sean, what would I see?” I darn near have a seizure from the data surge, but I do recall something, and it has to do with you. And it’s a pattern:
1) Greg begs for a conversation so he can rant when he wins.
2) Greg doesn’t win.
3) Greg rants.
So you get paid no matter what. A tip of the hat to ya.
LikeLike
MG, what I see is another axe grinder, but who out here isn’t. The best one here is TVD who really does believe he’s a above it all. No one does holier than thou quite like the TVD.
I try to just keep it about golf. Even Tiribulus is only a cartoon by Hanna Barbera, so if we just stick to sports and children’s cartoons, we should be OK.
I try to picture Dgh and TVD like the cartoon at that link, and all is well. No one cares what is said out here anyway, I believe God looks at it ad a bunch of guys (and a few gals) letting of steam while they make it through the work week. I digress.
LikeLike
Greg,
Keep it under 3 comments and post in threads more recent is my advice. Read that link , we presbys are all equal, per yesterday’s post.
Grace and peace. Who’s next [2]
LikeLike
“so if we just stick to sports and children’s cartoons, we should be OK.I try to picture Dgh and TVD like the cartoon at that link, and all is well.”
It may only be 7:48 AM but I’m calling it: this is the comment of the day. Greg is Yosemite Sam and DGH is Bugs Bunny. Ya’ll go home and come back tomorrow.
LikeLike
Mud, that’s kind.
May you get to go out and do your favorite outdoor (away from these darn pixelated screens) activity at your earliest opportunity.
Grace and peace.
(3)
LikeLike
Wha happened? I was drinking, again. But, what MG said. First it was anybody but Zrim, then it was anybody but Zrim and Sean. I see a pattern, as well. Shoot, I thought I was doing good. I was really pleased with myself and my responses and then Greg has to go take a dump all over it. Thankfully for me, my self-regard is resilient enough to overcome this as well. Greg, I don’t hate you.
LikeLike
AB, 39 miles on the bike trails yesterday. How about you?
(That’s it, no more Facebooking OL)
LikeLike
Golfing SJ muni tomorrow with my higher ups, 1:07 tee time, we are still technically “working” per company policy when we do that (ha)
https://oldlife.org/2015/05/has-aaron-sorkin-been-reading-john-calvin/comment-page-1/#comment-322687
I was out two weeks or so ago, couldn’t hit off the tee if my life depended on it.
Didn’t matter tho. Had the time of my life.
Yeah, I’m still reading. Great comment about Greg’s 1,2,3 punch this morning. I like him, but he needs to chill. It afflicts us all from time to time, the bug he has
.
Thanks for sharing MG I’m over my limit
LikeLike
Muddy, Greg as Yosemite Sam who rants win or lose – very funny!
AB, I’m pretty sure Alexander would give TVD a run for his money on the holier than thou routine.
The I’m more reformed than you competition is almost as fun as the I’m more humble or loving competitions.
As always, appreciate reading you guys when I’ve got a moment. OL – never dull, often helpful, just as often crazy.
LikeLike
Greg, ah, I see now. Why didn’t you just say that from the start? It would’ve saved so much time. You win. You know everything.
LikeLike
CT, we all out here put our sin on display for all the world (all 7 people lurking) to see. Its OK. We are reaffirmed every time a webfoot or Greg shows up the first time. After all, we are here to serve.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Muddy: I’ve denied you nothing but your Cornelius Van Til Chair of Apologetics in OL University.
Nah… that’s too easy to pile onto that one….
LikeLike
Greg,
I’m only speaking personally here, but your approach to doubt may have resulted in me losing my faith a while ago. Growing up in a more or less fundamentalist environment I thought I knew everything for certain. The problem was, there were certain beliefs that I had that were wrong. If I had ignored them I would have walled myself off from Scripture & reason and become a fideist. That, or more probably, I would have been so overwhelmed by the discontinuities between my thoughts and my experiences that I would have abandoned the faith. What I’ve come to realize is that my doubts are sometimes the means by which God breaks my idols.
I’ll have to ask for an indulgence from the OL hierarchy, but I find this Keller quote pastorally helpful,
Doubt can also be a bad thing–like an auto-immune disease–so I’d never want to insinuate that doubt is good in every case. I do believe that it plays an important role in the life of the Christian, however.
LikeLike
Brandon, without reading and seeing only “Keller”, know that your indulgence is hereby granted.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Asked what he most missed about his old life, he cited the freedom to walk out into the streets and go to a pizzeria.>>>>>
BA. Best pizza in the world.
LikeLike
I call Marvin the Martian.
LikeLike
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Finstaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa….
Finster BAY-BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!!
LikeLike
Y’all probably already addressed this in the 500+ comments here, but what part does the Holy Spirit play in hyper-cessationist OPC Presbyterianism? Maybe you don’t think it’s important to talk about the Holy Spirit’s ongoing work in the Church. I will understand if you don’t want to talk about this.
It is key to understanding Catholicism, though.
Take care
“Our Catholic belief is that we know God’s revelation in the total Gospel. The Gospel comes to us through the Spirit-guided tradition of the Church and the inspired books: “This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testament are like a mirror in which the pilgrim church on earth looks at God” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 7).”
LikeLike
Brandon, ding. The way some speak, it’s as if doubt is the opposite of faith, when in fact it’s sight. Greg speaks of doubt as if it’s sight. Category confusion. Faith necessarily co-exists with doubt.
LikeLike
She whose feets are interwebbed, the work of the Spirit in Calvinism is why we oppose decisionism and things like altar calls (eeeevangelical versions of the mass). The Spirit is still at work in his church, but at tables instead of altars.
LikeLike
Mrs. Web,
Just one way:
The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching, of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.
I’m sure others would be glad to articulate more on the Holy Spirit’s work in the church.
LikeLike
Webfoot, you are silly. Have some xtian music from my teenage years. The answer is in the lyrics. For reals.
Why does it matter anyway, 13 cents or all I own?
LikeLike
Mrs. W – meant to say one way among several that we believe the Holy Spirit works.
LikeLike
That’s right. We addressed it in http://opc.org, or rather, in the 17th century Westminster assembly. You are silly, catholic lady. Keep asking, we are here to serve. Silly people are my favorite, they remind me of my children.
Who’s next?
LikeLike
Zrim:
She whose feets are interwebbed, the work of the Spirit in Calvinism is why we oppose decisionism and things like altar calls (eeeevangelical versions of the mass). The Spirit is still at work in his church, but at tables instead of altars.>>>>
Is it possible that you are mistaken? I think my question is on topic for the title of this post, but I suppose everyone else is done with it.
BTW, have you ever eaten a pizza in downtown BA? Wonderful stuff. Can’t blame Francis for missing it.
—————————————————————————–
CT, yes I understood what you meant, and thank you for your response. Yes, He certainly does that. I like that statement.
LikeLike
Brandon, and that’s a foul. You should’ve gone with Calvin on doubt and not brought Keller into it. Very slippery and contrarian of you and that’s just not done around here.
Just had a Webex meeting. Not sure how to feel about the girl being stumped by half the questions. One of us is really in over our head. I’m gonna vote it’s her and keep moving forward.
LikeLike
sean,
I have my inner skinny jeans on today (Can’t wear the real ones; legs are too big–but I don’t think Keller can sport them either so I think it’s a baptism of desire thing). You’ll have to forgive me.
LikeLike
No offense Brandon, but what you are saying has literally and absolutely NO application to anything I’ve said in the last couple weeks here. None whatsoever. I DO mean zero. It’s almost impossible to express how far on the other side of the solar system you are from any of my points.
Van Til was absolutely right when he said a biblically self conscious epistemology (and I would add, necessarily following W-w) in modern western Christian leadership would be essential to withstand the onslaught of modern skepticism. The cackling over educated simpletons on this page are proof positive.
=================================================================
For my money Looney Tunes will never be surpassed for comedic genius. Never get tired of em. Jeff you should have left Marvin for Muddy, sdb and especially sean though. This is perfect foe them 😀
LikeLike
Greg, let me make sure I’m understanding you — you really DO mean zero, right? Nil, non, nada, zilch, didley squat? I think that’s what I’m hearing. Sean, help us out. Am I right? Comprehension, etc.
LikeLike
Next CW is the part where they all come and pile on some more juvenile playground irrelevance.
LikeLike
Chorts, brilliant as I undoubtedly am, I’m still perplexed by the millenial from Webex meeting this morning. I mean if you’re the go to on web portals and you can’t answer my questions about the funcitionality of your portal(no snickering), what time is it?(I’m hip too). So far, though, everybody is an idiot and unhelpful and doesn’t understand(FV alert) except for Jeff. And I think sometimes, allegedly, Jeff has whiffed so bad on Gregorian that everyone in the left field bleachers lost their hat. So, setting aside the web portal communicatons crisis of self-doubt(I’m over it), it seems like the adverbial NO is what the Gregor is sayin’.
LikeLike
Greg, might I suggest you go lift some weights at your next opportunity? Grace and peace, brother.
LikeLike
She whose foots are webbed, no, it’s not possible that I am mistaken (if Greg can do it, why not me?). Seriously, though, yes it’s quite possible that I’m mistaken. But I’m pretty confident I’m not.
See, Greg, that’s how a Calvinist succinctly answers detractors. Don’t look now, but you’re channeling Bryan Cross (“what you are saying has literally and absolutely NO application to anything I’ve said”).
LikeLike
Greg,
Does it humble you at all when you realize that Van Til disciple par excellence Greg Bahnsen was also instrumental in giving us Theonomy, which is basically an embarrassment to most Presbyterian & Reformed people?
He was reportedly an expert on Rock & Roll history, however, so there is that.
LikeLike
Zrim:
Seriously, though, yes it’s quite possible that I’m mistaken. But I’m pretty confident I’m not.>>>>
What is your confidence based on?
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted May 28, 2015 at 1:09 pm | Permalink
She whose foots are webbed, no, it’s not possible that I am mistaken (if Greg can do it, why not me?). Seriously, though, yes it’s quite possible that I’m mistaken. But I’m pretty confident I’m not.
See, Greg, that’s how a Calvinist succinctly answers detractors. Don’t look now, but you’re channeling Bryan Cross (“what you are saying has literally and absolutely NO application to anything I’ve said”).
When Cross says it, it’s because it’s true. Unfair to slime him without concrete examples. As for the “perhaps I’m mistaken,” that was nice.
Erik Charter
Posted May 28, 2015 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
Greg,
Does it humble you at all when you realize that Van Til disciple par excellence Greg Bahnsen was also instrumental in giving us Theonomy, which is basically an embarrassment to most Presbyterian & Reformed people?
That’s unfair also. Bahnsen is not Van Til’s fault.
LikeLike
Mrs. Double You, why, the Spirit of course. Hasn’t that been your own point? You know, in a Romans 8 and Belgic 5 sort of way, respectively:
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.
We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith. And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them— not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God. For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them
do happen.
LikeLike
Erik, FWIW, since your return, olts is back on top, bayybe! It seems those pew rankings showing declines in religion are showing up in traffic metrics in our blogs, except, if you remember, RSClark’s blog’s ratings are skyrocketing.
American creation blog? not so much, they’ve been circling the toilet for a while
Tom, you should contribute there, not here, doncha think? You only help our ratings here with every post,you know that, riiiiiight?
LikeLike
“a biblically self conscious epistemology (and I would add, necessarily following W-w) in modern western Christian leadership would be essential.”
Greg the scriptures are insufficient? The plowman and plumber must get acquainted with block house methodology, self-attestation, brute facts, and the solution to the one and the many?
____________
There was unusual diversity on the bike trail last night. First there was a Dunkard family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkard_Brethren) then a large group of Thai cyclists. Of the two guys from another minority, one wouldn’t talk to me (probably because I passed him) but the other was chatty enough. Sometimes I forget I’m wearing bike shorts. The looks I get from the townspeople remind me.
LikeLike
#ratemycommenter
LikeLike
AB, have you deducted Erik’s clicks and comments before determining that web traffic increases? Cuz I’m thinking that alone would be a 40% spike.
LikeLike
Chorts, while I’ve been busy driving and sustaining the economy through my massive efforts, I’ve comprehended some more, on the side(you know, with the excess capacity that is currently not involved in lifting all boats), I think you left out, nien, nyet and no lo comprende
LikeLike
Zrim, actually I was going for your own conscience being the determining factor in deciding whether something is true or not.
You did me one better. Interesting insight. What happens when what your heart tells you clashes with what someone else’s heart tells them? What if both claim the Holy Spirit as their source of assurance?
How do you resolve your differences, or do you care if you do?
You do know that Romans 8 is taking about a specific kind of assurance, right?
LikeLike
Muddy,
So says the government employee with 18 comments on this thread during the last 3 days — during work hours.
Glass houses…
LikeLike
Muddy,
I don’t know you and I don’t know Erik, but unless this was just more playful snark, you guys have actually met in real life. I don’t want to get in between you two, I would ask that you resolve whatever friction or tension the two of you have, between yourselves. I am aware that I comment too much, and Darryl made Erik a spectacle. It seems to have worked, since Erik doesn’t comment any more, so what’s the boeuf?
I’ll be golfing tomorrow, it’s what helps me stay sane. I am truly glad for you you got your 39 miles in. Congrads.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Greg,
Does it humble you at all when you realize that Van Til disciple par excellence Greg Bahnsen was also instrumental in giving us Theonomy, which is basically an embarrassment to most Presbyterian & Reformed people?
Erik That’s a textbook non sequitur. Bahnsen was indeed an excellent student of Dr. Van Til, but wrong nonetheless on theonomy. Even if Van Til himself were a theonomist. What does that have to do with the topic at hand? What is being pushed on this site is a radical departure form reformation roots. All the childish, arrogant diploma waving arrogance in the world will not change that. what on earth did Machen see in this guy? Don’t forget. Cornelius Van Til was on of Vos pet students too. The man did nothing more than formalize what had ALWAYS been sitting there in the scriptures all along and can found peaking out of others writings all throughout history to varying degrees.
Muddy Gravel says: “Greg the scriptures are insufficient? The plowman and plumber must get acquainted with block house methodology, self-attestation, brute facts, and the solution to the one and the many?”
We have been over all of this Muddy. Van Til’s formulation is built squarely upon the SELF attesting scriptures of WCF I. It is also the self evident truth evinced to and within the very sentient and moral consciousnesses of man as bearer of God’s image. It IS the scriptures and Machen sure thought so or he wouldn’t have hired him.
You asked me a while back and I TOLD YOU that I do not preach the gospel in this form to barely conscious street people. (plowman and plumber either) You really don’t remember do you?
I’m not talking to plowman and plumbers here. I am constantly reminded lately that I am talking to amply lettered and duly ordained churchmen and educators. Outstretched rings awaiting my lips. That’s fine. Go ahead and write me off and entirely unworthy of your exalted attention. That’s fine too. Nobody here owes me a second’s attention. But you do not get to pretend that you or sean or sdb or Kent or _____________________ have actually addressed anything of substance of what I’ve brought in this discussion. (you Muddy did take a stab or two, but not really in earnest)
Instead of just ignoring me, which would have been far more credible, you push credentials in my face as if they somehow compensate for the paucity of substantive dialog.
Only Jeff. Regardless of where this ends, he has my respect and humble gratitude.
LikeLike
It gets adjudicated according to our ecclesiastical courts, we have a system (not to answer for Zrim). Sola Scriptura is our plumb line in such trials.
But in the case of us ordained men, we actually have stood trial / ordination interview. The question you ask is not something to be taken lightly. It’s not like these are the first times these questions are asked, Mrs. Webfoot. The matters we discuss are actually those questions which humankind has been asking of itself since the beginning (or at least as we can tell from recorded history).
Just sayin
LikeLike
Greg, I offered a course of action and even a book as a resource. You juked.
AB, some people can take a ribbing. Others go back and count comments and imply a threat to employment. The latter is a pitiable state of mind.
LikeLike
Muddy,
On a personal level, Erik has been helpful to me since I met him out here, as have you have been.
We can go back to the comment of the day if that’s any help?
Go
machen’swarriorchildrens!LikeLike
19…
You’re the one picking fights, counselor. I was just minding my own business.
LikeLike
Mrs. Dubs, what AB said. And if experience is any measure, the next question might be what happens when ecclesial courts interpreting holy writ disagree. But it’s a line of questioning that seems to have a prior premise simply not shared, namely disagreement is bad and shouldn’t exist. Meh. Even with your infallible interpreter over there, you still have at least as much disagreement as we do over here without one. It’s the order of the inter-advental age. The Spirit is at work where the three marks are found. If your spirit doesn’t resonate with that, well, it happens. Not to take it lightly (there is no salvation outside the church), but this hankering for utter unity and agreement is way overdone.
LikeLike
And how in the world could I “threaten” your employment? Only you could do that.
Paranoia is a pitiable state of mind.
LikeLike
Erik, he interpreted your “during work hours” as meaning that you are communicating it is a threat to his employment that he has commented as much as he had during the hours in which he had.
I was going to do unite us from braveheart, but here, have some katniss.
Let’s pretent our kids are reading our comments out here, mmkay folks?
I’m out. Peace you rigtheous ones.
Who’s next?
LikeLike
Andrew,
I know what he meant and he knows what I meant, and it’s not ratting him out. Like that would go anywhere, anyway. Like you get government employees fired for not being optimally productive. Ha, ha.
And if he thinks I’m in the mood for “ribbing” from him and his little group he’s nuts. He knows better. They’re all a bunch of smarta**es who deserve each other.
LikeLike
Zrim:
Mrs. Dubs, what AB said. And if experience is any measure, the next question might be what happens when ecclesial courts interpreting holy writ disagree. But it’s a line of questioning that seems to have a prior premise simply not shared, namely disagreement is bad and shouldn’t exist. Meh. Even with your infallible interpreter over there, you still have at least as much disagreement as we do over here without one. It’s the order of the inter-advental age. The Spirit is at work where the three marks are found. If your spirit doesn’t resonate with that, well, it happens. Not to take it lightly (there is no salvation outside the church), but this hankering for utter unity and agreement is way overdone.>>>>
Air tight answer, Zrim. Who can argue with it? Very little chance that you are wrong. Who am I to disagree with you?
LikeLike
Erik, I did some pretty harmless ribbing about your frequency of commenting. It was a poke in the ribs. Your response was, metaphorically, a threat to break mine. And this has become your MO. If Todd resists what you do, you say things that could have the effect of harming his ministry. If Jed demurs, you fling his medical condition in his face. Even George, who has never been chippy with anyone, was the object of your wrath. More recently it was CW. I can’t remember others just now.
Is there any limit, Erik? What if I don’t slink away because of your keyboard bullying? Will you come after my family? My church? Will you repeat a non-PC joke I told in confidence? Will my name be up in lights at Literate Comments? Or will you just comment until I don’t comment back again? “Eye for eye, tooth for a tooth” would even be a helpful moderation of your recent behavior.
But if the nuclear option is always on the table, just let everyone know. Is there anything left of the guy who used to be able to take a poke in the ribs?
LikeLike
Muddy,
I’m not going to do anything.
The logical question is, if I’m as bad as you state here, why would you rib me? That’s what seems irrational.
I just don’t like loudmouths and bullies so I don’t back down. I have a real life, though, so I’m never going to take anything beyond stupid blog comments sections.
Man is this place a toxic waste dump.
LikeLike
Muddy,
And your buddy told me that nothing said in an e-mail between guys here is “in confidence”, so why would you assume that? You guys need to get your rules straight.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s Mos Eisley.
Come on, it’s the internet. What do any of us expect?
There’s always called to communion, if oldlife doesn’t suit the interlocutor’s fancy. Same stuff, different day, Eccl 1:9.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted May 28, 2015 at 5:04 pm | Permalink
Mrs. Dubs, what AB said. And if experience is any measure, the next question might be what happens when ecclesial courts interpreting holy writ disagree.
Why, they have a schism, silly. But you still have the problem of magisterium. It’s not like the Catholic Church goes to war on every jot and title of doctrine–for instance as we see with the Mary stuff.
But it’s a line of questioning that seems to have a prior premise simply not shared, namely disagreement is bad and shouldn’t exist. Meh. Even with your infallible interpreter over there, you still have at least as much disagreement as we do over here without one.
It’s what happens next that’s relevant. Schism or submission. One doesn’t have to have an opinion on everything.
It’s the order of the inter-advental age. The Spirit is at work where the three marks are found.
Sorry, having trouble sorting these two truth claims, Mr. Z. So too, the claim that the “Spirit is at work” is made justifiably sparingly, as the amount of disagreement in “Protestantism” is stratospheric.
If your spirit doesn’t resonate with that, well, it happens. Not to take it lightly (there is no salvation outside the church), but this hankering for utter unity and agreement is way overdone.
Well, I guess that opens the door to the Dueling Bible Verses game. Zzzzzzzzzzzz
LikeLike
So is that your rule, Erik? Everything’s on the table if it might become expedient to pick it up some day? I think everyone who wil ever communicate with you should know that. But I think you’re better than that.
LikeLike
Muddy,
Calm down. Go for a bike ride followed by some Scotch or Valium – your choice.
LikeLike
Erik, I’ll eventually give you your prize of having the last word but that wasn’t an answer.
LikeLike
Mrs. Dubs, that’s all I want. But how can you know if I speak fallibly?
LikeLike
TVD,
For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
Doh!
LikeLike
What is it with you guys? Is there something in Darryl’s docroot that causes these outbursts or what? Seriously. For all of my honest disrespect, it would never occur to me to harbor personal vitriol against anybody around here. Or anywhere. I don’t understand.
LikeLike
Greg, if you and I need to skype to hash out the meaning of it all, you know how we do that. Come on, it’s just the internet. Ever read the threads over at @pontifex? Talk about nasty. It’s just how things roll, go read @timkellernyc as well, he has a “asktk” day yesterday, even asked what tv shows he’s watching, everyone asked him what they wanted.
It’s same stuff, different day. Did you go lift weights like I told you to, amigo?
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted May 28, 2015 at 6:49 pm | Permalink
TVD,
For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
Doh!
Doh is right. Who wins? Who recognizes the winner? The loser goes off and starts his own church.
http://www.opc.org/books/fighting/pt1.html
You kinda walked into that one, but I warned you. Going off and starting your own church is clearly not anticipated and certainly not condoned by 1 Cor 1.
LikeLike
Greg The Terrible
Posted May 28, 2015 at 6:57 pm | Permalink
What is it with you guys? Is there something in Darryl’s docroot that causes these outbursts or what? Seriously. For all of my honest disrespect, it would never occur to me to harbor personal vitriol against anybody around here. Or anywhere. I don’t understand.
You understand perfectly.
LikeLike
It’s 1 Cor. 11. But you are a RC apologist. I expect these errors, no biggee.
LikeLike
Greg, while I have you, any thoughts on TKNY‘s viewing habits? We watched Black Mirror, you should watch Episode Entire History of You if you get netflix, look it up. Everyone here should, it is about social media.
Darryl, you should go watch and blog on it, or I can, no biggee.
Next?
LikeLike
Thanks for the attack, Andrew. Keep attacking me if you feel you must.
1 Corinthians 1:1-10
1 Corinthians 1:1-10King James Version (KJV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1%3A1-10&version=KJV
1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their’s and our’s:
3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
LikeLike
TVD, this from the guy who adheres to no church? Sweet fancy Moses, you’re less credible and more schismatic than us unwashed Prots. Repent.
LikeLike
Zrim:
Mrs. Dubs, that’s all I want. But how can you know if I speak fallibly?>>>
Oh, my heart will tell me? I’ll see your lips moving?
Just kidding! I’m kidding! …but how can you know for sure?
I really don’t get much of what you guys say, but I hope you are having fun?
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted May 28, 2015 at 7:10 pm | Permalink
TVD, this from the guy who adheres to no church? Sweet fancy Moses, you’re less credible and more schismatic than us unwashed Prots. Repent.
Again, sir, I decline to discuss my personal affiliations in fora like this for just this reason, that they are soon weaponized.
I take it you have surrendered the Bible verse game then. I don’t blame you.
TVD
Posted May 28, 2015 at 7:01 pm | Permalink
Zrim
Posted May 28, 2015 at 6:49 pm | Permalink
TVD,
“For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.”
Doh!
“Doh is right. Who wins? Who recognizes the winner? The loser goes off and starts his own church.”
http://www.opc.org/books/fighting/pt1.html
“You kinda walked into that one, but I warned you. Going off and starting your own church is clearly not anticipated and certainly not condoned by 1 Cor 1.”
LikeLike
Muddy says: “Greg, I offered a course of action and even a book as a resource. You juked.”
I just read every comment of yours in this thread back to the 8th. I don’t see it. I’m not calling a liar, but could you point it out please?
Keller is a typical pathetic servile media addict. Another in a list of reasons I have no use for the guy. He instantly deletes my comments when I dare to simply ask (And very nicely too. Honest) for scriptural support for one of his pagan declarations regarding the indispensability of “art” in his idiotic transformationalist scheme, which is itself unbiblical.
LikeLike
TVD, if you don’t like how you’re treated, don’t come back. But it clearly doesn’t bother you, or else you wouldn’t have kept posting now for going on, what, two years now?
The exact reason why DGH called you and Erik out on the experiment thread, and you had the sowers rule applied. Try saying that to his face with his kids in the room. Come on, Greg. You are over the top, and this isn’t some game like Unreal Tournament. But as TVD’s latest jingle goes, do what you must.
The very people who decry this website can’t get enough. If only you guys knew what being OP is like, the burden we bear. Muddy, DGH, CT, Curt Day, these guys will never understand our struggles. We press on.
Who’s next?
LikeLike
AB
Posted May 28, 2015 at 7:23 pm | Permalink
TVD, if you don’t like how you’re treated, don’t come back. But it clearly doesn’t bother you, or else you wouldn’t have kept posting now for going on, what, two years now? But as TVD’s latest jingle goes, do what you must.
Do what you must, per Mt 5:39. It’s all I can say, and hope you realize the shame is on you, not me. No, I don’t like how you treat me [and others] and I don’t respect how Darryl permits it. There are others here who are worthwhile. That’s why I come back, that and to offer refutations to Darryl’s representations of Catholicism [and contemporary politics] straight.
So yes, do what you must. Cover every one of my comments with mockery and character assassination, if that’s what you feel God wants you to do.
LikeLike
TVD, you (YOU!) are worried about weaponization? A break to me give. But your affiliation is quite relevant and so will always be used against you here. Seriously, you don’t see the deep irony of being a schismatic while also accusing others of schism?
LikeLike
Zrim, seriously, though,for the believer, there is that personal element of the heart being in tune with the Holy Spirit like you said. That certainly is part of a Christian’s defense against false teachings. It also gives us assurance that we belong to God as His child. Not sure about the 3 marks formula, but I get what you are saying.
4 maks is more like it as per the Nicene Creed. I don’t think you can over rate unity, either. Jesus gave His life for it, as per John 17. No, it cannot be a forced unity, but a real unity based on our common faith, common baptism, common Lord, common God and Father of all.
Is the a good time for me to share with you about how I came to accept the Real Presence?
Maybe later.
LikeLike
Tom,
If you need to stopfollowing me on twitter, I won’t harbor any ill feelings.
There’s a very simple rule – as one who wants to attack the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, you should work on exercising restraint. But the more you post, the simple fact is no matter what you say, you promote this blog, so I’m glad you keep going. But you are only doing harm to yourself. You seem to have found a home here, it’s just really funny the people who complain the most about this website are the ones who can’t get enough. It’s a website, for goodness sake, do I really need to keep typing?
3 comments per day, try again, starting tomorrow. Everyone.
I’m out.
Peace.
LikeLike
@ Zrim:
What do you think about the possibility that 1 Cor 11.19 is sardonic?
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted May 28, 2015 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
TVD, you (YOU!) are worried about weaponization? A break to me give. But your affiliation is quite relevant and so will always be used against you here. Seriously, you don’t see the deep irony of being a schismatic while also accusing others of schism?
Who said I’m a schismatic? You’re not reading me with care, Z. I’m ecumenical as hell.
As for declining to disclose my denominational affiliation, it’s used against me.
If I do disclose my denominational affiliation, it’ll be used against me.
Dude, do you even read this blog???? =:-O
LikeLike
Tom, I think his point is that you get so many attacks because you attack so readily. Something about chips on shoulders … knees … hips …
Bemoaning the atmosphere with a cigar in each hand is hard to take seriously.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted May 28, 2015 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
Tom, I think his point is that you get so many attacks because you attack so readily. Something about chips on shoulders … knees … hips …
Bemoaning the atmosphere with a cigar in each hand is hard to take seriously.
Oh, it’s not me. You treat each other like dogspit too. Am I the only one who actually reads this blog?
LikeLike
Zrim:
TVD, … your affiliation is quite relevant and so will always be used against you here. >>>>>
Why would Tom’s affiliation be used against him here?
That makes no sense at all.
LikeLike
“I just read every comment of yours in this thread back to the 8th. I don’t see it. I’m not calling a liar, but could you point it out please?”
Greg, this was back when I thought you wanted to talk about CVT. I went to my bookshelf and found a book with some pretty succinct information on his project called Jerusalem and Athens. I asked if you had that so we might have a common resource. The question at the time was “an unbeliever should be persuaded of the God of the Bible because ___________.” But if you have a more limited interest in his project don’t feel obliged to take it up.
LikeLike
When I choose to spend time reading CVT, it is always with a spirit of realising this writing is something that I will have to pull myself up into in order to try to understand it.
I would never use this kind of growth to cast it at others angrily or childishly, nor even begin to think I could represent the essence of a CVT to somehow attack another who knows less than me about the topic.
It is one of the best things about row Reformed faith, the ability to shut up and sit down and read one of hundreds who have written something worthy of knowing about God.
And to sometimes find people who also have this interest and can share in a wise and edifying manner.
Sometimes…
LikeLike
Ducky, that’s dumb. Church affiliation doesn’t matter. Proves my point that Rome was the first shallow, vapid, multi-site megachurch.
Tom, I only know two dudes who got kicked off blogs and you’re one of them. Dysfunctional online personality, heal thyself. You’re seeing what you want to see here. And you’ve convinced no one of anything — including, I fear, yourself.
LikeLike
Kent, I think that experience is pretty common. But I have a theory that the problem is not with everyone who has ever picked up CVT but with CVT’s apologetic itself.
LikeLike
Tom’s “ecumenical as hell” — finally a truth blast.
LikeLike
It should be common for everyone who got a C or worse on a paper that they gave their best effort on.
As you noted before, Muddy, education lets one put forth their little pet fantasies about Supreme knowledge to those who have demonstrated achievement in the world of knowledge. Then one learns how little they know and how to build mental muscles for discourse, hopefully.
Someone who spent dozens of postings getting extremely hostile about what TV shows we like has zero credibility in the world of advanced theology on here.
LikeLike
Greg,
Yeah, that’s why Darryl & I were seeking spots in the Witness Protection Program when you first showed up here.
Tom,
Yeah, that’s why I’d become a Wiccan before I became a Roman Catholic as long as you’re shilling for it.
LikeLike
Kent, I do stand up for Greg.
Give him a chance, the acorn may grow up into a mighty tree
LikeLike
And I know there’s a theory that revivalist evangelicals invented the modern concept of celebrity in the early 19th c. but surely RCs and their popes could be blamed for that, too. So, thanks for syncretism, multi-site megachurches, celebrity culture, skirt- or choirboy robe-chasing clerics, and…I’ll think of something else.
LikeLike
Kent the issue is not primarily Van Til. Did ya hear that? The issue is a castrated and crippled declaration of some god who might not exist and the pagans might be right about. A false post modern contrivance unknown to the scriptures or historic reformed orthodoxy, including Van Til and Machen. And that from the lips of people claiming that very tradition.
I have asked for either a biblical or historical reformed statement of this imaginary god from anybody who will attempt to bring one. Including the most eminently qualified Dr. DG Hart. Please note that to this point, none has been forthcoming
Unless we count Zrim’s eyebrow raising butchery of 1 Cor..15 which Jeff very graciously and heroically did his most impressive best to rescue.
What we HAVE gotten is an all out assault on myself in lieu of anything resembling an answer to my challenge. In case you haven’t noticed. Dr. Hart has NO problem pummeling somebody he disagrees with when he thinks he has a case. He appears to enjoy it actually. However, in the 15 months I’ve been around here, he has to this day never once even meekly challenged one of my historic assertions. Ever. Why not? Because he knows that degrees or ordinations or not, he can NOT win.
Not because I’m Wile E. Coyote, SUPER genius. But because he is smart enough not to attempt to defend what he knows is the indefensible. You and I might actually have some stuff in common if you’d slow down a little bit.
Muddy, I don’t have Jerusalem and Athens anymore. Try THIS maybe please. I have a ton of other PDF books of his, but I don’t know if I can link it here. I haven’t completely figured out why some links work from my server and others don’t.
LikeLike
Great. Erik is thinking of going Wiccan and dgh is voting democrat… the end is nigh!!! See what you’ve done MWF. If Greg starts trying to sell us on prancercise, I’m outta here (until tomorrow).
LikeLike
Hillary had her own server. Greg has own server. Coincidence? I DON’T THINK SO!
LikeLike
Mrs. Dubs, I’m a proponent of four marks myself, though it’s doxology I propose. How can the one tradition with something like the RPW not have worship as a fourth mark? Re affiliation, it’s relevant because the visible church matters. You guys still hold out the anathema and you wonder how my point is relevant?
Jeff, I’m familiar with the sardonic interpretation. It has its merits, but its also always seemed just this side of tenuous. I like my interpretation better.
TVD, if the rest of us can endure affiliation being used against us, why can’t you?
LikeLike
sdb, I have Gregulus pegged as a hot yoga man.
LikeLike
Greg’s ominous SERVER. An old HP desktop loaded as a LAMP box. (Linux, Apache, MySql, PHP) Houses and hosts my blog and all the other stuff I used to be able to link to here.
LikeLike
That picture of itself is on that hard drive in the picture 🙂
LikeLike
Greg, mine is a picture of my credit card statement, $4/month to greengeeks dot com. Easypeasy
http://adbuckingham.com/stuff_I_like.html
You should drop “the terrible” and post as greg smith.
LikeLike
So, why do you mistreat Tom, again? I didn’t see any reasonable arguments, since, well, … maybe y’all are in denial?
I got thrown off a feminist blog once.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot says: “I got thrown off a feminist blog once”
Me too!! Two of em 😀 (seriously) Kristen Rosser and Samantha Field. RHE just deletes my comments .
LikeLike
cw l’unificateur
Posted May 28, 2015 at 8:36 pm | Permalink
Ducky, that’s dumb. Church affiliation doesn’t matter. Proves my point that Rome was the first shallow, vapid, multi-site megachurch.
Shallow and vapid snark, donchathink? Not feeling you here.
Tom, I only know two dudes who got kicked off blogs and you’re one of them. Dysfunctional online personality, heal thyself. You’re seeing what you want to see here. And you’ve convinced no one of anything — including, I fear, yourself.
Convince? Here? You’re kidding, I know.
I don’t write to convince, I write to learn. Old Life knows every trick in the internet book and every well-rehearsed anti-Catholic, anti-everybody else argument of the last 500 years. A treasure trove, one-stop shopping. This week was anti-Mariology. But after following the leads, I found out that not only John Chrysostom but Augustine hisself was on the Catholic side, or at least more on the Catholic side than on the anti-Catholic one.
As for being banned from blogs, I’m quite proud of the ones who found me such a threat.
http://sonnybunch.com/thoughtcrimes-ca-2012/
I’m a regular Michael Servetus that way. 😉
Nice to hear from you again, Mr. “Unificator.” Doing a great job so far, spreading the peace and the love of Jesus and all that.
cw l’unificateur
Posted May 28, 2015 at 8:42 pm | Permalink
Tom’s “ecumenical as hell” — finally a truth blast.
Indeed, CW. I have a pet theory that like Sartre’s “No Exit,” hell is exactly like Old Life. The Irony of “The Elect”: Everybody Else Is, Except You. I hope it’s not true, although it would be just.
LikeLike
fixed link
Mrs. Webfoot, where have we mistreated Tom? Where?
Point it out and we can talk. Until then, why attack us? We’re as cute and cuddly as can be, led by cw l’u. He’s the best of us all wrapped up into one hot smoking orange calvin head. True.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: “What do you think about the possibility that 1 Cor 11:19 is sardonic?”
When you come together, you come together not for the better but for the worse. I continually hear there are schismata among you. When you come together, instead of uniting and fellowshipping, all you do is argue, argue. You say, “What ever causes the church to fight like that? I’ll tell you what causes it: Paul gave it to you as expressly as you’ll ever hear it. “I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual but as unto,” what? “Carnal. What causes it is carnality, walking in the flesh and doing what the mind says instead of walking in the Spirit and doing what God says, causes division. And there has to be contention, if you will. You say, “Well, why? He’s saying it has to be that they who are approved might be manifest among you. It is used of something that is dei/necessary because of the will of God. Why? Because God is doing something that needs it. What’s He doing? He is approving certain people and making them manifest to you. How? Because when problems arrive and when factions arrive you will soon find out who the good folks are, the dokimoi: the approved, the tested, the gold who come out of the fire purified. You see, it’s adversity and struggle and contention that causes the true leadership, the true godly people, the true walking in the Spirit folks to rise to the top and be visible to everybody. Trouble has a way of manifesting personality and it has a way also of manifesting spirituality. The dokimoi are the ones that hang in there and give evidence of walking in the Spirit in the midst of a difficult situation. How they handle adversity, how they handle problems, how they handle struggles, how they handle disagreements. This has a way of manifesting to the body the dokimoi, the approved.
John MacArthur
LikeLike
Aw, Greg, now you’re just tryin’ to get on my good side. I figure that if you never get kicked off a blog, or several, you’re probably not saying anything worthwhile, or at least anything you believe is worth defending. It’s easy to talk in an echo chamber. So, you have my respect.
Tom is my friend. I like his point of view. ‘Course I’m Catholic, so we gotta’ stick together anyway. Francis told us to, and so did Jesus.
Hey, I even accept that you wild bunch are my brothers. Francis’ orders.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted May 28, 2015 at 9:26 pm | Permalink
TVD, if the rest of us can endure affiliation being used against us, why can’t you?
First you should withdraw calling me a schismatic. That wasn’t right. Second, you should acknowledge that I’m screwed either way–that’s how the game is set up.
As for declining to disclose my denominational affiliation, it’s used against me.
If I do disclose my denominational affiliation, it’ll be used against me.
The problem is not me.
As for how you torture each other about your affiliations, that’s not my doing. I have no idea what affiliation you are, Mr. Z. I respond to your ideas, as one should at a “theological society.” [Many of your ideas are noteworthy, so I note them.]
As for OPC Elder Darryl G. Hart’s obsession with the Catholic Church, the irony that “Presbyterianism” is infected with all the same germs seems to escape him.
At least when anyone says “Catholic Church” everyone on earth knows what they’re talking about. To say “Presbyterian Church” is to say nothing intelligible.
LikeLike
“So, why do you mistreat Tom, again?”
For the same reason I beat my wife.
…………….Crippled, castrated, post modern contrivance, imaginary, eminently qualified, butchery, graciously, heroically, rescue, all out assault, anything resembling, pummeling, meekly, historic assertions, indefensible.
I had some buddies who dated women who fought like this. We need to include; never, not once, everytime, and always.
LikeLike
MW, and we can’t call you sister, but you can be our friend.
Machen’s orders.
LikeLike
Z is CRC, deacon class.
You are an undeclared freshman in college. Someday TVD, you have to choose a major to graduate.
Next question.
LikeLike
Who needs an alternate reality in Colorado when just reading these comments can make it seem like you’ve walked through a portal into another world? Personally I think Greg and Ms. Webfoot should blog together. It could be a debate format: “You ignorant Duck!”
Greg, I might have had a response for you but the wife made me help her get in her 10,000 steps or whatever it is her Fitbit is demanding.
LikeLike
Muddy, watch black mirror
If you haven’t.
Trust me.
LikeLike
#hidebehindfakepiety
LikeLike
Wife comes first Muddy.
The Van Til books I was talking about can be found as a zip file at the other end of THIS link. I linked tham a while back too, but now I think Darryl’s Akismet settings have zapped certain url formatting from my server. This will work for now.
LikeLike
You can watch on your telly or smartphone. That’s my favorite episode.
Who’s next?
LikeLike
^^^ TV-MA ^^^
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted May 28, 2015 at 10:20 pm | Permalink
Andrew Buckingham
Posted May 28, 2015 at 10:23 pm | Permalink
Z is CRC, deacon class.
Creepy internet stalking. I don’t care about Mr. Z’s personal life. If he wants to tell me about it, he will. I care only about the ideas he freely puts on the table. My conversations with “Zrim” are colloquies–public exchanges meant to be read and enjoyed by all–but they are not free-for-alls.
You are an undeclared freshman in college. Someday TVD, you have to choose a major to graduate.
You know nothing about me [except my public self on the internet], and I hope you never will. You’re way out of line with this personal crap.
MW, and we can’t call you sister, but you can be our friend.
Machen’s orders.
I like her religion better, where you’re her [separated] brother. If you’re selling your version of the Christian religion, meh. You’re never going to be a “one holy catholic and apostolic” church, you’re not even interested.
Brethren, also translated as “brothers and sisters.” Paul–and I think Jesus–do not want brothers and sisters separated by petty doctrinal disputes.
And, Andrew, you also owe me a public apology for saying I misattributed 1 Cor 1 here [you said it was 1 Cor 11]. It was not only petty, it was inaccurate, and worst of all, you clearly used it to try to do me dirt about my “credibility.” I’m not angry [I can’t be anymore at what you do to me, your “friend”] but offering the other cheek when some brute slaps you in order to humiliate you–which you did–does not mean you pretend it didn’t happen.
You did me wrong, in deed and in kind.
LikeLike
Tom,
Whatever it is you want from me, you already have. Apology or whatnot. Write up what you want from me and I’ll sign it.
As for being angry, your gripe is not with me, it’s with God, and what He says in His Word.
Repent and live, go and sin no more. I hope you find whatever it is you are looking for out here in this blog.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
AB
Posted May 28, 2015 at 11:39 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Whatever it is you want from me, you already have. Apology or whatnot. Write up what you want from me and I’ll sign it.
That’s not how repentance works. You wronged me. I already forgave you, in advance. Besides, I already wrote it up. You did not sign it.
Sign it, or don’t. But you insult everyone’s intelligence here, even Erik’s.
As for being angry, your gripe is not with me, it’s with God, and what He says in His Word.
I’m not angry at you. You don’t read past my first sentence, as usual. Of course I’m hurt that my “friend” betrayed me, and continues to. Being your friend–or J. Gresham Machen’s–is in the end no more than a hill of beans.
And I’m not the least bit angry at God, even if he takes me tomorrow. After all this time you still know nothing about me, brother, so at least stop pretending you’re my friend. If this is what it is to be your friend, pretend I’m a stranger. You treat them better.
Repent and live, go and sin no more. I hope you find whatever it is you are looking for out here in this blog.
Grace and peace.
Not even Darryl tries that insulting pseudo-Christ Barney crap. Mercy.
LikeLike
Those words mean nothing.
LikeLike
Of course every word means something, Andrew. That’s why you felt the need to shout them down. Surely you don;t think you’re fooling anyone. These are smart and clever people here. They let your antics pass for their own reasons, but it’s not as if they don’t see through what you do.
AB
Posted May 28, 2015 at 11:39 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Whatever it is you want from me, you already have. Apology or whatnot. Write up what you want from me and I’ll sign it.
That’s not how repentance works. You wronged me. I already forgave you, in advance. Besides, I already wrote it up. You did not sign it.
—And, Andrew, you also owe me a public apology for saying I misattributed 1 Cor 1 here [you said it was 1 Cor 11]. It was not only petty, it was inaccurate, and worst of all, you clearly used it to try to do me dirt about my “credibility.” I’m not angry [I can’t be anymore at what you do to me, your “friend”] but offering the other cheek when some brute slaps you in order to humiliate you–which you did–does not mean you pretend it didn’t happen.—
You did me wrong, in deed and in kind.
Sign it, or don’t. But you insult everyone’s intelligence here, even Erik’s.
As for being angry, your gripe is not with me, it’s with God, and what He says in His Word.
I’m not angry at you. You don’t read past my first sentence, as usual. Of course I’m hurt that my “friend” betrayed me, and continues to. Being your friend–or J. Gresham Machen’s–is in the end no more than a hill of beans.
And I’m not the least bit angry at God, even if he takes me tomorrow. After all this time you still know nothing about me, brother, so at least stop pretending you’re my friend. If this is what it is to be your friend, pretend I’m a stranger. You treat them better.
Repent and live, go and sin no more. I hope you find whatever it is you are looking for out here in this blog.
Grace and peace.
Not even Darryl tries that insulting pseudo-Christ Barney crap. Mercy.
LikeLike
Tom wanting an apology because his biblical exegesis has been questioned.
We’ve come a long way, baby.
LikeLike
Did I miss when Old Life added a docu-sign feature?
LikeLike
Tom,
Zrim quoted 1 Cor 11. If there was a misunderstanding, I’ll acknowledge that. But an apology? Come on, I haven’t wronged you. I truly don’t understand how you think you have been slighted. Can you please elaborate?
LikeLike
Zrim said:
And you responded:
To which I told you Zrim’s quote was 1 Cor 11, not 1 Cor 1. Now, if you were changing the scripture reference in question, then fine, I was wrote to call you out on your typo. However, if you were meaning to talk about the passage Zrim cited, as that is what a plain meaning of the convo would yield, then I was correct to point out your error, and did the blog world and you a service by my close reading of your interaction with Zrim.
So no apology needed here, just clarification. Or what did I miss? Speak up if I have wronged you, freind Tom.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
First you should withdraw calling me a schismatic. That wasn’t right. Second, you should acknowledge that I’m screwed either way–that’s how the game is set up.
Tom, my understanding (which may be flawed) is that you don’t adhere to any communion. One of the things on which Prots and Cats do agree is that to remain unaffiliated is to be schismatic. Maybe you think it’s a loaded term, but I don’t really care. But to jump on the bandwagon of accusing Prots as schismatic while also being schismatic…hello? And if my understanding is indeed flawed (Greg, are you listening?) and you adhere to a confessionally Protestant church then my apologies, though you’re right, you’re not exactly off the hook since why would a confessional Prot be so antagonistic to his own?
LikeLike
I’m sincerely not sure what I’m listening for Zrim.
LikeLike
All that work getting that EWTN Bible College Certificate via correspondence up in smoke…
LikeLike
An affinity for Aquinas and a Catholic high school education is not nearly enough. Many, many more steps to work to get right with God under the Roman Catholic schema.
LikeLike
SEE THIS?
Just like I’m saying. Sharp guys reduced to vapid, vacuous, ad hominem, dullardry when faced with a challenge to their apostate views. God has given Sean some serious cerebral horsepower between his ears. AND he has degrees and ordination.(It’s difficult typing on my knees) And this is what we get? The OPC will never EVER be what she could while this kind of idolator is tolerated in her midst.
Please note that my low regard for men like Sean will never translate into hatred and those who can’t see that are in the grips of the same feminized perverse religion he is.
LikeLike
Lift weights, much?
LikeLike
Greg, kiss the ring. Kiss it.
Vacuous, vapid, dullardry, challenge, horsepower, never, EVER, idolator, tolerated, feminized, perverse.
I think you’re in love with me.
LikeLike
Sweet, Greg the sociopath-jerk is back. Memo to urrbody: Greg can dish it out and can’t take it. He has a self awareness problem. And is a little confused by urrbody else, too. Greg — it’s never been your ideas that were objectionable so much as your condemnatory, snot-slinging rage. Jeremiah’s job is not open and if it was you aren’t qualified. And Sean the Idolater? Winsomely played.
LikeLike
” Sharp guys reduced to vapid, vacuous, ad hominem, dullardry when faced with a challenge to their apostate views. God has given Sean some serious cerebral horsepower between his ears. AND he has degrees and ordination.(It’s difficult typing on my knees) And this is what we get? The OPC will never EVER be what she could while this kind of idolator is tolerated in her midst.”
Greg, I’ve been thinking about out possible CVT study. No.
Sean is truly The Man, The Myth, The Legend but you have stuff that is not on his resume. (As if he needs one.)
LikeLike
Here he goes with the rage again. Just like when I first got here, I am not even slightly angry. And don’t tell me it’s not my ideas, which aren’t mine anyway, they’re supposed to be yours. It’s EXACTLY my ideas. It doesn’t mater how I say anything. I get the same jack-assery from guys like Sean. 😀
Jeff remains the only substantive guy in this discussion. I get the sense that Muddy may have more than what he’s showing. Sean’s a frat boy pharisee with a badge and a gun issued by a denomination that is REALLY losing it’s way.
What if you forgot my person Zrim and actually enraged this discussion in earnest? OR just ignore me. Wadda you care what I say.?
LikeLike
What are you saying Muddy. I don’t understand.
LikeLike
Greg, exactly. You’re tone deaf on humility. It’s impossible for God to be wrong, but have you ever considered you might be wrong about him (and other things)? Or is that impossible and you imagine he needs your chutzpah and cheerleading?
LikeLike
And since the gloves are off with BAD GREG having returned, please allow me to float my Old Life Blog Dysfunction Theory — Think of a blog or community as a punch bowl. Pour enough crazy juice in the punch bowl and pretty soon the place is a wreck. Greg, you are the main provider of crazy juice — not the only one, to be sure — but you are number one. Spice, fine. Bittering agents, cool. Booze, helpful. Crazy juice, ultimately toxic. And (unificatingy) no turd-in-the-punchbowl reference.
LikeLike
Sean the Idolator
Vlad the Impaler
Vigo the Unholy
Frat boy pharisee, jackassery, REALLY,earnest.
Greg RN, you know that you’re not supposed to use Bronkaid for THAT! The pharmacists are supposed to be recording your DL# EVERY time. You gotta deal going with him, don’t ya.
You gotta relax, it needs to be fun.
LikeLike
Sean, fun like golf.
Ya feel me?
LikeLike
Zrim says: “Greg, exactly. You’re tone deaf on humility. It’s impossible for God to be wrong, but have you ever considered you might be wrong about him (and other things)? Or is that impossible and you imagine he needs your chutzpah and cheerleading?”
I’ve been begging for someone to show me for 15 months Zrim. I have paid the price in prayer and study and life experience in my 30 years in the Lord to reach these conclusions. WHAT do I have to do to get somebody to show me I’m wrong around here? You are so starved for conviction that you see it as arrogance when somebody shows up with some.
I am Presbyterianism before the last half of the 20th apostate morally degenerate century. YOU are the ones who have abandoned it except in Pharisaical form only. Until one of your towering scholarly officers shows me otherwise. Why is that not happening? Should be simple and quick. The reason is because God’s truth prevails regardless of what artificial authority man attempts to stifle it with.
I LONG to see Westminster Calvinism thrive. It courses through my soul and through my veins because I truly believe it IS the saving truth of God in Christ. Watching it polluted and defiled by people claiming to be it’s champions TEARS MY HEART OUT! Do you hear me?
This isn’t t about me being right and the reason you people can’t see that is because you cannot fathom anybody not being like you. Somebody with an actual driving and consuming passion to see the lost redeemed and Jesus Christ exalted for it. To see a mind numbingly holy and sovereign creator God worshiped in purity and power. I WANT the oldlife back, but you have no idea what the even is.
That’s ALL I care about.
LikeLike
And the rest of you crazy juice vendors know who you are. Actually, you almost certainly don’t. Which is the point.
LikeLike
Greg: I have paid the price in prayer and study and life experience in my 30 years in the Lord to reach these conclusions.
Worst humblebrag of the year so far….
LikeLike
When you skype with Greg, you feel like you are hologram in the same room.
If we could all just do a group google hangout, it’d be like this
think about it, yo.
LikeLike
^^ TV-PG13 ^^
Greg, you remind me of this guy
Again, lift weights yet?
LikeLike
I hear you.
Paid the price, WHAT, starved, apostate morally degenerate century, YOU, abandoned, pharisaical form only, towering, prevails, stifle, LONG, courses, IS, polluted, defiled, champions, TEARS MY HEART OUT!, fathom, driving and consuming passion, mind numbingly, WANT, you have no idea, ALL I care about.
Interesting, Westminster Calvinism. Second time I’ve heard this tossed about(two different folks), I’m a have to keep that phrase in mind. I think it’s code.
Greg, only 50mg of ephedrine at a time with the caffeine. Take some tyrosine with it to take the edge off.
LikeLike
kent
Posted May 29, 2015 at 11:29 am | Permalink
Greg: I have paid the price in prayer and study and life experience in my 30 years in the Lord to reach these conclusions.
Worst humblebrag of the year so far…
How would you like me to say it Kent? On and on and on it goes. And STILL no actual engagement. Here’s an outrageous thought. WHAT IF…. Greg is actually right? (in the main. Nobody’s right about everything) See, that’s the one possibility that has not so much as even danced across anybody’s mind around here.
Should just take a couple minutes to shut him up forever, yet here we are still attacking Greg instead of refuting his views. You show me I’m wrong about ANYthing and I will publicly AND enthusiastically thank you for bettering my life and service to the Lord. How bout you guys?
LikeLike
next comment please.
LikeLike
Greg, you entered this forum as a raving loon, accusing us of complete moral degeneration because we like to watch some TV shows. It was really over the top and shameful the way you carried on here.
You can’t then make a switch and become the big resident scholar of Van Tillian theology, putting down everyone who doesn’t agree with your very unlettered and crass opinion.
LikeLike
At least you don’t think you are a cool daddy because you put up pictures of yourself wearing a viking helmet…
LikeLike
this has language, but reminds me of OPC adult sunday school.
greg, you need to go to an orthodox presby church and sit through an adult sunday shcool and ask questions.,
or how about go to one of DGH’s seminars and ask him questions in the Q&A? have you ever thought of that and how that might go down? what would dgh’s reaction be? you guys live near each other, maybe you both like a good stout?
next comment please.
LikeLike
Sean you really are pathetic LOL!! I have to laugh to keep from crying. Look at him folks. Nuthin to say. He DOES have letters and ordination though and THAT’S important. See guys, when I look at someone like Sean, I see a mountain of potential swirling down a toilet of compromise and carnality. 100 years ago, the whole conservative Calvinist world would have seen the same thing. Oh yes they would and THAT is my whole point since I’ve been around here..
Right now, Dr. DG Hart, licensed and duly constituted historian extraordinaire ( a good thing in itself) could step in here and say “now you hold on there Mr. Gregory Terriblus guy, here’s the historical data showing why that’s not true”. He won’t do that though because not being a bold faced liar, he knows that he cannot make that case. Sean would have been rightly denounced as a skeptic and a pornographer 100 or 150 years ago in the conservative Calvinist world. Hart knows that.
What if that’s true? Watch. Total silence. Which is a heart rending shame because the guy could be a one man arsenal for righteousness. He really could.
LikeLike
Greg,
https://oldlife.org/2015/03/an-experiment/
Have a nice day.
LikeLike
And I’m tired of calling him “Greg” now that “Greg” is referring to “Greg’s” self in the third person. Henceforth I propose we call him “Dale Carnegie” or “Special Blessing”.
LikeLike
Actually, Greg RN, it’s Sean Gregg the porn star. And when you take the tryrosine, do it on an empty stomach because other proteins compete for absorption and render it useless. Go with a 1000mg. And do the right thing and tell your pharmacist you have a problem and he’s not helping.
LikeLike
Greg, there’s a reason you had the sowers rule applied.
There’s a reason I lobbied for you to be reinstated.
Please read this and try to attend to those around you. Do as you must, as TVD would say.
I’m out.
LikeLike
Even if one is bringing down 100% pure righteousness on our sinning heads with your 10 pound black Thompson Chain Reference KJV, without love it means nothing.
And you might get socked in the eye for starters…
LikeLike
kent
Greg, you entered this forum as a raving loon, accusing us of complete moral degeneration because we like to watch some TV shows. It was really over the top and shameful the way you carried on here.
It IS complete moral degeneration. I stand by that as that would have been the view of the Westminster Assembly. UNTIL somebody wants to make the case otherwise. The over the top bombast has been explained 100 times and I even hinted at it the time.
You can’t then make a switch and become the big resident scholar of Van Tillian theology, putting down everyone who doesn’t agree with your very unlettered and crass opinion.
Unlettered and crass 😀 How bout accurate and historically sound even if not expressed with all the polish you demand. Until, again, somebody demonstrates otherwise. I reiterate, nobody owes me a thing here. But, if you want to talk, can we please talk about the things I bring up instead of ME. YOU guys keep making this about me. Not me.
LikeLike
Not only is Sean “ordained and lettered” in three worldwide religions, he has medalled in two different martial arts. When Sean moves into town the bad guys disappear. Without a trace.
And you want him to take the time to talk to you? Sounds selfish.
LikeLike
Greg,
I have a high opinion of you, because you have taken the time to talk with me over skype. But you really need to dial it down. Unless you want to get kicked off another blog, which you and webfoot wear as stripes on your combat uniform. You know it would come to that eventually. When you don’t play by the rules, you get voted off, pure and simple, and I personally don’t want to see that happen because I like you.
For your own sake, try to limit yourself to at most 3 more comments on this thread today, post on other threads if you must, and seriously consider attending a reformed church (only once) just for the experience, I suggest adult sunday school for you. We’ve all been there, the stories I could tell in my own maturation process in this regard. Take it with a grain of salt, I know my age, but I also know my experience.
I keep saying this, but I’d rather be eastern orthodox than roman catholic, and TVD doesn’t understand that. Please just leave it at 3 more today here, for everyone’s sake? I’ve been at this a while, you seem to keep finding yourself in these blog combox foxholes. I will stop lobbying for you here (not that that matters) depending on what I see.
Grace and peace.
Next comment please.
LikeLike
When did the Loon Brigade declare that “just because I type something on the internet and nobody has convinced me I am anything but 100% correct, must mean I am 100% correct!!!!!!”???
Sadly they realize that non-loons usually don’t want to quarrel with the crazies, they aren’t going to mark their rantings like the grade four jumble they usually are.
LikeLike
It would have taken less time Kent to shut my mouth forever here than has been expended on attacking my person. And that with no relation to the scriptures at all. Yes, I go after people too. On biblical and confessional grounds. The response is, not a yawn and dismissal as SHOULD be the case with some Fundy loon who shows up actually saying nothing.
No, we get hundreds of comments for months ALLLLL about me, but not why I’m wrong. That’s because what I say threatens your idols and they are jealous indeed, not sharing their glory with another. My ideas are EXACTLY why I’m under attack here. It wouldn’t make a bit of difference HOW I said ANYthing.
See how you pop in here every once on a while Kent? You’re reading all along aren’t you? But every so often it hits too close to home and rather than just switch me off, you have to discredit ME first even though you can’t do that with my views. Because simply walking away will not silence that conscience.
Oh, I know you’ll come back with how arrogant I am to think that I could have this kinda effect on anybody, but see, once and for all, it is NOT about me. It’s about God’s Word that carries HIS authority on the lips of a child. I really actually DO believe that. No degrees necessary (though they CAN be a good thing too). You CANNOT have me making sense can you? How much structure that you’ve built for yourself falls apart if I do?
LikeLike
@ Greg: Thanks for the kind words, but I’m not Saint Jeff. I feel some frustration at folk, and sometimes I channel it productively. Sometimes I snark it all the way to the bank. And sometimes I get haughty, snippy, or arrogant.
—
Some free advice, offered in the hope of improved dialog.
* I’m with Andrew. Identify your goals. How will this end? What are you trying to persuade people of?
* If you want to persuade anyone that they are not holding to inerrancy because of a defect in understanding, then there isn’t an easy, non-patient way to get there. My sense is that you get more emphatic as you get more pushback. Sadly, the increased emphasis actually decreases your ability to be heard.
People only get so many “rant points” they can spend on a conversation. Once the rant points are depleted, additional rant is taken as evidence of a weak hand.
* Sometimes it’s OK to leave before things get bad.
LikeLike
Oh, look. Drunk ex pastors upgraded to disqus format in their comments. My name (MY NAME) is all over that comment section, what joy. Go read all I have to say over there, it would make Jason and Christian and me soooo happy.
Greg, that podcast came to mind because the discussion out there was how over birth control, that’s typically a hot button issue for catholics vs. protestants, and how when someone wants to restrict ones (in my view acceptable) rights in this area, it touches nerves.
The principle is applied to the movies you talk about out here Greg and your approach. Look, why not focus on the sin in your own congregation and then later focus on things out here in the interweb? Everyone asks these questions of themselves – what show should I watch tonight with my spouse? For some (the catholics I linked to), there things are Game of Thrones, and that’s just the beginning.
Try to ease up and realize we live in a sinful world, but take it one day at at time. don’t forget to life weights, man. Sports help me take the edge off, that, and Jack Daniels.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
@ all:
When the youngest Caglet feels irritated at the oldest Caglet, she needles the latter to the point of popping. It seems that’s universal little sibling behavior — but it’s also unkind.
And then I have to sit them down and make them apologize yada yada. (Sorry, Dr. Tripp, I don’t paddle for that)
LikeLike
Greg – God has given Sean some serious cerebral horsepower between his ears
Erik – That’s more like off-brand Speedy Mart quasi-legal stimulants that you’re picking up on..
LikeLike
Greg – Please note that my low regard for men like Sean will never translate into hatred and those who can’t see that are in the grips of the same feminized perverse religion he is.
Erik – He is in the PCA so I have no credible rebuttal at this time.
LikeLike
kent
Posted May 29, 2015 at 12:09 pm | Permalink
Even if one is bringing down 100% pure righteousness on our sinning heads with your 10 pound black Thompson Chain Reference KJV, without love it means nothing.
NASB man here for study, but the ESV flows a bit better for quoting. Now there’s’ a substantive point Kent. What is Love? Tell me. Honest question.
Kent: “And you might get socked in the eye for starters…”
Did you just chide me for not being loving and then threaten to sock me in the eye? 😀 And I have rage? Come on man. Who needs to calm down here? Seriously. If you did I’d stand there and let you do it. Then I’d offer you my hand and take ya to lunch at my favorite Chines buffet so we could talk about how you could handle your anger issues in a more godly manner.
Teppenyaki Grill.(Andrew’s always invited too)
LikeLike
If Sean’s a frat boy he’s of no better pedigree than Faber College Delta House.
LikeLike
Greg,
Whether you’re angry or not has no bearing on the fact that you sound like a dipshit.
LikeLike
Never met a raging angry man who didn’t triple his anger on the spot by insisting he wasn’t angry.
LikeLike
Friends and brothers:
I am not betraying confidence by saying Greg and I are in personal offline (i.e. email communication). Erik, I hear your point about dips**t, and I would simply ask that going forward, you do not attack Greg’s person or character. There are things going on with him right now that I would advise him (you: Greg) to stay off line, and instead, he should seek out his God given eclessiastical structure (i.e. talk to your pastor). Without knowing the details, the man is going through tough times, and I am reaching out to him (you, Greg) to have a skype conversation with him. I have time until my golf game in about 1.5 hours.
End public service announcement. Again, treat him as you would a brother in a time of trouble, do not attack him, please.
LikeLike
Muddy, can’t touch this. Oooh ooooh oooooh oooooh. Can’t touch this. Ooh ooh oh oh oh. Can’t touch this.
Gregoranus, I’m pretty sure you made this all about you some time around birth and then here, just fifteen short but oh so sweet months ago. Has it already been fifteen? Yikes. And you’re pretty sure only saint Jeff has dealt with you in a worthy manner? That’s a tough break. Well, keep trying and all. Remember the lesson of the persistent woman who finally got her request. Don’t give up or give in and don’t go changing to try and please me.
@Jeff,
It’s good advice when dealing with children. Not sure this has been unkind or unwarranted. Unless, Greg wants to own up to any mental illness with which he struggles.
LikeLike
I know this is secular and Greg will probably call ME a pornographer as well, but I just can’t help but be reminded of Shakespeare when Greg starts talking:
“This life which had been the tomb of his virtue and of his honour, is but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.” Dude…seriously
LikeLike
Greg,
Your fundamental mistake is thinking that sincerity and sound logic work here. Have you not noticed that the mean emotional age of the male commenters on this site (including the host) is roughly 14 and the female contributors, with the exception of Lutheran Katy, are channeling some spaced out chick from “Serial”.
What the site is good for is screwing around and having a few laughs to break up the work day (unless you’re a government employee, in which case you need to stop screwing around cuz I’m paying your salary).
If you have some kind of serious religious objective this is the last place in the world that you should be pursuing it.
LikeLike
Greg has agreed to speak with me over skype. Going forward, is best to probably drop whatever was going on in this thread. Say your parting words, and try to drop it whatever was going on here. It’s pretty unhealty, Erik, great comment. Ding Ding dingety ding.
Peace.
LikeLike
“What is Love? Tell me.”
Love is a shadow.
How you lie and cry after it
Listen: these are its hooves: it has gone off, like a horse.
All night I shall gallop thus, impetuously,
Till your head is a stone, your pillow a little turf,
Echoing, echoing.
Or shall I bring you the sound of poisons?
This is rain now, this big hush.
And this is the fruit of it: tin-white, like arsenic.
I have suffered the atrocity of sunsets.
Scorched to the root
My red filaments burn and stand, a hand of wires.
Now I break up in pieces that fly about like clubs.
A wind of such violence
Will tolerate no bystanding: I must shriek.
The moon, also, is merciless: she would drag me
Cruelly, being barren.
Her radiance scathes me. Or perhaps I have caught her.
I let her go. I let her go
Diminished and flat, as after radical surgery.
How your bad dreams possess and endow me.
I am inhabited by a cry.
Nightly it flaps out
Looking, with its hooks, for something to love.
I am terrified by this dark thing
That sleeps in me;
All day I feel its soft, feathery turnings, its malignity.
Clouds pass and disperse.
Are those the faces of love, those pale irretrievables?
Is it for such I agitate my heart?
I am incapable of more knowledge.
What is this, this face
So murderous in its strangle of branches?——
Its snaky acids hiss.
It petrifies the will. These are the isolate, slow faults
That kill, that kill, that kill.
LikeLike
Greg,
If you have a real-life problem you need to discuss, e-mail me and I’ll try to up the emotional age up to at least 28.
LikeLike
AB, run. Just say no. Have an appointment with your sock drawer.
LikeLike
Sean, it’s alright. I hear you, but if I can golf all afternoon, I find I can spare a couple minutes here and there. Sometimes after I golf on friday mornings, I find myself buying extra MCds to the people I drive by asking for food. I don’t know why, call it the guilt of a great game of http://adbuckingham.com/golf.html
grace and peace, mr. sean.
LikeLike
@ Mud,
Crying and applauding(well, golf clap).
LikeLike
Mature, serious Christians read the site, immediately recoil, and vow to stay away forever.
This makes me wonder what Jeff is hiding. If I looked in his clandestine mini-storage unit would I find a vast collection of stolen ladies footwear and undergarments?
LikeLike
Gotta watch out for us Canadians, we are full of irony and love to play mind games.
One area of the country is apparently the only one anthropologists have found the people to inhale when agreeing and saying “yes”. Probably an old wives tale spun out of the sugarbushes of Chibougamau or Wawa.
Hey, that reminds me about the time we saw Terry Fox on his ill-fated run against cancer across Canada, came across the convoy just north of Wawa. Good times. Coldest inhabited place ever in Canada, Wawa, the big goose statue welcoming you.
LikeLike
“Mature, serious Christians read the site, immediately recoil, and vow to stay away forever”
Erik, what does that say about you, exactly?
LikeLike
Sean,
It says “welcome home!”.
LikeLike
Going golfing, this thread got better.
Stay presby my friends (h/t cw l’u)
LikeLike
I see! Said the blind man to the deaf man, on the phone.
LikeLike
There are offline challenges yes, but I am not looking for nor do I need “excuses” for what I’ve been saying here. I stand by every word, regardless of what’s going on offline. Which has nothing to do with some persistent sin for those of you salivating at a possible opportunity at discrediting me in that regard.
Jeff, I believe it was your turn, but I’ll look back and be sure.
LikeLike
Sean, I’ll read some of your posts tonight. I enjoy our interactions, I hope there are no hard feelings.
Blind man. Out.
LikeLike
AB, I was responding to Erik. Don’t worry, everything is good everywhere and the goose hangs high.
LikeLike
Greg,
For what it’s worth, I think efforts to discredit you based on your academic background are stupid. I’m not impressed by a degree that someone got 30 years ago. Big deal. Get in line with all of the other people coming out of school with $100 grand in debt and no common sense.
If someone can read, comprehend, and make an argument I’ll take that any day over a degree from some august institution of higher learning filled with liberals. People learn by reading – period. It doesn’t matter where they’ve done their reading.
Most of the time people still touting their degrees in middle age have accomplished next to nothing since they graduated.
LikeLike
Sean, Ahh. My bad.
By the way, I think I see what you are up to (seeing as I am no longer blind). I’m liking it FWIW
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
Greg,
Your fundamental mistake is thinking that sincerity and sound logic work here
LikeLike
kent, “When did the Loon Brigade declare that “just because I type something on the internet and nobody has convinced me I am anything but 100% correct, must mean I am 100% correct!!!!!!”???”
When CTC started?
LikeLike
Jeff, you’re the most sanctified person here (sorry Muddy).
LikeLike
Tom,
Your problem is that you’ve deluded yourself into thinking that you’re making purely logical arguments when discussing matters that require (a lot of) faith to accept. Welcome to Called to Communion.
Plus, you’re not sincere. You mostly just get off on arguing and yanking people’s chains.
If you had Greg’s (misguided) sincerity you’d be a far better, more mature, man.
LikeLike
Muddy, did you read my LINK by any chance? Jeff may find it interesting too. Very famous hypothetical dialog between Mr. Black, the pagan, Mr. Grey, the Arminian and Mr. White, the Calvinist. It was a journal article Van Til wrote years earlier that wound up in a collection of his writings published as a book later.
Erik I appreciate what you said. For the record, don’t forget that Dr. Hart asked me last year if I respected learning and I told him that I did. I do. I doubt I could ever earn a degree, but I do appreciate the organized discipline required to do so and God calls many to that path. By itself it don’t mean squat though. For the reasons you give.
LikeLike
Erik says: “If you had Greg’s (misguided) sincerity…”
Misguided?!
Well, I guess I should be gratified that anybody recognizes I’m actually sincere around here at all. No, this is not a game to me.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Your problem is that you’ve deluded yourself into thinking that you’re making purely logical arguments when discussing matters that require (a lot of) faith to accept. Welcome to Called to Communion.
Plus, you’re not sincere. You mostly just get off on arguing and yanking people’s chains.
If you had Greg’s (misguided) sincerity you’d be a far better, more mature, man.
Can’t you just discuss ideas?
As for logic and faith, God is not illogical: He is logos. But that’s another discussion.
LikeLike
Tom,
When you can discuss them and not act like a 12-year-old with Darryl, I’m game.
You’ve gotten a tad better on some days, but you still have a long way to go.
LikeLike
Greg, I saw the link and all your docs. I had no idea all those books are in the public domain. The dialogue was familiar to me. But, to be frank, the proportion between the work I would have to do and the anticipated length of the conversation before you start calling me names is pretty poor. Don’t get me wrong – I done think you’re malicious or mean to hurt anybody, but if you were me you wouldn’t have that discussion with you.
LikeLike
“Jeff, you’re the most sanctified person here (sorry Muddy).”
If I cede the point, will my humility put me back in the running?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 4:36 pm | Permalink
Tom,
When you can discuss them and not act like a 12-year-old with Darryl, I’m game.
You’ve gotten a tad better on some days, but you still have a long way to go.
I play the game Darryl chooses. I’m just better at it, so he lets Andrew sneak up and hit me with a chair from behind 20 times a day. As for discussing important things like logos with you, you already disqualified yourself. You’re playing games too. Do you ever actually read this blog???
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
Greg,
Your fundamental mistake is thinking that sincerity and sound logic work here. Have you not noticed that the mean emotional age of the male commenters on this site (including the host) is roughly 14 and the female contributors, with the exception of Lutheran Katy, are channeling some spaced out chick from “Serial”.
What the site is good for is screwing around and having a few laughs to break up the work day (unless you’re a government employee, in which case you need to stop screwing around cuz I’m paying your salary).
If you have some kind of serious religious objective this is the last place in the world that you should be pursuing it.
But there are a few of us who take the serious things seriously, including Jesus’s advice in Matthew 7:6.
So good luck and good day, sir.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen this many break ups and drama since high school. I knew I preferred college.
LikeLike
Tom – I play the game Darryl chooses. I’m just better at it,
Erik – (1) Well that’s mature. (2) If by “better” you mean “more annoying”, then, yes, you win.
LikeLike
Tom,
I would have to conclude that Darryl is better because he probably writes 1/10th the words and takes 1/10th the time responding to you that you take responding to him. The lesser fool in this instance would be the fool who exerts the least energy.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted May 29, 2015 at 5:29 pm | Permalink
Tom,
I would have to conclude that Darryl is better because he probably writes 1/10th the words and takes 1/10th the time responding to you that you take responding to him. The lesser fool in this instance would be the fool who exerts the least energy.
Which leaves you…
LikeLike
Muddy, oh wretched man that you are.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel says:
Greg, I saw the link and all your docs. I had no idea all those books are in the public domain.
As far as I know. “The Defense of the Faith” is not in the public domain for instance, which is why it’s not in there.
Muddy Gravel says: The dialogue was familiar to me. But, to be frank, the proportion between the work I would have to do and the anticipated length of the conversation before you start calling me names is pretty poor. Don’t get me wrong – I done think you’re malicious or mean to hurt anybody, but if you were me you wouldn’t have that discussion with you.
Well, obviously that’s up to you. I don’t actually call names though if you’ll notice. I apply biblical assessment where biblically warranted and that, again, is the point. If it is not biblically warranted it should take a couple minutes for such outlandish falsehood (if actually false) to be exposed for what it is. I don’t see any of that. Do you?
The only actual name calling involving me at all has come from Erik who called me a “dipshit” 😀
I really don’t mind and we had a pleasant and substantive e-Mail exchange afterwards. He doesn’t mean it like it sounds anyway as you can tell by the nice comment he left later.
People can call me every name there is. What they will never be able to do is demonstrate that my views are not the historically reformed ones. Will never happen or it would have already.
There are three main problems I see here. 2 are actual heresies and one I’d say is an erroneous over extension of the 2 kingdoms truth. However, if one were to view hours of Darryl’s video’s from lectures of his like I have, he is not nearly as extreme as some of his friends on this site.
LikeLike
Tom,
Well played. LOL.
LikeLike
Greg,
I don’t. You know you’re good with me.
LikeLike
Erik says: “I don’t. [mean it like it sounds] You know you’re good with me.”
I know. Even when you are decidedly perturbed with me, I still know. I appreciate that.
LikeLike
Me and you and you and me
No matter how they tossed the dice
It had to be
The only one for me is you
And you for me
So happy together
LikeLike
Greg…
You can shake hands with the devil
Or give your life to God on the level
But wiithout love, you ain’t nothin’
Without love, you ain’t nothin’ (repeat to fade)
LikeLike
Greg,
Never even perturbed with you be because you always play it straight. What you see is what you get. Same thing with Andy.
Not so with the Reformed sophisticates. Some of these guys could be dropping their pants at the Motel 6 on the outskirts of town and no one would know until it comes out in the paper. They’re a complete crapshoot and they relish that.
LikeLike
Greg is solid guy. Had a good convo before golf yesterda y. For some reason (read, you: Greg) he trusts me with very personal stuff. I understand his Hollywood stance very well now. Guys, he’s an asset on this blog, I’ll continue to carry his spit bucket if he wants to keep arguing, but he needs a good talking to as well. Again, good guy, Greg, glad youre here, I hope you stay.
LikeLike
And claiming one follows “the traditional Reformed view” isn’t a good move if you have cemented yourself in a corner with a consistent demonstration that you have basically no love for other believers and the different thoughts and quirks and sins and weaknesses we show.
LikeLike
If I give all I possess to the poor
And surrender my body to the flames
But have not love
I gain nothing
(hey now…)
LikeLike
Not so with the Reformed sophisticates. Some of these guys could be dropping their pants at the Motel 6 on the outskirts of town and no one would know until it comes out in the paper. They’re a complete crapshoot and they relish that.
Erik, what the hell does these mean? You’re beginning to sound like Doug Sowers.
LikeLike
Erik, was there honestly a big shock when the grossly immoral were found out in your churches?
You learned by the age of 6 who the pervs and creeps were and to avoid them, and have honed this into a fine art if you have spent time at a church, especially in some role of leading
LikeLike
Greg’s got a got a couple of bugs, as the song goes, but he’s got a good heart in the right place. Everyone is attacked out here, from, TVD, for example, it reminds me of that cute blond girl (Melody or some other) in second grade who used to be so angry and fight me all the time just to find out she just had a crush in me and wanted my attention. I’ve seen most of this stuff I see out here since age 8 or 9, is what I mean. Hi, Tom.
LikeLike
Kent,
Exactly. And I’ve learned who to avoid by the content of their character as opposed to whether or not they have the right degrees or pedigree. Greg is not the danger around here.
LikeLike
Idolatry of pedigree consists of both using one’s own in an ungodly manner as well as jealousy towards that of others and endlessly trying to prove they are just as smart as the people they resent in life
Reading at home is an excellent leisurely pursuit to learn and grow, but thinking this means one is just as smart as “those arrogant educated people” is not wise
LikeLike
(Not Melody, Meghan Maloney, was her name, I remember being quite flummoxed, that was just weird).
I think tom just needs attention, mainly. I think he “drunk dials” too, on occasion, his comments out here, usually Friday nights. I mean, that mouth of his, sometimes. Good grief Charlie Brown.
LikeLike
ec, remember, you promised to be superior to the Reformed sophisticates. Anyone here talking about your wanderings outside town?
Some of these people were/are friends.
LikeLike
ec, why come here if it’s so “danger”ous?
Chill.
LikeLike
I can’t see me loving nobody but you
for all my life
When youre with me, baby the skies will be blue
for all my life
Wait, wait, now Greg is being sold as victim. Greg, do you chart your folks out at home or is all this just reflexive now?
LikeLike
sean, truth be told, Greg probably shouldn’t be out here on this blog, given what I know about him, but that’s his call. He has you pegged as someone who watches things you shouldn’t from hollywood, that’s why he’s after you with special fire. what he (read: you, Greg) related to me over the phone about an interaction between you (read: sean) and you (read: greg) I believe actually didn’t happen and I have been known to dream up conversations out here literally dream and then wake up they aren’t there. Greg, you know of what i speak, itold you to send me the discussion yous aid you had with sean, and you haven’t sent it. Please go easy on sean, and before you peg someone as an “enemy,” make sure you have your facts straight.
sean, just 3rd grade playground justice out here is all, nothing new under the sun, my pastor is preaching through eccl, if that’s any help, who’s next?
LikeLike
Darryl,
My wanderings are confined to the library and various and sundry garage sales.
LikeLike
Amazing too see how many guys immediately self-identify as a reformed sophisticate.
This is too easy.
LikeLike
I do have to admit that I’m a bit mystified over how this conversation shifted from Van Til back to Hollywood.
That being said, how about condescending for a few days and just engaging with Greg based on his arguments as opposed to just putting him down personally?
Jeff and I are the only ones to shed the reformed arrogance long enough to do that.
LikeLike
Erik,
The best way to deal with Greg and his concern about Hollywood is simply acknowledge that he has a gripe, realize he may have good reasons, and move on.
Now my sense is this is Greg’s #1 axe to grind, we all have them. So sometimes I perceive he uses his learning about other areas (like epistemology) to build up his street cred, only to come back to the topic he really wants to talk about, and that is hollywood.
Quite frankly, Greg has a great point. And although this is TVMA, it should be required watching for anyone at oldlife who engages regularly, because this simulated reality out here in the blog really is like a video game, virtual reality combox ring, any and all who can and want to engage do, and there’s no rules, only type type type and try to push your agenda through to just about no one who will change their mind anyway, so what is this about? Funny enough, even though Greg has a point about how bad hollywood is, he and we all are engaged in internet things heavily. THat doesn’t undercut his point entirely, but movies are as neutral as the television, bad content is but a finger click or a remote button push away, that all being said, i understand Greg’s position, and respect him, but I also think he uses his learning in other areas to try to push his true #1 pet project, and hwatever, aren’t we all? next
LikeLike
*movies are as neutral as the internet
LikeLike
ec, American exceptionalism is bad enough. ec exceptionalism?
LikeLike
D.G.
Each day is a new battle. Win some, lose some.
LikeLike
The Rev. Doc takes up for Greg (unnecessarily) against me and he’s a beacon of morality.
I take up for Greg against the enlightened ones and I’m unlauded.
Where’s the consistency?
LikeLike
The lack of consistency is the genius of it.
LikeLike
Erik, huh?
Spell that out for me if you are so inclined.
I’m getting too old for this s**t, yo.
LikeLike
Erik says: “I do have to admit that I’m a bit mystified over how this conversation shifted from Van Til back to Hollywood.”
I didn’t do it. Andrew did. Yes, I did tell Andrew some very personal things about my offline life last time we talked. Don’t make me sorry brother. What I told him does absolutely nothing to discredit anything I have ever said here. Nor does it place any particular requirement that I spend less time online. That may be his opinion which I respect, but I disagree.
Andrew you specifically told me not to hurry about getting that statement from Sean to you. Now you say I made it up 😀 I understand your not wanting to believe it, but you of all people should know that I do not EVER make things up. Ever. If I am mistaken, I own that I am mistaken and publicly apologize to the offended party. I do not ever deceive by design. I will do my best today to dig up his Sunday night appointment with Game of Thrones for you.
Internet and moving picture TECHNOLOGY are in themselves neutral. The use to which they are put is in each case what makes them sanctified or sinful. There is no irony in this regard Andrew. I use technology as an act of faith to the glory of God and nobody is making me feel guilty about it. The internet is neutral. Porn sites are not. Moving picture technology is neutral. Game of Thrones is not.
Do please note folks, I did not bring this up now and would really like to get back to this uncertain, possibly false gospel that leaves the pagans with an excuse that Paul says they don’t have. That unholy monstrosity truly is a god of the spirit of the age. Won’t find that in historic reformed orthodoxy. I know, I’ve looked. For a rather long time now. Not there. Which is why we’ll never see it documented here either. That doesn’t stop people from proclaiming and defending this hallucination anyway though. It’s an all time fav among emergent liberals and morally degenerate media addicts. Lord knows I’ve seen it more times than I can count.
Andrew I love talking to you and I look forward to doing so again. You do however need to let me handle these public situations.There is nothing new under the oldlife sun. Every conversation you see me in here has been had with others for a VERY long time.
LikeLike
Greg, fair enough, and we could simply ask Sean if he watches GoT, and even if he does, I’m with him, FWIW. Too much good mojo from his fingers to jump ship. I would advise no GoT for Christians. My combox is unmoderated, Erik or anyone can come there, I won’t delete comments
http://adbuckingham.com/should-christians-watch-game-of-thrones/
Back to epistemology, I’ll be reading.
LikeLike
Erik says: “That being said, how about condescending for a few days and just engaging with Greg based on his arguments as opposed to just putting him down personally?”
A perfectly splendid idea indeed.
LikeLike
Greg,
Connect the dots for me. Even if Sean watches Game of Thrones, how is that relevant to Van Til? Is it just that he’s been giving you s**t and you need a weapon to use against him and that one is readily available? That’s just an Ad Hom in this context, kind of like Tom Van Dyke’s mullet from the 80’s. So what?
LikeLike
Sean Gregg, porn star. Y’all shoulda seen what I saw as a teenager, everything else is Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood. Though, I understand that he smoked pot? I dunno. They also claim Bert and Ernie were the 70’s version of Heather has Two Mommys. All that to say that sometimes sin is more diabolical the less outwardly scandalous it is. One of C.S. Lewis’ better points, I thought, was that the baser sins though just as deadly, were more easily dealt with than those of the whitewashed sort, which seems terribly Christ like in it’s wisdom. It may not be a suitable flashpoint to rally the troops for the culture war, but then maybe that wasn’t the nature of the Kingdom Christ inaugurated. But, yes, I confess that I watch GOT, but I do blame my wife for that particular vice, so……………..I’m good?
LikeLike
Sean, personally, I read the first 70 pages of the first book because my boss told me to read it (much before the shows came out) and I couldn’t stomach it. My wife read the first book. I tried watching the show, couldn’t get 5 minutes or so in. I’m fundy in my heart and soul from youth, it could be that what I see in real life makes what goes on in the screen seem so paltry and inferior, you definately need to watch this free episode of black mirror. Sorry my wife is so hot, it’s not my fault.
awkward..next?
LikeLike
Sean, I am with you, by the way, because Greg treated you horribly here. Frankly I don’t care what you watch, but wait for the GtT pile driver, coming right about …..now ——–>
LikeLike
Geoff, in light of what you’ve said, do you like the PCA proposal?
“because of the relationship of mutual accountability between church officers and the church created in the voluntary affirmation of ordination vows, church officers under accusation shall be required to testify before the court of original jurisdiction.”
Click to access Overture-7-New-Hope-Session-BCO35-1.pdf
LikeLike
AB, the whole thing is, to me, just one big tempest in a teapot. I give Greg a big ration of it, because I enjoy ad absurdum. I try to beg off of most of it until I hit my tipping point or I’m bored or I think someone is being disingenuous in one way or another and then I give them some of their own medicine. Or some semblance of it. Some people get really uncomfortable, and sometimes rightly so, with a lot of heat and sarcasm and chest thumping. I kind of think it’s funny and sport and a diversion. I don’t try to be all things to all people and I’m not always good and right. Such is my lot. I’m ok with it, even when others aren’t. So, there’s some indulgent bio for you, AB.
LikeLike
Erik says: “Connect the dots for me. Even if Sean watches Game of Thrones, how is that relevant to Van Til? Is it just that he’s been giving you s**t and you need a weapon to use against him and that one is readily available? That’s just an Ad Hom in this context, kind of like Tom Van Dyke’s mullet from the 80’s. So what?”
I never said it was directly relevant to Van Til Erik. I have been beating him up for his declaration of uncertainty regarding God and the gospel while allowing that unbelievers may be right. I need no weapons with Sean. He’s brought absolutely nothing of substance to this conversation as the numerous preceding pages will most abundantly evince. The sinful entertainment issue has been on hold until forced to the fore by someone other than myself.
LikeLike
Sean, thanks for that. I know I have an inflated self image, but my deacon spidey sense went up when Greg said something to me. I thought you were a PCA deacon, correct me if I’m wrong, but the kind of thing I did yesterday on the phone and am doing with Greg even now is what I do in real life. I’m not the deacon of the interweb, but my heart went out to the man, and we’ve discussed a lot before over the phone. Might as well let you all know what’s going on behind the scenes. From what I know, go easy on him, maybe not so much sport with this one. Just trust me here, not that he can’t handle it or dish it out, just remember, DGH gave him the sowers treatment. It may come to that again, honest, because he needs to seek out the help from his church, and unfortunately, from what I know of his church, he really should actually leave there and find a better one, but that’s between him and God and the interwebs are dicey, your posts at confessional outhouse are sound and I get a idea of your mind. presbys unite, i’m out. who’s next?
LikeLike
I meant to write “hi Greg” at the end of that last one
hi Greg.
LikeLike
Andrew says: “Might as well let you all know what’s going on behind the scenes. From what I know, go easy on him, maybe not so much sport with this one”
I don’t need anybody going easy on me Andrew. I gave no indication of that whatsoever. I do not require nor am I asking for any excuses for anything I say or do. I insist on the very best and very toughest engagement ANYBODY has to offer. His strength is made perfect in my weakness. I live and I will die by that. Please stop trying to paint me as some wounded sorry case. I have never been in a better place spiritually in my life. Seriously. I value your friendship, but I don’t need your help out here. Not this kind anyway. 🙂
LikeLike
greg, i have thoughts, but am refraining for reasons i will share with no one here. floor’s yours, have at it, champ.
LikeLike
Greg,
Sean did make substantive points about the apostles’ preaching not including your Van Tillianism. In other words, your interest in Van Til should be considered recreational, not foundational. You seek to make it foundational and blast P&R guys who disagree with you. They respond with snark, you up the volume, and off we go.
How can Van Til be foundational if he wasn’t even around until the 20th century? How did P&R believers get by for 4 centuries without him?
LikeLike
Did Greg fall off the wagon and go to the multiplex?
LikeLike
Erik asks: “How can Van Til be foundational if he wasn’t even around until the 20th century? How did P&R believers get by for 4 centuries without him?”
I will say yet again. All Van Til did was focus and codify what had been in the scriptures since the 1st chapter of Genesis. The standards are filled with Van Tillian thought(so to speak). Particularly the first three chapters. How could the reformation be foundational if it wasn’t around until the 16th century? (have your papist prevention helmet firmly in place)
I will also say THIS yet again. Van Til is not the point. Epistemological/archetypal certainty is the point. THE very foundation of all klnowledge and reality which Dr. Van Til made it his life’s mission to proclaim. A thing the most venerable and eminent J. Gresham Machen, well knowing Dr. Van Til’s emphasis, thought fitting to recruit for his fledgling seminary. (I’m echoing in here)
My point here of late has been, that the very reality of supposedly reformed people abandoning the certainty of their God in favor of atheistic post modern epistemological skepticism, is itself a positively disastrous degradation of reformation truth. In other words, the fact this is no longer considered to be foundational is ITSELF heretical. Find me a noted reformed voice for this uncertainty before 1930.
Sean has brought nothing but a simplistic uninformed (YES uninformed) charge of fundamentalism which misses the point by a few hundred thousand light years. The certainty of the God of the ancient scriptures is ALL OVER the apostles preaching AND every word of the rest of scripture too. He IS a very smart guy which is not helping him in this discussion because he has no idea what he’s talking about. This would be the case irrespective of his media intake or treatment of me altogether.
LikeLike
Well, I freely admit to being a “wounded sorry case”…hope that victorious Xian living doesn’t throw you, Greg. I know, I know. Hit me with some verses.
LikeLike
Erik asks: ” Did Greg fall off the wagon and go to the multiplex?”
What? In the last 10 years I’ve been to see Courageous, Noah (research), Heaven’s For Real (total eastern heresy) God’s Not Dead (horrific!) and Do You Believe (less horrific). That thing is the modern temple of Baal for sure. I could barely get outta there fast enough each time. I felt invaded and polluted just walking in there. Useful reminder of Satan’s most effective machine though. (no I do not wanna talk about that now)
LikeLike
Greg: My point here of late has been, that the very reality of supposedly reformed people abandoning the certainty of their God in favor of atheistic post modern epistemological skepticism…
T’ain’t so. You’re filling in a lot of blanks with that charge.
Fact #1: You’ve gotten pushback on “God is certainty.”
Fact #2: You’ve also gotten affirmation that God’s word is true and infallible.
You need to represent those two facts accurately. Right now, you’re taking fact #1 and using it apart from the context of fact #2.
LikeLike
Jeff. Not even you will say that Sean and sdb are proclaiming a post modern perversion when they tell unsaved workmates that the Christian God may be false and their pagan friends may be right in their unbelief.
You can settle this as far as you and I are concerned right now, by unequivocally declaring them wrong.
OR producing a noted reformed voice for this uncertainty before 1930.
LikeLike
I won’t do either because I don’t know what kind of uncertainty they are talking about. Why would I want to condemn a position that I haven’t fully understood?
Why do you?
LikeLike
What cereal gives me the prize certificate to call myself “little tin lord god of Reformed theology” letting me dictate what others have to say?
LikeLike
Greg,
What did you not like about “God’s Not Dead”? I thought it was bad, too, although perhaps for different reasons.
On “Epistemological/archetypal certainty”: Can you establish biblically, not philosophically, that there is no middle-ground between it and “atheistic post modern epistemological skepticism”. I don’t think you’ve done that to this point.
It’s like saying “if you’re not Phyllis Schlafly, you must be Gloria Steinem”. Not necessarily.
LikeLike
Trackback didn’t work..drat. Here it goes:
On page 6 of this very thread I asked the following Jeff:
“Does sdb recognize that [Gen. 1:1] could be wrong? That’s a question, not an accusation. “
To which sdb responded:
>Yes. I recognize that I could be deluded and my atheist colleagues could be right. I don’t think I am or they are… Do you recognize the possibility that you could be wrong?
That is a direct quote regarding the veracity of Gen 1:1. sir and one which Sean later affirmed and Dr. Hart pretty much did too. I can hear you already trying to construe this to place the limitation on himself and not God. No sir. That will not work as stated above, but you are welcome to try.
Of course a mitigating clarification from these men would be fabulous, but I cannot foresee anything deeper than jokes about porn stars from Sean at least, as he continues to make shallow excuses about why he talks a lot here, but doesn’t say anything. My quote above WAS a clarification from sdb actually. Hart will continue to be silent. Where does this leave us then.
THAT outrageous concession to skepticism is what started me down this path in the first place Jeff.
I see you Erik.Kent too. Gym time. BBL.
LikeLike
Andy,
The experiment flopped.
LikeLike
Guess I’ll add my pernicious pathway to skepticism on the the list of things to repent of.
I learn something new every day.
LikeLike
Erik,
I’d rather people pipe down so Darryl can finish his Menken book.
Every post I feel like I apply another paper cut to poor DGH, for he has to see his wordpress dashboard light up with another “you have a comment” message.
You know I will not fight you, Erik, but I wish people would comment less here.
Starting with me.
Thoughts, bro?
LikeLike
AB: I welcome anyone to explain to me why people keep commenting out there over and over and over.
As a sporadic over-commenter, I blame dopamine. Not entirely kidding.
LikeLike
Greg you are free to set up your own site where you can have that discussion on Van Til and you can only allow statements that agree with you, and figuratively throw everyone else into the gas chamber.
If it gets enough traffic you could charge people six bucks a month for the privilege of reading your priceless advice.
LikeLike
Greg: Where does this leave us then.
Badly in need of a total break from this topic.
LikeLike
ec, “the experiment flopped.”
And so is mermaid.
LikeLike
Andy,
As long as people are enjoying themselves I don’t see much harm.
My advice to Greg yesterday was: Don’t let people melt you down. When people do that to each others it’s entertaining, but not very edifying, both for the melter and meltee.
Sometimes people do ask for it, though.
LikeLike
Erik,
I do believe we have actual trolls at this blog, and they would be sincerely happy to see Darryl’s career derailed at all costs. This is the downside to open comments. If Darryl comments on the number of comments here again, I’ll figure that is the word on the topic. After all, it’s Darryl’s opinion that matters here. We’re all just here to help him sell more books and be more successful in promoting P&Rism, if you feel me. Those of us who like him, anyway. Him and his cats (fair enough, that one is mine).
Jeff, ding.
Erik, also, no biggee, but no one I know calls me “Andy.” It’s cute and all, but you are the only one who does. One older dude at church I grew up called me “drewski.” My uncle who loves to golf and is retired, him and my aunt used to call me Android. People also used to change my b to and f, in my last name, you do the math (emoticon). That was around 2nd grade, in public school,not that private is much better, I digress.
Take care.
LikeLike
I sure do get accused of a lot of stuff in this thread. I’m not sure sdb would be all that thrilled about getting lumped in with me. But, let me see if I understand, Greg is desperate to say that the existence of God is certain-syllogistically/logically/philosophically inescapable given certain(diff) premises(fair?) And somehow because I acknowledge that my grasp of that ‘reality’ is subject to my finitude(know in part, see in part, dimly-Lord help my unbelief), not because of God’s inescapable ‘reality’, but because of my finitude and the subsequent limitations of my knowledge, though I be fantastically brilliant, but still finite, somehow that makes me no better than a pagan skeptic?(just go ahead and throw in Wiccan, baby sacrificer, engaged in orgies in the woods while watching porn on a white sheet stretched between some trees) This is the gist, yes?
So, somehow, this creaturely acknowledgement that appears to line up with the Pauline and Gospel orientation of even supernatural saving faith, is post modern contrivance? Ok. I guess I’m guilty.
LikeLike
Sean,
I think it’s a lot simpler.
You admitted to watching GoT and GtT is out for blood.
Call me cyncial, dopamine addicted over commenter. Ya feel me bro?
LikeLike
Andrew,
If you don’t like Andy I won’t use it. Sorry.
Nothing here is derailing Darryl’s career. His writing speaks for itself and Hillsdale is a good place for him. He’ll be fine.
I have concerns regularly for the souls of some of the participants, but I have no concerns for his career. Plus, who says he has to read every comment. I suspect he’ll hear about anything that gets too far out of hand.
LikeLike
Sean,
How do you keep your balance on the sheet?
LikeLike
Erik, you obviously have limited experience with orgies in the woods while watching porn. The sheet is the screen for the porn. We don’t bother with sheets for the orgy part.
LikeLike
My pcusa grandma told her children, “call me anything you want.”
My snarky uncle is said to have suggested , “instead of mom, can we call you ” mop”?
She said no.
Andy is fine.
LikeLike
Sean,
I’ve confined my orgy participation to urban settings. Fewer chigger issues.
LikeLike
@ Erick, sean: here
LikeLike
SDean says: “Greg is desperate to say that the existence of God is certain-syllogistically…”
I stopped reading right here (I really did) as I have rejected this very thing numerous times. No Van Tillian would EVER declare syllogistic certainty for the Christian God. Van Til spent his career deprogramming his students from this Adamic Aristotelian/Thomistic intellectual idolatry. As I said, Sean has no idea what he’s talking about which is ok. NObody knows everything and this is simply an area he has not concentrated on. There’s nothing dishonorable about that. I’m sure he knows plenty of stuff I don’t know. This would not be one of those areas though.
Syllogisms are formal. Not epistemological. This is why they are capable of proving the possible existence of any god in general and the actual existence of none in particular. The EXACT thing that Van Til spent his whole life combating. I have stuff to do. I’ll be back later.
LikeLike
Greg, you might try reading the whole comment before issuing your judgment. I don’t understand why you feel the need to attack sean how you do. You can take your time too, no need to say, “oh, your statement is so horrible, I couldn’t even finish, and had to stop to just write you a comment to say how wrong you are.” That’s what I hear you saying. That’s tough.
This blog as a whole has a wonderful section devoted to CVT, so try saying something nice to people. We tell my kids that if you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say it. Food for thought, is all, no need to respond to me. Take care.
LikeLike
Erik says:Greg,
What did you not like about “God’s Not Dead”? I thought it was bad, too, although perhaps for different reasons.
Yeah, I couldn’t really care less about how “well made” it was by the standard’s of today’s artistic idolatry. (that’s another good topic. Tolkien, Lewis, Rookmaaker and Sheaffer set that abomination in motion. ESPECIALLY Scheaffer)
1. It was Arminian Biola BS to the bone.
2. It replaced the church, duly ordained officers and the means of grace with a concert and a band. (I can her you guys already 🙂 ) The pastor was an inept bonehead and everybody else was hip n groovy n spiritual.
3. The atheists I deal with woulda manhandled that pathetic kid.
4. When said pathetic kid proclaimed that he was going to “put God on trial” before pagans in a false pagan jurisdiction, based upon false pagan canons of logic and evidence, I almost walked out. Participation in such blasphemous insolence was almost on the level of Game of Thrones to me.(albeit different) I only stayed so I could say I saw it all the way through.
5. When said pathetic kid screamed the question at pagan professor demanding that he say why he hated God and said pagan professor responded like he did, it was the wince inducing face palm of the year for me. No passably capable pagan professor (OR student) would fall for such blatant emotional manipulation. (I KNOW what I am talkin about)
6. The aggressively stereotyped characters were ridiculous. Every Christian was a paragon of purity and virtue (except the Christian girl living with said pagan professor) and every non Christian was starving for common grace. Every last one was horrible, heartless and or an idiot.
To sum up? Terrible, culture worshiping, autonomous theology. Very dangerous underestimation of the challenges ahead as young people will go to pagan college thinking this is how it is and have their @$$ handed to them by the first hotshot prof (or student) they bump into. It could barely have been worse. I’ll stop there.
Erik says: Greg, On “Epistemological/archetypal certainty”: Can you establish biblically, not philosophically, that there is no middle-ground between it and “atheistic post modern epistemological skepticism”. I don’t think you’ve done that to this point. “
We need to get this straight once and for all. The bible has LOTS of philosophy. The standards have LOTS of philosophy. All the great writings of church history, reformed and not, are FULL of philosophy. What Paul is denouncing is not the idea of philosophy itself, but Greek philosophy which was and is built on the same epistemology that Sean and sbd are here espousing.
I will repeat myself yet again because you asked again and bless God that’s just the kinda I am. 😀 (yer killin me with this. Ya know that right? Jist killin me)
As I said to sdb earlier in this very thread (one of a few times this has come up)
It’s like this. This conversation started 3 weeks ago. I cannot get anybody to produce one single phrase from a noted historical reformed thinker that supports anything except the assumed pre-propositional certainty of God and His scriptures. WCF I, II and II scream this at us.
Think with me Erik. How can the God of WCF II occupy a middle anything?
LikeLike
See there, Greg? Your problem is that you just go to lane movies. Do better.
LikeLike
There you have it, Francis Scheaffer and CS Lewis were to blame for the whole mess.
I wash my hands completely of this sad clown.
LikeLike
Kent says: “Greg you are free to set up your own site where you can have that discussion on Van Til and you can only allow statements that agree with you,..”
Kent. if you’d like, I can introduce you to some people who know me very well who will laugh in your face if you suggest that I would EVER censor somebody who disagreed with me. Just say the word. The problem I’m having here is not with people disagreeing at all. It’s with people who pay no attention, attack positions I haven’t advanced, sling mud and then joke around like they just made a fool out of me and refuted my arguments.
Take yourself for instance. You are clearly agitated and have made a string of meaningless comments that do things like sock me in the eye (that one was great!! LOL! ) but say nothing about my positions. Why don’t you try that for a minute? Pick some argument I’ve made that you REALLY hate and.. hang on… refute it with counter argumentation. You won’t succeed (which I suspect you know and is the REAL issue you have with me), but you could at least try. Stand on God’s truth and you will not have this problem. I promise. That would almost certainly require abandoning some cherished falsehoods though.
LikeLike
Kent says: “There you have it, Francis Scheaffer and CS Lewis were to blame for the whole mess.”
Another thing I didn’t say 😀 I said they set the ball rolling in that direction with reference to the undue exaltation of “ART” in today’s flesh festival church. You need to ease down there gonzo or you’re gonna pop a nut right in fronta everybody.
LikeLike
Greg,
Good review of “God is Not Dead.”
Good quote from Romans 1. Aren’t you making a huge leap from Romans 1, which basically says you’re a fool to be an atheist, to references to Van Til, Reformed Theology, and The Westminster Divines? There are all kinds of non-Reformed (and non-Christian)t theists.
Right now on the other thread we have Catholics questioning the existence of a real Adam. Even for people who agree that there’s a God, almost everything else is contested.
Where’s the certainty?
LikeLike
Working at church, but there is an answer Eirk. Later.
LikeLike
Greg, your 6:29 comment is the pile driver I was talking about.
What do you think of trying out your local P&R church some Sunday? It dkesnt have to be OPC or PCA, or even NAPARC. Just to give you some bearing on what the real world is like. I know you have studied this a lot on your own in the past, and I don’t think you need to leave your church, I just want to try your church in your area that is convenient for you as well as closest to what we Naparcers will all experience today when we worship.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Erik says: Greg,
Good review of “God is Not Dead.”
Thank you. I forgot the theistic evolution crap too. I really hated that movie.
Erik “says:Good quote from Romans 1. Aren’t you making a huge leap from Romans 1, which basically says you’re a fool to be an atheist,… “
No Erik, he doesn’t say you’re a fool to be an atheist. He says you’re a liar if you claim to be one. Because He has Himself made Himself inescapably certain to all men from the creation of the world. Before scripture existed and clearest of all in their own mirrors where His image is staring back at them. I have a big long technical exegetical piece started, but I’m not gonna go that route just yet.
Erik “to references to Van Til, Reformed Theology, and The Westminster Divines? There are all kinds of non-Reformed (and non-Christian)t theists.”
Erik. This is a website owned by a guy who loves Machen who loved Van Til. He is an elder in the OPC. A Presbyterian and reformed communion that requires commitment to the Westminster Standards for membership.
Everybody I have been talking to here says they are reformed. I am holding THOSE people to THEIR own standards and history which uniformly affirm every major thing I have said since you met me. I don’t care what Catholics and non-reformed and non-Christian theists think. We already agree they are wrong. (I hope?)
My concern is for what historic reformed orthodoxy taught because I believe THAT IS THE gospel and all other expressions of Christianity range from compromised at best to damnably wrong at worst.
Erik “Right now on the other thread we have Catholics questioning the existence of a real Adam. Even for people who agree that there’s a God, almost everything else is contested.”
And right now in India there are Hindus rubbing their bodies with cow dung because they think it has spiritual significance for them. How pray tell dear brother does the uncertainty of the truth of the one true and living God somehow follow from the mere fact of somebody denying it? They’re SUPPOSED to deny it. His very truth itself, divinely certain as it is, promises us they will.
Erik “Where’s the certainty?”
The God of WCF II. THAT is historic reformed orthodoxy and Machen’s boy Cornelius Van Til lived 91 years proclaiming it. Romans 1 does not declare vanilla theism Erik. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made,…
From day one, God’s invisible attributes, (ohhhhhhh do we ever have some biblical philosophy in here) eternal power (ex nihilo creator and sustainer) AND divine nature (including His tri-unity). CLEARLY seen. Not kinda and fuzzy and uncertainly sorta seen but CLEARLY. By God’s own design and decree. The certainty lies with HIM. HE determines that. Not Catholics and non-christian theists.
===============================================================================
*The word for suppression there occurs in this particular participle form only in this verse. Participles have tense and voice like a verb (present and active in this instance) and case and gender like a noun (genitive and masculine in this instance.) Both have number which is plural here. I don’t know Koine Greek well enough off the top of my head to understand the significance of the plural number here without deeper study. Probably an intensifier.
LikeLike
Greg,
Interesting.
So go a step further. Would you say that Roman Catholics KNOW that they are denying the true God revealed in Scripture and are without excuse?
Would you say that about the Baptists that you worship with?
Both are denying key points taught in the Westminster Standards.
LikeLike
Erik says: “Greg,
Would you say that Roman Catholics KNOW that they are denying the true God revealed in Scripture and are without excuse?”
No one has an excuse.
Erik asks: “Would you say that about the Baptists that you worship with?”
The people I worship with don’t deny the true God. Even the ones who couldn’t tell you exactly why, would be aghast at the suggestion that their God may not exist and the atheistic pagans they work with might be right. To paraphrase the principle of Romans 2:14: “For when non-denoms who do not have WCF II do instinctively love the God of WCF II, these, not having WCF II, are WCF II unto themselves,”
Erik says: “Both are denying key points taught in the Westminster Standards.”
And neither claim to uphold it Erik. Key points are not what we’re talking about though anyway. We’re talking about THE point. God Himself. Theology proper and it’s resulting epistemology. Without which none of the rest makes any difference. Without the pre-propositional, certainly true God of WCF II, who certainly and infallibility reveals Himself in the self attesting Scriptures of WCF I, by His eternal and invincible decree as proclaimed in WCF III, the Christian religion is the grimmest of folly and the bible a comic book. Reduced to just another ultimately unremarkable drop in the bucket of post modern skepticism. Dr. Van Til understood this with crystal clarity.
LikeLike
Greg,
You appear to be inconsistent. Don’t Catholics and Baptists both acknowledge the Trinity? Why are you being harder on Catholics than Baptists? They both ignore important things about God from the Westminster.
Exactly how much about God is self-evident? Only his existence or something more?
LikeLike
How can you separate “the true God of the WCF” from the particulars of the WCF? Without acknowledging the particulars, wouldn’t a person be worshipping a false god of their own making?
LikeLike
This is another one of your exploratory interrogations where you try n buy me credibility. The last one was actually useful once I understood it so I’ll play this time too.
Erik asks:
Greg,
You appear to be inconsistent. Don’t Catholics and Baptists both acknowledge the Trinity? Why are you being harder on Catholics than Baptists? They both ignore important things about God from the Westminster
Erik, the topic is, why are Westminster Calvinists (all I mean by that is somebody who affirms the standards), redefining the God of the THEIR OWN chosen history in order to make Him comport with some detestable and anti-Christian notion of epistemic false humility? A thing unheard of in the scriptures OR their OWN history. I cannot legitimately hold other people to standards that they do not claim to hold themselves.
Roman Catholicism is a false pagan religion and plays no more role in this discussion than Mom’s favorite recipes for meatloaf. I do however know some LBC 1689 Reformed Baptists who are rock solid on all the things I’ve talked about since I’ve been around here. Right now they are in a controversy about whether new covenant theology (ex. Fred Zaspel) is compatible with the covenantalism of their confession. A perfectly proper debate because they both claim the same standard. They aren’t asking Methodists what their view is because it’s irrelevant.
Erik asks: “How can you separate “the true God of the WCF” from the particulars of the WCF? Without acknowledging the particulars, wouldn’t a person be worshiping a false god of their own making?
I’m pretty sure you’re not asking this in earnest, so I will refrain from blasting you for such an obvious non-sequitur. No, it does not follow that my LBC 1689 friends who may be wrong on their eschatology for instance, are of necessity and on that basis also wrong on their doctrine of God. Many varying secondary theologies can be consistently held with the truth of WCF II. Paedo or credo baptism. Presbyterian or congregational ecclesiloogy. Republication or not.. and a host of others.
I defy anybody who’s eyes may fall upon this page to make a case for “epistemic humility” from the scriptures, the standards or a noted historic reformed thinker. I double dawg dare ya. THAT IS the philosophy of men that is foolish with God.
“…The LORD stretched out His hand and touched [Jeremiah’s] mouth, and the LORD said to [him], “Behold, I have put My words in your mouth. But when I send you forth crying “THUS SAYS THE LORD” (149 times), you must remember to exercise proper epistemic humility and acknowledge you could be wrong lest you be thought to be arrogant and close minded”.
I haven’t seen that translation. Can somebody show it to me please? “Every knee will probably bow and every tongue will most likely confess that Jesus Christ might be Lord to the glory of God the Father who might not exist though.” Anybody seen that one? How bout this: “the thoughtful and possibly correct pagan to whom you owe epistemic humility, has said in his heart’ there is no God'”
God most likely, but not necessarily “…is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them, unless of course he doesn’t exist and the heathen be right after all…”
That must be the newlife version of WCF II:II
LikeLike
Greg – I cannot legitimately hold other people to standards that they do not claim to hold themselves.
Erik – Why not? I thought Romans 1 says they know about God and are therefore without excuse? You yourself told me that a few comments ago. Isn’t whether or not someone claims to hold them themselves irrelevant?
I think what you are saying is that what is obvious to men is the “Doctrine of God”. You think London Baptists are o.k. on their “Doctrine of God” even though they get baptism and eschatology wrong.
Catholics, however, are out. Why? How is their “Doctrine of God” wrong? Did the Reformers oppose them over their incorrect Doctrine of God?
You’re writing a lot of things, but I don’t see most of it being relevant to the discussion.
LikeLike
Greg, I have personally sat under the preaching of Rev. Jeffrey Wilson as he is friends of my former OP pastor in So.Cal, who was a PCUSA pastor in detroit in the 80’s (hence the connection). Have you ever been to a reformed church before, sat under her worship. This will help you a lot, I think you should take the bus or something to visit Providence OPC Detroit. Please consider it, I want to hear your thoughts about my recommendation here.
LikeLike
My reason for saying you need to go to OPC, is you want to change us, but you will be frustrated if all you do is combox all day. These are video games, virtual comboxxing rings, recreation for bored office workers. You need to do more than listen to animus imponentis by camden bucey
http://adbuckingham.com/animus-imponentis/comment-page-1/#comment-149
you need to listen to the lectures in 2009 and work through the God appointed means in your presbytery. Otherwise, you are just playing games like the rest of us. You want to change us? Make an overture, seek to form a committee in the OPC church in your area. Come on, there’s precedence here. If you just crave fellowship of reformed xtians, Greg, I get that. Otherwise, expect frustration from here on out. You know all this, right?
LikeLike
Ok Erik. Lets try it his way.
Let’s say that I don’t consider anybody who does not hold the WCF and SC and LC as their doctrinal standard to be a Christian at all. Now, the only communions on earth that hold any relevance to THIS discussion at oldlife.org, right now, are Presbyterians. We can eject the PCUSA outta the gate as a flagrant and reprehensible denier of her history, the very claim of which is a painful joke.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am waiting for somebody to produce a scriptural and or historic Presbyterian source for a god whose nonexistence is considered proper “epistemic humility” as has been claimed.
LikeLike
To what end?
LikeLike
Greg,
I have no idea what your last comment means.
Let’s try it this way: You tell me how much about God that people should acknowledge knowing merely via reason. These are things that they have no excuse for denying.
Greg walks into an indigenous tribe and blasts the tribesmen for their ignorance. What does he blast them for?
Make me a list.
LikeLike
Greg, wow, those who don’t hold the WCF and SC and LC as their doctrinal standard aren’t Christians? Ever heard of wheat growing up with tares, hypocrites within and sheep without, not turning over inward stones, etc.?
But it’s not clear that you’ve understood the point. It’s not to allow for the possibility of God’s non-existence, rather for disallowing that a human being knows as God knows (i.e. human limitation). Have you seen God? If no, then you don’t have absolute certainty as to his existence. If yes, you contradict God himself (Jn 1:18, 1 John 4:12, John 6:46).
LikeLike
Greg,
Let’s say you got your wish, and every christian stopped watching bad stuff. Poof, it’s done, wish granted. Here we are, play this little thought experiment with me, for just 20 more seconds.
You still have a lot of other sin to deal with.
So while you may feel empowered and want to see this thing change, please do not grow discouraged. Look to the long term, and try to make a different mainly in your own sphere of influence. These blogs are not for making differences, more than anything, they are absurd.
And when you beat up on people out here over epistemology, no matter what your motives (to try to clean up their sin, for example), you lose, because your motives are not clear, and anyone coming in off the street of the blogosphere reading your words alone will write you off as a loon. Trust me, don’t attack people if you really wish for good to be had out here. It’s the only way. Erik knows, he posted that monica lewisky ted talk, after all
www[dot]ted.com/talks/monica_lewinsky_the_price_of_shame?language=en
LikeLike
Erik quotes me as saying I cannot legitimately hold other people to standards that they do not claim to hold themselves.
and then respods with:
Why not? I thought Romans 1 says they know about God and are therefore without excuse? You yourself told me that a few comments ago. Isn’t whether or not someone claims to hold them themselves irrelevant?
Ok, I actually see how you may be reaching this conclusion. My fault. Lemme try yet another way. What I mean by this is not that anybody actually and ultimately is exempted from worshiping the true God of WCF II. All true Christians do and everybody else doesn’t. Even if unable to explicitly articulate that truth. EVEN genuinely elect Arminians (there are such people, God is THAT gracious.). What I’m saying is that in the context of a discussion like this, it is meaningless to accuse outside parties of unfaithfulness to a standard that they themselves do not claim faithfulness to.
Telling a Catholic that they are not adhering to the Westminster standards and historic reformed orthodoxy is a functional tautology. It’s like accusing someone you now hates broccoli of not liking it. My point here is with those who DO claim faithfulness to those standards and that history. If you really don’t understand this now, I don’t know if I can explain such a simple point any more clearly.
Erik says: “I think what you are saying is that what is obvious to men is the “Doctrine of God”. You think London Baptists are o.k. on their “Doctrine of God” even though they get baptism and eschatology wrong.”
In short yes. Romans 1 declares that “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse”.
Version of baptism and specifics of eschatology are not included in that declaration. What is included in that declaration are the essential nature and attributes of God. AND man’s essential sinfulness and accountability. General revelation is sufficient to affirm damnation but insufficient to secure salvation.
What is under attack by Sean and sdb is the very godhood of God. The word rendered “divine nature” here occurs just this once in the New Testament though it does derive from the common Greek stem for God. . θειότη (theiotés). It occurs a few times in extra-biblical sources which helps pin down the meaning. Oliphint likes “God-NESS”. His very divinity itself. THAT is inescapably certain to all men. “Attributes”, “power” and “nature”. NOTHING could be more certain.
Erik asks: “Catholics, however, are out. Why?”
Please see above.
Erik asks: “How is their “Doctrine of God” wrong? Did the Reformers oppose them over their incorrect Doctrine of God?”
Look man. Yer gittin me way off topic here. The Catholic doctrine of God IS Aquinas doctrine of God. Thomas was a titanic intellect, but he was enslaved to Aristotle(another titanic intellect). Now THAT is the kinda philosophy that Paul is denouncing. Thomas addiction to the 5th book of the Metaphysics (I think it was book 5 he loved so much, It’s getting late. I’m tired) caused him no end of confused woe when attempting to marry the much formal truth in Aristotle with the epistemology of scripture. Actually, it’s much more complicated than that. You can read sections of Aquinas that sound like Calvin.
The bottom line is that yes. Both Luther and Calvin posited a God whose sovereign non-contingency was not held by Rome. This may have been of even more primary importance to Luther than Calvin actually. That’ll have to be it for tonight. I can’t think any more.
Erik says: “You’re writing a lot of things, but I don’t see most of it being relevant to the discussion.”
Obviously I disagree.
Zrim, please look again. I wasn’t actually saying that subscription to the standards was a requirement for salvation.
Also. For the record. Andrew and I communicate away from this blog all the time. Unless given no choice, I don’t address him here. This should not be taken as a slight or aggravation in my part.
LikeLike
Greg,
So you would say that an atheist is without excuse but a Christian theist who gets some of the details wrong is excused because the details are not obvious?
How about a theist who is not a Christian theist? Without excuse or not?
LikeLike
And by “excused”, I don’t mean “going to heaven”. I just mean they don’t fall within the scope if what Romans 1 is referring to.
LikeLike
What I’m getting at is the difference between general and special revelation. I’m trying to figure out exactly what you’re condemning Sean, Zrim, etc of denying.
LikeLike
I can go with you and say that an atheist is a fool (the Bible does that) but I can’t necessarily say that a Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, or Muslim is a fool. They recognize that something beyond naturalism exists, we just disagree on exactly what it is.
Although as SDB Points out on the other thread, One can make a naturalistic case for all that exists. I just don’t happen to think it’s wise.
If you’ve ever seen Bahnsen’s debate with Stein, tell me what you think Bahnsen does and doesn’t prove. Bahnsen is arguing Van Til.
LikeLike
Good reference. Transcripts found here
http://www.apologetics315.com/2008/03/does-god-exist-greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon.html?m=1
LikeLike
Regular debates bore me to tears. Almost total waste of time. I have heard the famous Bahnsen/Stein debate. Stein was an easy mark and low hanging fruit to be sure.
Bruggencate is probably the best debater I’ve heard and even he is brought to what amounts to a draw when faced with an exceedingly capable pagan opponent. One in particular who’s name escapes me at the moment. Nobody can be argued to life without the father drawing him.
The problem you and I are having Erik is that you don’t understand epistemology. It is it’s own category, just like God, and we will not communicate while you are confusing it with others. Gen 1:1 is the ultimate statement of epistemology.
Do you believe that anything is certainly, inescapably and objectively 100% true? If so what? And why or why not? (I already asked this)
If you answer no, you are standing on the same sandy, post modern, atheistic skepticism with Sean and sdb.
If you answer anything other than the God of Gen. 1:1, you have exalted some other entity above Him and are in idolatry.
If you answer that God is that truth itself, like the bible, the standards and the whole of historic reformed orthodoxy have always proclaimed, then we agree.
No other category of knowledge is or can be approached in this manner.
Erik asks: “So you would say that an atheist is without excuse but a Christian theist who gets some of the details wrong is excused because the details are not obvious?”
No one is excused from worshiping the God of WCF II. All true Christians ARE Calvinists(to use the long recognized standard term). They range from very confused professing armininas on one end of the end of the scale, to still imperfect historic reformed orthodoxy on the other. There is only one God. Nobody can be wrong about which God they serve and be saved.
To paraphrase the principle of Romans 2:14 again: “For when Arminians who do not have WCF II do instinctively love the God of WCF II, these, not having WCF II, are WCF II unto themselves,”
Arminian Christians live in contradiction to their bad theology. They would NEVER concede uncertainty to pagans concerning their God, not realizing that their theology does not allow for a certainly true God at all. He is contingent upon his creation. Unbiblical and irrational. Thank God they don’t live what they preach.
Professing Calvinists like Sean and sdb DO have in their theology and history a God of ultimate divine certainty, but proclaim the uncertain god of the Arminians. Except unlike most Arminians, they DO openly concede uncertainty to pagans concerning their God. Somebody’s gonna get this.
Erik asks: “How about a theist who is not a Christian theist? Without excuse or not?”
NO one is excused Erik. Lemme copy n paste.
A god that might not exist DOES not exist. The fool says in his heart there is that god.
LikeLike
Greg,
Since you choose to go to a church that neither confesses nor teaches the WCF, where does that leave you?
LikeLike
Greg,
We all get to the point in life where we think no one understands X as we do. It’s at those points that we have to make the determination whether it’s an “us” problem or a “them” problem. Asylums are full of people who have concluded it’s a “them” problem.
LikeLike
Erik says: “Since you choose to go to a church that neither confesses nor teaches the WCF, where does that leave you?”
On authentically Christian epistemology, that is, the pre-propositional certainty of God being truth itself as per the confession, the leadership of my nondenominational, nonconfessional, sanely charismatic, evangelical church is faithful to historic reformed orthodoxy where this site is not. THAT is the topic of this discussion and I might add is far more critically important than even church government, baptism, sabbataranism etc. Without a sure foundation, nothing is sure either. Where it counts most of all, my church is more “oldlife” than this site.
To paraphrase the principle of Romans 2:14 once again: “For when non-denoms who do not have WCF II do instinctively preach the God of WCF II, these, not having WCF II, are WCF II unto themselves,”
Erik says: “We all get to the point in life where we think no one understands X as we do. It’s at those points that we have to make the determination whether it’s an “us” problem or a “them” problem. Asylums are full of people who have concluded it’s a “them” problem.”
Except that on the central driving points I’ve brought to this site, I have the virtual WHOLE of historic reformed orthodoxy on my side. Do you comprehend that? I have been BEGGING somebody to show me that I have a “ME” problem. Over and over and over again. Since arriving here early last year, I’ve tried every tactic I know to get somebody to make a case. You actually did try on at least one front and YOU are the one who wound up adjusting YOUR position. Albeit to a probably worse one, but you, and I don’t you’re alone, DO still have a breathing conscience. Nevermind, I’m not getting into that now.
The bottom line is, regardless of who is in what asylum, I contend with all the Christian confidence you ever heard of that the problem between myself and my opponents on this site is a THEM problem. I say yet again. There has been ample opportunity and incessant pleadings on my part for somebody to take the very little effort it should require to demonstrate that I am the one with the problem.
The nature of this dispute (and the one on entertainment media as well) is of such a stark contrast that any one of the educated academics who hang around here could take an hour at absolute MAXIMUM (probably half that) to devastate the theses I’ve advanced on this site. There is no nuance between “me” and “them” to wade through. These topics ARE black or white. Charges of fundamentalism go straight by me and on to the giants of the faith who went before me, on whose shoulders I stand and whose morality and epistemology I defend.
Why have I, now 16 months hence, not gotten a thing from “them”. I ain’t askin for much and I’ve gotten NAH-thing of real substance when so little would be needed. *
LikeLike
Greg,
(Sigh). Back from the gym? How are weights going?
LikeLike
On authentically Christian epistemology, that is, the pre-propositional certainty of God being truth itself as per the confession, the leadership of my nondenominational, nonconfessional, sanely charismatic, evangelical church is faithful to historic reformed orthodoxy where this site is not. THAT is the topic of this discussion and I might add is far more critically important than even church government, baptism, sabbataranism etc. Without a sure foundation, nothing is sure either. Where it counts most of all, my church is more “oldlife” than this site.
And there it is. Greg’s inner evangie epistexpertemologist emerges and declares itself more Reformed than the confession.
LikeLike
Greg,
You say all of Reformed history is on your side.
Produce some quotes from someone on the subject of epistemology to back that up.
And Van Til isn’t all of Reformed history.
Have you considered that your convincing yourself that you have ironclad arguments on your pet topics has made you unable to listen to reason?
You seem to have the same “Greg 100, opponents zero” mentality that we’ve run into with some Catholic apologists in the past. That’s not attractive.
You’re convinced you’ve won, but everyone else has gotten so bored with the conversation that they’ve just moved on. That’s Doug Sowers territory.
LikeLike
It’s not like everyone here marches on lockstep. I would think you would have picked up some allies by now. I’m the closest to an ally that you’ve got.
LikeLike
Greg The Terrible
Posted June 3, 2015 at 6:37 pm | Permalink
Except that on the central driving points I’ve brought to this site, I have the virtual WHOLE of historic reformed orthodoxy on my side.
Awesome. However, this observer finds
a string of oxymorons. A virtual WHOLE of historic reformed orthodoxy cannot exist. Semper reformanda. As soon as you lock it in, it’s obsolete.
And I wouldn’t inject it in here, Darryl, except Tommy Kidd just tweeted it, Gilbert Chesterton’s Orthodoxy for free [Kindle]. Enjoy.
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-G-Gilbert-Keith-Chesterton-ebook/dp/B00849F82E/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1419816214&sr=1-2&keywords=g.k.+chesterton+kindle+free
LikeLike
Greg,
You also have a lot of “I” on your declarations.
Is this about Greg’s glory or Jesus’s glory?
LikeLike
Erik, you and I both are the closest Greg has to allies out here.
I’ve gotten to know the man over our phone convos.
I believe when he says he’s argued with some big brains in the opc and reformed world over at reformed forum and otherwise. Greg’s a solid guy with lots of learning.
However..
Like everyone, he has an agenda. I get that, I have mine to, we all do. Instead of seeking to take down OLTS, he should be figuring out how to help us schlubs with our shortcomings. Again, I think it comes back to video games with him – Unreal Tournament. He defaults back to that.
I mean, everything he says may be correct, but it’s that whole “if I have not love, my words are vain” and things like this
that he runs up against, as well as Isaiah 55:8-9, Deut 29:29, to list but a few (hence my adbuckingham[dot]com/golfandtheology.html)
Greg, don’t get discouraged, just set goals, and then measure yourself against them. It’s what we do in the corporate world. One day at a time. Baby Steps.
LikeLike
Erik says: “Produce some quotes from someone on the subject of epistemology to back that up.”
Things weren’t expressed in explicitly epistemological terms in the reformed world until Van Til. Because the need didn’t arise until him. It was assumed and is found under girding and woven through the whole edifice until the last bunch of decades. Right when God called Machen to call Van Til to combat it. God’s real good that way ya know. Right on time.
What you will NOT find or we would have seen it here if only just to shut me up, are statement’s like the one’s Sean and sdb have made. Dr. Hart knows that or don’t you think he would have stopped this weeks ago? Like I said above, wouldn’t take much. Here we still are with everything in the world except refutation.
Erik says: “Have you considered that your convincing yourself that you have ironclad arguments on your pet topics has made you unable to listen to reason?”
As soon as somebody (aside from Jeff) gives me some, we’ll find out. None of these topics are my pets. They’ve been around far longer than I have.
Erik asks: “You also have a lot of “I” on your declarations.
Is this about Greg’s glory or Jesus’s glory?”
It is not possible to express this line of thought otherwise. I tell you before Father, Son and Holy Ghost that I pray constantly that I decrease and He increase that I may be an instrument of His righteousness and grace. I’m not the one making this about me.
Erik says: “You seem to have the same “Greg 100, opponents zero” mentality that we’ve run into with some Catholic apologists in the past. That’s not attractive.”
Except for they keep getting solid refutation. I’ve gotten none. I know ya’ll got in ya when possible.
Erik says: “I would think you would have picked up some allies by now.”
If I did, I doubt anybody would be seen publicly agreeing with me against the fixtures on this site. (yet at least) I’m pretty sure Darryl gets this. Contrary to popular belief My dream is not to see the man discredited and run outta the church. Never WAS. That was when I first got here. Just reeks of “pietism” doesn’t it? Even before the new “troubling” thread, I’ve believed God is nudging around in Darryl’s heart. I pray for him and his wife. I’m not out to “get” him. Or anybody else.
Erik asks: “You’re convinced you’ve won, “
I’m convinced I’ve brought God’s truth. That’s not the same as ME winning. HE always wins. I like to be on His side.
Erik asks: “but everyone else has gotten so bored with the conversation that they’ve just moved on.”
And without taking a few minutes and citing a reformed source for Sean and sdb’s uncertain god and gospel. That’s much of today’s church. You told me yourself not to expect sincere engagement on anything meaningful. I’ve been trying to prove you wrong.
Erik asks: “That’s Doug Sowers territory.”
Then so be it. I don’t do or say anything I do or say based on the response I do or do not get. It’s not that I like it that way, but if that’s how is then it is.
LikeLike
I think the reason no one can “refute” you is that you’re not affirming anything consistently. The target keeps moving.
One minute your argument is about epistemology, the next it’s about the WCF.
When we try to pin you down on epistemology you say no one talked about it until Van Til so you can’t cite any sources other than him. If you can’t, how can you expect us to?
When we try to pin you down on the WCF you go back and forth on whether or not it’s important. One minute it’s the most important thing in the Christian religion, the next minute it’s optional.
And what you’re arguing for is certainty?
The Christian faith is about faith and hope, not certainty. Refute that.
LikeLike
Greg,
The point you showed your hand is when you said to me “you don’t understand epistemology”. Well if you don’t understand it well enough to explain it to a simpleton in a convincing way then (1) you don’t understand it either, or (2) It’s really not that helpful.
Tom was pulling the same thing on Transubstantiation. “Well you just don’t understand the Catholic position.” Statements like this in a debate are more akin to surrender than victory.
LikeLike
Greg, thanks for limiting your comments. If you have something of value to share out here, it will become evident over time.
I’ve been dealing with Jason Stellman, for example, for 3+ years and look, the first JJS sighting at OLTS under my watch, so things do happen if you give it time.
Its not up to us, we dont do the work. God does. We merely are faithful stewards and leave the hevay lifting up to God. Calvinism 101 really, restraint and all that, yo. You are improving. You know where to find us.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
I can’t necessarily say that a Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, or Muslim is a fool.
Whoa. One of these is not like the others.
LikeLike
Greg, from today’s reading:
D,
I left out Jew. Monotheists all.
LikeLike
Erik says: “I think the reason no one can “refute” you is that you’re not affirming anything consistently. The target keeps moving.”
This is simply not true Erik, but I understand how it may look that way. I said from day one, I am coming from the standpoint of W-w, which I defined as a comprehensive system of thought, encompassing the major categories of theology, philosophy and ethics. all grown out of the rich soil of WCF I, II and III. The following is copied and pasted from a debate I got into with guy a couple years ago, before I met any of you guys:
“Here is one of the primary problems we’re having Jake. It also largely accounts for our communication troubles. I approach life, indeed reality itself, from the standpoint of “worldview”. A deliberately all consuming and subsuming systematic approach to existence, consisting of theology, philosophy and ethics. I see every particle of knowledge and being as and in it’s role in that system while at once being also a component OF the system as well.
That is anathema to you.
You approach each area and topic of life as if it were what amounts to an independent study in itself. Being informed no more broadly than by a general acceptance of the certainty of a view of logic that quite inconsistently fails to provide you with certainty where it matters most. Or so you mistakenly think. (it won’t do any good to go after this humongous topic right now)
This is why you keep accusing me of failing to answer you. My answers come necessarily within a systematic structure of thought. I MUST build for you a sufficient enough portion of the surrounding system in order for you (or anybody) to properly grasp the individual point that depends on the system for life. You are demanding that I answer you on the basis of your method of thinking wherein individual points live or die on their own with either no or a very deficient reference to the rest of the reality of which they are only one inextricable piece. This is post modern man’s favorite attempted escape from the faith once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude verse 3) It is also tragically being embraced by so called Calvinists with heartbreaking results.”
Erik says: “One minute your argument is about epistemology, the next it’s about the WCF.”
It’s the same argument Erik. Forget the neo-cal culture worshiping definition of W-w and please try to keep in mind what I told Jake. Every particle of knowledge is ultimately defined by every other to one degree or another (THAT would require an essay to explain properly.) The only authentically Christian W-w is beautifully enunciated in seminal form in WCF I, II and III. Every single thought you see me type is in seed form in the God and scriptures of WCF I, II and III.
The divines did not use epistemological language to write their standards, but there before our eyes IS the densest, meatiest statement of Christian theistic epistemology ever to exist in non directly inspired form. Genesis 1:1 is THE meatiest and densest of all.
Erik says: “When we try to pin you down on epistemology you say no one talked about it until Van Til..”
No sir, please see above. EVERYbody talked about it. Pagans too. It is literally impossible to avoid. They just didn’t use explicitly epistemological terms. When Sean and sdb say that the gospel might be a lie and their atheistic workmates might be right, unlikely though that may be, W-w and epistemology are not their immediate intention, BUT that IS a 200 proof statement of epistemology nonetheless. Skeptical unbelieving epistemology spawned from fallen father Adam and not the mind of Christ.
Erik says: “so you can’t cite any sources other than him…”
I can’t cite anybody who are NOT sources for the primary positions I’m advancing here and neither can anybody else. That’s the point. The famous opening statement of Calvin’s Institutes for instance IS epistemology though he didn’t intentionally use the terminology of that category of pre-propositional thought like Van Til did.
Erik says: “If you can’t, how can you expect us to?”
I am asking you to do the opposite of what you are asking me. I have asked for one simple thing with absolute ongoing consistency for weeks now. Not that you find me some documentation in epistemological language like you’re asking me. No, I’m asking for any sign of the skepticism, in ANY terms, that Sean and sdb (and others) have expressed in allowing for the possibility of Genesis 1:1 being false and unbelievers being right. Any sign at all from the scriptures or a noted reformed authority from history. THAT target has never moved once and here we are still waiting. And we will continue waiting for the rest of our natural lives because historic reformed orthodoxy would have been appalled at such a notion, as am I. How hard should it be to come up with a rich representation of this “epistemic humility” if it exists in reformed history or the bible?
Erik says: “When we try to pin you down on the WCF you go back and forth on whether or not it’s important. One minute it’s the most important thing in the Christian religion, the next minute it’s optional.”
Again, you are confusing categories Erik. The epistemology of WCF I, II and III is the foundation and frame of the Christian religion. Differing individual theological points can be added to that foundation and frame while leaving the foundation and frame more or less consistently intact. Without that foundation and frame it is a different religion. Hence Rome.
Erik says: “And what you’re arguing for is certainty?
The Christian faith is about faith and hope, not certainty. Refute that.”
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Does that sound like a statement of uncertainty to you? If that statement is not as true and certain as the God of WCF II there is no faith or hope.
LikeLike
Erik,
Don’t forget that Greg disapproves of your TV watching and stance on it.
He may have other reasons for making you the object of his pile drivers.
That’s 3 folks.
Next
LikeLike
Erik says I say: “I can’t necessarily say that a Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, or Muslim is a fool.”
Where did I say anything even vaguely approaching this Erik?
LikeLike
Greg,
I said that, not you.
What I keep asking you to do that you haven’t done is to list specifically what people are expected to know with certainty.
You’ve said that they should know that God exists and you have said that people shouldn’t necessarily know that everything in the WCF is true. I conclude then, that your answer is somewhere in between those two levels of certainty.
Exactly what are people expected to know with certainty, then?
How about The Apostles Creed?
How about Jesus establishing a Church led by the Pope in Rome?
How about an Angel revealing doctrine to Joseph Smith on gold tablets?
Why or why not on all these?
LikeLike
Greg,
The reason I oppose you on this is that I see the quest for certainty doing more harm than good in religious matters. Exhibit one: Called to Communion. If there is one thing that unites these guys it’s the belief that Roman Catholicism provided a more certain form of Christianity to assuage their epistemological doubts. We walk by faith, not sight, and when we begin to talk about certainty as opposed to faith and hope, we become susceptible to false teachers selling things to satisfy our QIRC. That can be Roman Catholicism or it can be Neocalvinist Worldviewism. Either way, it’s not helpful or healthy.
LikeLike
QIRC – http://heidelblog.net/category/qirc/
LikeLike
Zrim you’re clueless as usual. That piece has nothing to do with me.
Erik you are engaging in yet another spectacular non sequitur and I am disappointed that you appear to be saying that you have been arguing in earnest.
It’ll have to be later though.
LikeLike
Greg, right, you have nothing to do with your own (sincere, longing, to-the-bone, pant-pant-pant) views. Talk about clueless. And this from a presupper to boot.
LikeLike
Greg – Erik you are engaging in yet another spectacular non sequitur and I am disappointed that you appear to be saying that you have been arguing in earnest.
Erik – That’s an ad hom. There are several direct questions to you on the table. I’ll await your answers.
LikeLike
Greg,
What piece?
Zrim is not cw l’unificateur.
LikeLike
Greg’s now resorting to sending me e-mails:
“I am not insulting or attacking you which is why I’m saying this here instead of there. You’re a smart guy, but this is not your thing.”
Ad hom.
Say all you want to me about this topic here in public Greg. I’m a man.
LikeLike
The only question at this point is when Darryl reinstitutes the three comment limit or when Todd shows up to deliver a pious lecture about not picking on the Special Ed kids…
LikeLike
Greg drops in on the OPCGA, he be like, “what’s this I hear about some elders watching HBO?
Changes the world forever
#doesrealitywin?
#gregneedstoliftmoreweights
LikeLike
Greg’s actually on way firmer ground on movies than he is on this stuff. At least he can point to many biblical passages dealing with holy living, fleeing sexual immorality, etc.
On epistemology all he has are a few cryptic verses to use as springboards to some hidden knowledge that only him and Van Til have the superior brainpower to grasp.
#Lame
LikeLike
Erik, there’s no real way to adjudicate in blogs who is right and who isn’t. The only authority is the guy paying the $4/month to keep oldlife dot org running.
What Greg doesn’t get is this is more like twitter and facebook than the stein/bahsen debate. Here, I’ll post all of that blog post from WTS, so that Greg or whomever posts after me will be posting in light of what Dr. Garner says here:
#IagreewithErik #Lame #overmycommentlimit
LikeLike
or the pope of olts himself, of course:
#justablog
LikeLike
Erik; On epistemology all he has are a few cryptic verses to use as springboards to some hidden knowledge that only him and Van Til have the superior brainpower to grasp.
They did release a Bazooka Joe line of comics that dealt with this topic in the 1980s, one could brush up on a few sentences of Van Til groovy-talk in a jiffy. Not sure if the Van Til part was done by the kid with the eyepatch or the one with the turtleneck sweater pulled up too high on his mouth.
LikeLike
More copying and pasting from previous comments it looks like, while what I keep asking sits here unanswered for a few more decades 😉 :
Erik asks: “What I keep asking you to do that you haven’t done is to list specifically what people are expected to know with certainty.”
His Invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature are certainly known by every one of His creatures bearing His image and likeness. Unless “CLEARLY” means “cryptic” to you? He can’t be mistaken for anybody else. Do note that His INVISIBLE attributes are clearly SEEN 😀 Invisible, but seen. Get it? (nudge nudge)
Erik asks: “You’ve said that they should know that [the God of WCF II exists] and you have said that people shouldn’t necessarily know that everything in the WCF is true.”
I revised that for you and yes. For our purposes that is true.
Erik asks: “I conclude then, that your answer is somewhere in between those two levels of certainty.”
See this is what I’m talkin about brother. You don’t get this at all. You have conflated 2 categories. No, there no levels of certainty between which is my answer. The God of WCF II alone is absolutely true and certain at the pre-propositnal ,epistemological level. Individual secondary doctrines in other parts of the confession are not.
Erik asks: “Exactly what are people expected to know with certainty, then?”
His Invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature are certainly known by every one of His creatures bearing His image and likeness. He can’t be mistaken for anybody else.
Erik asks: “How about The Apostles Creed?”
The parts that accurately deal with His Invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature, yes.
Erik asks: “How about Jesus establishing a Church led by the Pope in Rome?”
The parts that accurately deal with God’s Invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature, yes.
Erik asks: “How about an Angel revealing doctrine to Joseph Smith on gold tablets?”
The parts that accurately deal with God’s Invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature, yes.
Erik asks: “Why or why not on all these?”
Guess.
Erik asks: “The reason I oppose you on this is that I see the quest for certainty doing more harm than good in religious matters.”
Again, this is what I mean Erik. You do not understand Christian theistic epistemology at all. Any “certainty” there is a quest for is a lie and has nothing to do with the God of WCF II. There is no and cannot be any quest. He IS certainty itself. His “fingerprint” and signature is on every last particle of His creation and especially man as bearer of His very image and likeness. NObody can avoid the “ground of all being” who IS truth and certainty themselves, no matter how hard they try and boy do they ever. I’m watching it right now.
Erik says: “We walk by faith, not sight, and when we begin to talk about certainty as opposed to faith and hope,”
Erik. Faith is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of it (Hebrews 12:2) By it we understand where everything came from (Hebrews 11:3). Believers are given the mind of Christ, (1 Corinthians 2:16), and made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) so that we can destroy speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, (2 Corinthians 10:5).
God’s gift of faith is not opposed to certainty. It IS certainty because it’s from Him and THAT is out HOPE. You need to get delivered and cleansed from the pollution of Hollywood and renew your mind with some Word and actually reformed theology.
What I am preaching here has NOTHING to do with Roman Catholicism OR Neocalvinist Worldviewism. Nothing whatever. There is your non sequitur. The fact of one group seeking something says nothing about another group’s actually having it or not. And that is not ad hominen argumentation either. Observe.
A) Woody Allen is a degenerate lowlife who has contributed nothing of value to the world.
b) Woody Allen believes that 1+1=2.
c) 1+1 cannot equal 2.
That is an ad hominem argument I have done no such thing to you. If I were to cite your sinful consumption of sinful media as the reason for your points being wrong, like Andrew insists upon falsely alleging of me, THAT would be an ad hominem argument too. I have not done that though.
Erik says: “Greg’s actually on way firmer ground on movies than he is on this stuff.”
Poppycock. Both positions are equally biblical and historic and therefore insurmountable, but this one is actually more important.
Erik says: “On epistemology all he has are a few cryptic verses to use as springboards to some hidden knowledge that only him and Van Til have the superior brainpower to grasp.”
Nothing cryptic here. The truth of God from Gen. to Rev. as most gloriously represented in historic reformed orthodoxy.
BTW, I never implied you were not a man Erik. What I said to you in email was meant to avoid the appearance of condescension if stated publicly. As I said in the second email, this has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence.
LikeLike
Greg,
Just listen:
Beat that, yo. Come get me 😈
LikeLike
Erik,
Wouldn’t it be nice if Greg stopped firing his unreal tournament bazooka at you at turned on the true antagonists of reformed protestantism.
A man can dream..
LikeLike
We did it folks, broke the speedometer, over 20,000 comments on are the CTCers paying attention? threads. Seriously, I wish I could open a bottle of champagne with Bryan Cross right now, to mark the occasion, look at what that man has birthed.
Good work to all the interloctuors over the last 2.5 years who have made this possible since Darryl started analyzing them and taking them on.
It’s been a wild ride, who would of thought that a man by the name of Greg the Terrible would be the one to push us over this ledge. This thread is the one with the most comments of the category, we’re still not up to the 962 on the Bloomington tread about the baylys, through that bloom word into the search feature, look for Andrew B, yeah, I’m on that one too.
Next!
LikeLike
Keller is a culture worshiping idolator, an epistemological lobotomy and a coward. His church is also a groovadelic affront to the gospel. Find somebody else to quote at me please Andrew. I really can’t take the guy.
LikeLike
Greg,
Too bad he’s ordained and you’re not.
I mean, I like you. But he’s a pastor I’m in communion with, and you are a nice guy I am trying to get to stop posting so man comments.
Another day, and other pointless blog discussion, but I like you, and expect to see you around Oldlife a lot more.
You do know what the bible says about calling your brother a fool, right, Greg? Read your words back to yourself and put yourself in Dr. Keller’s shoes. Try it.
LikeLike
Friendly fire.
LikeLike
“Too bad he’s ordained…”
It really is.
LikeLike
Greg,
For all your self aggrandizement, it is now you who is now resorted to cheap tricks.
You are better than this, brother.
LikeLike
Greg, I’m calling you out.
Your language is unbefitting a christian. Stop trolling Darryl’s blog, apologize, or explain what you mean here. You really need to watch how you treat fellow beleivers. Your treatment of Erik here, as well as sean, leaves much to be desired.
What’s with you, man?
LikeLike
Greg,
I think I understanding you better. You affirm Romans 1 – which says that people look at creation and learn basic truths about God. They have enough knowledge from general revelation to be justly condemned for their sin.
Exactly who do you think is opposing you on that?
I don’t see you really affirming much more, although all your bluster about the WCF makes that hard to discern for anybody who isn’t willing to go on and on with you.
LikeLike
This is copied and pasted from a couple pages ago except I changed Jeff’s name to Erik at the beginning end and very slightly altered a couple places for clarity:
——————————————————————————————————————
On page 6 of this very thread I asked the following [Erik]:
“Does sdb recognize that [Gen. 1:1] could be wrong? That’s a question, not an accusation. “
To which sdb responded:
>Yes. I recognize that I could be deluded and my atheist colleagues could be right. I don’t think I am or they are… Do you recognize the possibility that you could be wrong?
That is a direct quote regarding the veracity of Gen 1:1. sir and one which Sean later affirmed and Dr. Hart pretty much did too. I can hear you already trying to construe this so as to place the limitation on himself and not God. No sir. That will not work as quoted above, but you are welcome to try.
Of course a mitigating clarification from these men would be fabulous, but I cannot foresee anything deeper than jokes about porn stars from Sean at least, as he continues to make shallow excuses about why he talks a lot here, but doesn’t say anything. My quote above WAS a clarification from sdb actually. Hart will continue to be silent. Where does this leave us then.
THAT outrageous concession to skepticism is what started me down this path in the first place [Erik]
——————————————————————————————————————-
Do you Erik, with these men, concede to the enemy that Genesis 1:1 might be a delusion and the atheists might be right?
LikeLike
Greg,
If you narrow down what you are affirming like you have with me, I doubt any NAPARC officer will disagree. All 3 of those guys are NAPARC officers. It’s taken weeks to get clear on what you’re affirming.
LikeLike
I asked and said the same thing weeks ago Erik and 20 times since. Seriously.
It can be summed in the single statement I wrote in the previous page.
“A God that might not exist CANNOT exist. The fool has said in his heart “There IS that god”.
This “epistemic humility”, as espoused by at least some residents of this site is the in house “newlife” version of post modern skepticism. All somebody has to do is demonstrate it from the scriptures and or reformed history and I’m done. That can never happen though. Not there and never has been. Ya gotta jump forward to the last few decades of the 20th century. Nobody knows Machen better than Hart. He knows Machen would have regurgitated this.
You really don’t understand the implications if what I’m saying here is true do you? The rest of these guys don’t either. That in itself is a heart rending tragedy. Alllll this (quite legitimate) criticism of Catholicism and ya’ll have the exact same foundation. It’s like watching 2 drowning people fight over who’s the wettest.
LikeLike
“The rest of these guys don’t either.”
The reason I haven’t responded isn’t because there isn’t a good answer, but because you are a liar and a slanderer. I therefore do not take you seriously enough to engage further… pearls before swine and all that.
LikeLike
Greg,
You need to find a way to include some dramatic music with your posts. Maybe “Adagio for Strings”.
These guys are about as good as you’re going to find.
LikeLike
sdb says: “The reason I haven’t responded isn’t because there isn’t a good answer, “
Yes it is. You cannot show me a biblical or historic reformed case for Gen. 1:1 even possibly being delusional and unbelievers being right. If you could you would. It would be a size 16 steel toed boot to my nads and would silence a liar and slanderer right quick wouldn’t it? If any of you could bring that, there is no way you wouldn’t.
Erik says: “You need to find a way to include some dramatic music with your posts. Maybe “Adagio for Strings”.”
Not you too now Erik? Come on man. “Epistemic humility”. Which means the rejection of the alleged arrogance of essential religious certainty. (I cannot even type that with a straight face) Where? Where do we find this concession to unbelieving autonomous man in the scriptures or historic reformed orthodoxy? Please make the next thing you type an answer to THAT question .
Erik says: “These guys are about as good as you’re going to find.”
Define “good” please. If it means the ability to answer a simple question with something more than juvenile joking and name calling after weeks of asking, then I’m regrettably not impressed.
If it means intelligent and educated? I concur. That’s not my point at all. Not even the most frighteningly capable and comprehensively educated minds ever to grace the face of Gods’ green earth can make a falsehood true however.
BTW Erik, I could be wrong, but I think Dr. Hart will hold off on the 3 comment rule as long we stick to one thread and are otherwise sane.
LikeLike
The concept is restraint. It can be broken by posting only 1 comment per day too.
I propose Greg you take your vigilantism and discussion on Facebook or twitter. You and Erik both are on Twitter, so go there as a start, I know the character limitation is a feag, but you can break up your comments (1 of 2, 2 of 2, etc).
As it stands, you force Darryl to be associated with your language, by posting here, which I find foul, and you therefore are more of a troll that an honest seeker of truth or honest desirer to convert Erik to your ways.
LikeLike
*drag
LikeLike
sdb says: “The reason I haven’t responded isn’t because there isn’t a good answer, “
Greg: “Yes it is. You cannot show me a biblical or historic reformed case for Gen. 1:1 even possibly being delusional and unbelievers being right. If you could you would. It would be a size 16 steel toed boot to my nads and would silence a liar and slanderer right quick wouldn’t it? If any of you could bring that, there is no way you wouldn’t.”
P-p-piglet, me(Susan) says : No, the holy scriptures testify that God exists as does creation( so why do we ever doubt?) But Greg, every nation on earth has always believed in a deity. IOW’s atheism is an anomaly. That said, all people of faith( if they do good and seek God, will find him even if their faith culture doesn’t name Him properly or recognize what He has done on our behalf; that is, ( the incarnation, life, death and resurrection( Acts 10:30-39).
Question: There are two men;one who has faith in God, identifies as a Christian because he heard the gospel, has a conversion experience, swearing off all his old sinful habits and from his wayward life etc… wanting sincerely to follow our Lord, yet he could not articulate justification through imputed righteousness( although he should be saved regardless his theological acumen) dies in the arms of a prostitute. The other man heard it in his youth when life was less complicated and believed it until he met poor witnesses to it( found it hypocritical and was forever wounded) yet always believed in God, also dies in the arms of a prostitute. Which one is in the better position before God and why?
Did you happen to listen to that podcast that I shared a few days ago from the convert to Catholicism?
Hope you are well:)
LikeLike
Piglet,
One can never know the state of another’s soul.
You ask weird questions.
LikeLike
Oh AB,
I don’t ask weird questions. Is the person who believed( had a conversion experience) saved in the end regardless if he dies before repenting? That’s not a hard question. I mean, you can’t judge a heart but you can judge an action. So in one sense you’re right, no one knows the state of another’s soul( we can hope he repented before the cardiac arrest), but you can see where that soul was weak and it may have cost him eternity with God. However, if his justification was by faith alone, he needn’t worry and his survivors are comforted too. At least that’s the logic of sola fide. “Well, he was saved by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone” How do we know?
LikeLike
How?
Sola Scriptura.
Or drink the Koolaid?
LikeLike
Rabies Susan
http://adbuckingham.com/paul-tillich-on-rabies-theologorum/
LikeLike
Susan,
Was this a male or female prostitute?
LikeLike
Susan, any estimate of how much longer you’ll be commenting at this blog? You’ve been at it a while now, over 3 years, showing no signs of slowing down
Knock ’em dead, yo.
Next.
LikeLike
Andrew: “As it stands, you force Darryl to be associated with your language, by posting here,”
No he isn’t and what language? I haven’t associated myself with his thought. It’s his site and he knows church history better than anybody. It would be a trivial matter for him to roll his eyes, throw together a quick refutation and settle this.
What if it’s true that this notion of “epistemic humility” actually is a crippling post modern mutilation of the historic reformed doctrine of God like I contend it is? What if that’s true? What’s happening here is the very definition of ad hominem argumentation. My position is not even considered a possibility because I don’t have a degree or ordination.
1) Greg is unordained and uneducated. (He’s obnoxious sometimes too)
2) Greg MUST be wrong by definition and is therefore unworthy of engagement.
I mean how would it look if some pew dwelling dropout were allowed to have a point about something like this? Unthinkable. IF said pew dwelling dropout actually DOES have a point though, then those in opposition are guilty of pharisaic elitism. Reverse ad hominem argumentation whereby men are regarded for who they are over what they say. This could have ended quickly on day one with very little time or effort from any of these men who Erik says are “as good as they come”. They may be and if so it makes their position all the weaker. AND calls into serious question why this may be the case. Men this good should be spot on with something this basic.
There must be a reason they aren’t. It either provides them with something they want or escape from something they don’t or both. It is also untrue that one can never know another’s heart. Not completely and infallibly like God does, but yes we can. That’s another concession to post modern squishy “judge not-ism.” It’s a quick biblical study to lay that to rest.
Susan, I haven’t decided yet whether answering your question would be useful to this discussion which is my criteria here. Contrary to what my antagonists probably assume, I don’t believe that dying in the arms of a prostitute is ipso facto evidence of reprobation.
I am well, thank you and I hope the same for yourself of course. 🙂
LikeLike
Greg, thanks 🙂
What if the answer to all this is in season 5 of the wire?
I’ll finish this show I’m about 1 week, then no more FF of HBO shows, the wire is pretty, pretty, pretty good , by the way.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
knock ’em dead, like Susan is.
LikeLike
Susan, we don’t know much about your hypothetical man, but there are some examples from the Bible that you could weigh in on. Take David and Peter. If David had died in the arms of Bathsheba would he have been damned? If Peter was slain by a rogue with a sword after denying Christ, would he have been damned?
Start with Peter.
LikeLike
“believed the gospel ….until ….he met poor witnesses to it (but not thinking that it included himself) and found it hypocritical”
Jesus: some people trust in themselves and some say, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’
LikeLike
Piglet,
If you prefer talking Winnie The Pooh instead of Hobbit, I’m well versed there too.
LikeLike
“Flight of the Valkyries” much more appropriate for His Turribleness.
LikeLike
Or possibly (for the title if nothing else) “Die FledermausFledermaus.”
LikeLike
Greg,
You live in a pew?
What happened to the van down by the Detroit river?
LikeLike
Piglet,
This one goes out to you:
LikeLike
I’m sure with Piglet, Mermaid, and Bearded Spock, there’s nothing they can’t achieve. 500 year old split in the world’s largest religion, separating Xtians almost by half in both sides?
No problem.
Next comment please.
LikeLike
AB,
Has it been three years? I only became Catholic two years ago. Yes, I shouldn’t be commenting here. It’s a men’s locker room…..or it feels that way. Hope you know my joking manner by now and there are no harsh feelings. I like you, Andrew. Have a good day!
This is for Greg and anyone else interested in learning what the Gospel message is.
http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/search/label/Monocausalism
LikeLike
Not you, Piglet?
Susan,
I never take theology blogs seriously
What Arguing Theology Online With Fellow Believers Should Feel Like https://shar.es/126aIR via @sharethis
LikeLike
While I like some of the choices you have made for Greg’s posting music, I tend to prefer listening to some good Mariachi while reading his posts.
LikeLike
Sorry for the extra “Fledermaus.”
LikeLike
The analogy to treating the blogging and commenting like Unreal Tournament seems appropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament
The game play experienced there has just moved onto theological blogs instead of the video game screen (complete with teammates and all):
Game types
Deathmatch: A classic every-man-for-himself player vs. player combat. The objective is to out-frag all opposing players.
Team Deathmatch: Teams compete together to out-frag the opponent team. Like Capture the Flag and Domination in this version—and unlike subsequent releases—four teams were allowed: Red, Blue, Green and Gold.
Domination: Teams compete to control various control points to earn points and win the map. Standard maps contain three control points. Control of these points is initially accomplished through occupation (physically occupying the space), but control of a point continues until a player from another team occupies the space. The more control points one team controls, the faster it gains points.
Last Man Standing: Similar to Deathmatch, the objective here is to remain alive longer than your opponents, putting an emphasis on number of deaths rather than kills. Players start with all weapons available, fully loaded, and have a set number of lives. Power-ups, including health and ammunition packs, are unavailable. Once a player runs out of lives they lose and have to wait as spectators until the match ends.
Assault: This game type is played with two opposing teams, one assaulting a “base” and the other defending it. The map is set up with a number of objectives which the attacking team must complete (usually in sequence) such as destroying something, entering an area, triggering a button, et cetera. The team who first attacks then defends, and attempts to defend for the entire time they attacked. If they can accomplish this, they win the map. If the team defending first assaults the base faster than the other team, they win the map. If both teams defend for the maximum amount of time the map is a tie.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Hey, you’re right. August will be our three year anniversary 😉 Yuh, it’s about time I left this relationship. The plants won’t die.
LikeLike
Jed, lonely bull (in a china shop).
LikeLike
The analogy to treating the blogging and commenting like Unreal Tournament seems appropriate.
Nert Alert!!!!
BTW, well played CT, I loved it.
LikeLike
I’m not giving up.
———————–
Andrew: “As it stands, you force Darryl to be associated with your language, by posting here,”
No he isn’t and what language? I haven’t associated myself with his thought. It’s his site and he knows church history better than anybody. It would be a trivial matter for him to roll his eyes, throw together a quick refutation and settle this.
What if it’s true that this notion of “epistemic humility” actually is a crippling post modern mutilation of the historic reformed doctrine of God like I contend it is? What if that’s true? What’s happening here is the very definition of ad hominem argumentation. My position is not even considered a possibility because I don’t have a degree or ordination.
1) Greg is unordained and uneducated. (He’s obnoxious sometimes too)
2) Greg MUST be wrong by definition and is therefore unworthy of engagement.
I mean how would it look if some pew dwelling dropout were allowed to have a point about something like this? Unthinkable. IF said pew dwelling dropout actually DOES have a point though, then those in opposition are guilty of pharisaic elitism. Reverse ad hominem argumentation whereby men are regarded for who they are over what they say. This could have ended quickly on day one with very little time or effort from any of these men who Erik says are “as good as they come”. They may be and if so it makes their position all the weaker. AND calls into serious question why this may be the case. Men this good should be spot on with something this basic.
There must be a reason they aren’t. It either provides them with something they want or escape from something they don’t or both. It is also untrue that one can never know another’s heart. Not completely and infallibly like God does, but yes we can. That’s another concession to post modern squishy “judge not-ism.” It’s a quick biblical study to lay that to rest.
Susan, I haven’t decided yet whether answering your question would be useful to this discussion which is my criteria here. Contrary to what my antagonists probably assume, I don’t believe that dying in the arms of a prostitute is ipso facto evidence of reprobation.
LikeLike
Greg, off to eat mexican food that my wife is serving up, i’ll read your comment later.
LikeLike
My position is not even considered a possibility because I don’t have a degree or ordination.-Yep.
Pharisaical elitism-Susan
Men this good-sean
Squishy not judge-ism-chorts
1) Greg is unordained and uneducated. (He’s obnoxious sometimes too) and is therefore unworthy of engagement.
This could have ended quickly-Jeff likes to extend things out.
There must be a reason they aren’t.-Muddy. It’s the pills and booze and the horrible women that come with the pills and booze.
LikeLike
guys
http://www.presbyterianchurch.us/index.php/locations
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑awesome link↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
LikeLike
Greg,
Did you finish LSAP?
Are you a fan?
That’s DGH’s best behind RMK, IMHO.
BRB
TTYL
LikeLike
I’ve had it with your smug know-it-alllism.
It’s pills OR booze.
LikeLike
If you die in the arms of a prostitute, did you really get your money’s worth, or are you due a refund?
Tough call.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted June 7, 2015 at 12:36 pm | Permalink
Susan,
I never take theology blogs seriously
You certainly make Darryl Hart and Old Life look like a joke.
Susan
Posted June 7, 2015 at 2:57 pm | Permalink
Andrew,
Hey, you’re right. August will be our three year anniversary Yuh, it’s about time I left this relationship. The plants won’t die.
Not plants, exactly, Susan. Cheers.
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’
Great link, BTW. Too many words for this crowd, though. Short Attention Span religion. 😉
http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/search/label/Monocausalism
LikeLike
Bearded spock,
Your agonizer, please.
LikeLike
Hey, enablers: Greg sure seems to write about Greg a lot. Meaning you don’t have to.
LikeLike
BeardedSpockFailsAgain:
You guys are going to need someone else to take this thread over 963 comments and beat the one that even ol Andrew Buckingham chimed in on in September 2012. Susan and I are out.
Tom, I enjoy how you try to appeal to my sense of guilt that somehow I make this blog worse. You really are clueless, never change, amigo. With that..
next comment please.
LikeLike
cw l’unificateur
Hey, enablers: Greg sure seems to write about Greg a lot. Meaning you don’t have to.
Only because THEY do. They persist in making any point they can’t answer about me. Including you. You’re doing it right now. If you’ll look honestly, you’ll See I’m almost always responding to somebody’s immature diversion when talking about myself. Take a look.
I’m waiting for an answer to a really simple question. I’ll never get it. Because despite sdb’s fallacious assertion to the contrary, there isn’t one. That won’t stop 21st century idolators from worshiping their false gods of anti-christian intellectualism though. Ya’ll couldn’t care less about God’s truth. (the one’s I’m dealing with here in this discussion anyway) What a pathetic shelled out caricature of the religion handed down from Westminster.
Instead of coming back with another idiotic meaningless jab, why don’t you take a stab at an answer? I just told you why not.
LikeLike
Tom,
What did you like about Bryan’s article?
LikeLike
If you look past the chaff, Greg does have a valid question: Does anyone here call Romans 1 into question by saying that people have a valid excuse for not recognizing that the God of the Bible exists?
Set aside your pride and answer the man one way or another.
LikeLike
Erik, no.
It’s unreal tournament, see Chris Townsend.
As for prots/caths, just cite monty python.
#samestuffdifferentday
LikeLike
just read the comments in the disqus thread
http://www.drunkexpastors.com/podcast-36-safe-sex-solo-sex-and-a-bunch-of-other-kinds-of-sex/
arguing condoms at the drunk website had to be the most fun i’ve had in the blogosphere since finding all you jokers.
nothing will top that, not even going on Jason’s show, it was nice of him to extend the offer.
Greg, would you go on DrunkExPastors and share your opinions with them?
You are firing friendly fire. You are lost. Repent and live.
Next comment please.
LikeLike
Greg squaring off with Christian on the existence of God and Jason on movies would actually be quite entertaining. You should contact them, Greg.
LikeLike
Go Golden State Warriors.
who’s next?
LikeLike
I appreciate that Erik. I really do, but it ain’t just Romans 1.
========================================
Andrew for the last time, this is NOT a game of any kind to me. It has nothing to do with UT or my trying to personally win anything. If that’s the case for you, then fine brother. It’s not for me. I have a well considered purpose in every line I type on any site.
LikeLike
AB
Posted June 7, 2015 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
You guys are going to need someone else to take this thread over 963 comments and beat the one that even ol Andrew Buckingham chimed in on in September 2012. Susan and I are out.
Tom, I enjoy how you try to appeal to my sense of guilt that somehow I make this blog worse. You really are clueless, never change, amigo. With that..
next comment please.
Darryl’s a joke, his blog is a joke, you’re a joke, your religion’s a joke. Don’t feel guilty about exposing the truth as you see it.
Darryl doesn’t mind. He clearly approves of your antics. I’m light as a feather, bro. Don’t you worry about me.
Erik Charter
Posted June 7, 2015 at 5:22 pm | Permalink
Tom,
What did you like about Bryan’s article?
Erik, I spent half an hour on a sincere reply on the last topic, about what the Pew poll might mean. You ignored it almost in toto, then you joined in the clown act with Andrew and Darryl.
I gave you sincerity, but you can’t have it both ways.
In between all the meadow muffins, legit discussion happens here. There are a few people who take the serious things seriously. You just have to decide whether you want to be with the wheat or the tares. You want to be one of the clowns, I can hang with that. I think that’s where your heart lies, although I was fooled into thinking you changed there a little while back.
But not really. 😉
LikeLike
Erik, they invited anyone.
And I bet the drunks would have him on.
Greg, if he (Read: you) has an IQ in double digits (which you do, you are actually highly intelligent IMHO), would not go on their show.
Just like politicians should not have gone on waldo’s show. 15 Million Merits was still better.
next
LikeLike
Greg,
O.K. Whatever you want a response to, you need to state it clearly and without jargon or baggage. Try stating again in a simple sentence what you want these guys to either affirm or deny.
LikeLike
Tom,
Our religion is a joke?
The joke is the guy without a religion telling religionists their religion is a joke.
Actually, none of this is funny, and you don’t have a clue.
Next.
LikeLike
Tom,
What’s with hostile Tom today?
You need a Sunday nap.
Try your argument again from yesterday if you think I misunderstood it. I don’t believe fractured Protestantism is worse than theologically incorrect Catholicism. If Catholicism is declining, I think that is a good thing. People can do better.
LikeLike
twelve reasons not to argue with bearded spock
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/twelve-reasons-why-i-never-argue-with-internet-atheists
Twelve Reasons Why I Never Argue With Internet Atheists
May 22, 2015 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
Businessmen fightingSome atheists trying to pick a fight with padre, but I never argue with atheists
Here’s why:
1. Most of the internet atheists I’ve come across are ignorant – I don’t mean they’re stupid necessarily, or that they are bad people. I don’t even mean they are uneducated in their particular field, but most of them are ignorant when it comes to religion. By this I mean they just don’t know stuff. I don’t blame them for that, I’m ignorant about rocket science, how to do a brake job on a car, the rules of cricket and micro biology and a pile of other stuff. However, religion is one of the areas I do know something about so it’s difficult arguing with people who think they know it all about religion, but don’t.
2. Most of the internet atheists are “religion blind” the way a person might be color blind – Arguing religion with this kind of atheist is like expecting a color blind person to be an art critic. Furthermore, many of them are “religion blind” but think they’re not. Tough one.
3. Arguing religion doesn’t work – This is also why I don’t argue with Protestants, Buddhists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Moonies or members of the Church of the Four Square Gospel of the Sixth Revision. For a person to understand and connect with religion they have to go on an honest search themselves and really seek the answers. “Seek and you shall find” and all that. Arguments don’t really fit with that model. However, if a person–any person is an honest enquirer and wants to learn more about religion I’ll spend all the time in the world trying to point the way.
4. There are better debaters out there – Sometimes argument works for some people if they are really searching for an answer and want to have an honest discussion. I think there are many good natured atheists out there who do want to argue in an open minded and intelligent fashion. They should connect with a website like Strange Notions run by my friend Brandon Vogt. He’s set up an excellent site where people can conduct good tempered, rational conversations about God and religion.
5. I’m not that convinced about the usefulness of the “arguments” for God – Sure, I know the arguments and can explain them if I need to, but the whole religious-God thing is so much larger than intellectual arguments. For me it’s a bigger adventure and a grander love affair. The arguments for the existence of God boil the whole thing down to an intellectual game and I find that unsatisfying. It’s kind of like arguing about the existence of music. I’d rather listen to the symphony and invite another person to join me.
6. Evidence? What Evidence? Very often atheists will ask for “evidence” for the existence of God, but I have never been able to ascertain from any of them what they mean by evidence. Do they want scientific evidence of the sort you produce in a laboratory? Archeological evidence? Documentary evidence? Historical evidence? Eyewitness evidence? Contemporary sociological evidence? Psychological evidence? Forensic evidence? I can provide all those kinds of evidence that points to the existence of God, but whenever one produces such evidence the atheist disputes the evidence. Interested in evidence? You tell me what kind of evidence you want and I’ll try to provide it. None have. Meh. Fuhgeddaboudit.
7. I’m called to produce first hand evidence – The most astounding evidence for the existence of God is the work he does in the lives of real people. He turns them into super humans we call saints. I’m trying to get to that place in my own life and thus produce irrefutable evidence of God’s existence–proof that will convince the people who meet me and who are touched by God through my life. That’s hard work and I’m still climbing that mountain. If I ever get to that point, then my life, I hope, will be my greatest argument for the existence of God for those who have eyes to see.
8. Many atheists aren’t atheists at all – One of the reasons I don’t argue with atheists is because many of them aren’t even atheists. They’re just people who hate religion or maybe they are rebelling against the dumb religion they were brought up in, or for good reasons have rejected religion because of bad, mad or stupid religious people. I don’t blame them for doing so. They’re often more honest, up front and articulate in their rejection of religion than many of the people who accept religion without thinking. It’s just that they’re not atheists. They call themselves atheists, but they’re really anti-religionists.
9. I usually don’t believe in the God they don’t believe in – When I sometimes do get down to talking to atheists and ask what they think God is, I find that I don’t believe in that God either. So they reject a God who is the big grandaddy in the sky who gives his children stuff when they’re good and smacks them when they’re bad. Or maybe they think God is like Zeus or Thor or some such and they don’t believe in that God. Neither do I.
10. There’s often a lot of rage, vulgarity and dumb stuff you have to wade through – Why do atheists think it’s so smart to say stuff like, “Oh, you believe in talking snakes do you?” That sort of wisecrack only shows their own ignorance of ancient cultures, religious language, literature in general, symbolism, types of literary genre, human psychology etc. I certainly wouldn’t mind if they picked up on some of the absurdities, hypocrisies and idiotic things in religion, but why can’t they do a better job of it? When these “arguments” are combined with aggression, arrogance, rude behavior, vulgarity and an amazing lack of any sense of humor it makes any discussion a rather unpleasant and pointless experience.
11. My religion is precious to me I actually believe what I believe and try to live my whole life around it. It’s something that is, as I grow older, precious, fragile and dear to me. It’s like an old Chinese vase that I have inherited from my ancestors. It is easily broken, soiled and marred. I would prefer not to bring it out for people who think it’s nothing more than a piss pot to use for target practice.
12, Atheism is dull – Atheists themselves may be exciting, charming, entertaining and vivacious people. It is not the atheists I object to as much as atheism. I say it is dull because it is, at its essence, it is a negation and a denial. There can be nothing festive about it. There can be nothing intriguing or mysterious about it. It is not fecund. It is a reduction not an addition. It is a negative not a positive. It is something empty, not full. I wrote further about this earlier this week here. It is therefore as motivating as a yawn… and as interesting.
LikeLike
Tom,
I think the fundamental disconnect is that you primarily see the Christian religion as being good for society and are for the most part unconcerned with the particulars. I see the Christian religion being primarily concerned with the life to come and am only secondarily concerned with its impact on society. We’ve never been able to get beyond that from day one.
LikeLike
AB
Posted June 7, 2015 at 5:38 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Our religion is a joke?
The joke is the guy without a religion telling religionists their religion is a joke.
Actually, none of this is funny, and you don’t have a clue.
Next.
I don’t even need to dispute Darryl’s pontifications anymore. You make a joke out of him and his blog. Keep up the good work.
Erik Charter
Posted June 7, 2015 at 5:40 pm | Permalink
Tom,
What’s with hostile Tom today?
You need a Sunday nap.
Tom’s not hostile. Tom’s calling out Darryl’s new low, mocking nice Catholic ladies and their church, and letting his henchman make Old Life look more stupid than it ever has.
Its debasement and depravity is far beyond my poor power to add or detract. 😉
Try your argument again from yesterday if you think I misunderstood it.
You didn’t misunderstand it as much as drive around it. And I’m not going to expend anymore good will on you until you stop clowning.
I don’t believe fractured Protestantism is worse than theologically incorrect Catholicism. If Catholicism is declining, I think that is a good thing. People can do better.
I wasn’t really getting into what is “theologically correct or incorrect.” Such broad strokes are a waste of time. I was noting that Protestantism is at theological war with itself.
You can leave Catholicism out of it–and you should. This would cut to the heart of the matter.
LikeLike
Tom,
Are you 17?
LikeLike
Tom – I was noting that Protestantism is at theological war with itself.
Erik – I don’t necessarily dispute that, if you define “protestantism” as any Christian church that is not the Roman Catholic Church.
“war” is a bit strong, as there is plenty of cooperation to go along with the disputes.
You may have a point if you ask why Darryl posts more on Catholics than he does, say, Southern Baptists or United Methodists. He does post on the latter some, though.
Reading about what theological liberals are doing is really not that interesting UNLESS they are doing it inside a hierarchy that purports to be theologically conservative. That is the case with Roman Catholicism, which is why there is so much fodder for comment.
What you won’t do, however, is dig into the disputes between conservative protestants and conservative protestants, and these are interesting disputes. Until you take the Bible and theology seriously for your own life it just won’t have an appeal to you. That’s too bad.
You may never get to THE answer on these disputes, but in thinking about them you become a more informed Christian and hopefully get closer to the truth in your own relationship with God.
LikeLike
Tom,
If you’re seriously mad or upset, maybe just step away for a week, get refreshed, and come back. You ask good questions and I don’t want to see you bitter or disillusioned. No one’s paying you to be here and you shouldn’t be here out of anger or frustration. Life’s too short.
LikeLike
General service reminder
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/05/05/social-media-obsession-costing-some-people-their-marriage/
) — Some people get so obsessed with social media, it can cost them their marriage.
Divorce because of Facebook, or Twitter is a growing problem. CBS 2’s Mike Parker found out why.
Shari, then married with two kids, says she got hooked on Facebook five or six years ago. She was trying to build up an event planning business.
“I was spending sometimes 4 or 5 hours a day…when I should have been cooking dinner or reading to my kids or watching a movie with my husband or just talking to my husband.”
She began to post picture after picture of herself, acquired 5,000 Facebook friends and a thousand followers. Gradually, her husband discovered she was trading messages with ex-boyfriends. The battles began.
“Okay so you dated this guy… and you’re friends with him? And you’re messaging him?” Shari said.
The marriage ended. It’s not the only one. A growing number of divorcing spouses blame social media for playing a part in their divorce. A survey by Censuswide suggests its one divorce in seven.
“That sounds very low to me to be honest,” said divorce lawyer Christine Svenson. “The social media seems to crop up in at least half of my divorce cases.”
Shari is still working to tame her obsession.
“Believe it or not, I went almost a whole two weeks without really looking at it or posting anything.” I kept pulling my hair and biting my nails.”
Consider this recent Chicago divorce tale: A man told his wife he was going to Michigan to visit his mother. His wife found his picture that weekend on Facebook in Las Vegas with his girlfriend.
LikeLike
General service reminder
http://rt.com/uk/261169-facebook-status-linked-depression/#sthash.mR37AoUt.dpuf
Insecure, narcissistic people more likely to post on Facebook – report
Published time: May 22, 2015 18:21
Edited time: May 25, 2015 11:32 Get short URL
(Reuters / Dado Ruvic)
(Reuters / Dado Ruvic)
Tags
History, Mass media, SciTech, Social networks, UK
People suffering from low self-esteem are more likely to post their relationship status on Facebook, a new study has found.
A report from Brunel University, published Friday, found that the popular Facebook “relationship status” feature was used by individuals with low self-esteem to generate attention to distract from their own feelings.
“People with low self-esteem are more likely to see the advantage of self-disclosing on Facebook rather than in person,” the report said.
However, rather than providing a boost of self-confidence, the romantic status posts “tend to be perceived as less likeable,” it added.
Data collected from a sample of 555 Facebook users took into account the frequency with which users engaged with the social network, whether or not they were involved in a relationship and the amount of time they spent checking Facebook.
“Sixty-five percent of participants were currently involved in a romantic relationship, and 34 percent had at least one child,” the report said.
A total of 57 percent checked Facebook on a daily basis, and spent an average of 108 minutes a day actively using it, it added.
Read more
Challenging beauty myth: Aussie Down syndrome teen inspires army of online fans
The report also found that “narcissists” were likely to post about their achievements, rather than relationships, “indicating that narcissists’ boasting may be reinforced by the attention they crave.”
They were also more likely to post about health and fitness regimes “suggesting that they use Facebook to broadcast the effort they put into their physical appearance,” the report said.
Psychology lecturer Dr Tara Marshall, from Brunel University London, said: “It might come as little surprise that Facebook status updates reflect people’s personality traits. However, it is important to understand why people write about certain topics on Facebook because their updates may be differentially rewarded with ‘likes’ and comments.”
“People who receive more likes and comments tend to experience the benefits of social inclusion, whereas those who receive none feel ostracized,” she said.
“Although our results suggest that narcissists’ bragging pays off because they receive more likes and comments to their status updates, it could be that their Facebook friends politely offer support while secretly disliking such egotistical displays,” Marshall said.
“Greater awareness of how one’s status updates might be perceived by friends could help people to avoid topics that annoy more than they entertain.”
In the past, the links between usage of social media and emotional stability have been exploited by advertisers and social networks alike.
In July 2014, it was revealed that Facebook was performing manipulative social experiments on unknowing users.
The social media giant changed the information posted on 689,000 users’ home pages and discovered it was able to influence the way users felt via “emotional contagion.”
In their study, conducted with academics from Cornell University and the University of California, Facebook altered the levels of positive and negative “emotional content.”
This approach subtly changed users’ views so they found themselves posting more positive or negative content, depending on levels of exposure.
Activists criticized these social experiments as “scandalous,”“spooky”and“disturbing.”
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 7, 2015 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
Tom – I was noting that Protestantism is at theological war with itself.
Erik – I don’t necessarily dispute that, if you define “protestantism” as any Christian church that is not the Roman Catholic Church.
“war” is a bit strong, as there is plenty of cooperation to go along with the disputes.
You may have a point if you ask why Darryl posts more on Catholics than he does, say, Southern Baptists or United Methodists. He does post on the latter some, though.
Reading about what theological liberals are doing is really not that interesting UNLESS they are doing it inside a hierarchy that purports to be theologically conservative. That is the case with Roman Catholicism, which is why there is so much fodder for comment.
What you won’t do, however, is dig into the disputes between conservative protestants and conservative protestants, and these are interesting disputes.
Actually, I lay out of them, although I read them. They get just as ugly as Old Life’s attacks on catholicism.
Which is why I use the word “war,” and why I say you don’t need to discuss Catholicism to justify your own religion. You left in the 1500s. Why you’re still bitching at your ex-wife after 500 years, i have no idea. 😉
Until you take the Bible and theology seriously for your own life it just won’t have an appeal to you. That’s too bad. You may never get to THE answer on these disputes, but in thinking about them you become a more informed Christian and hopefully get closer to the truth in your own relationship with God.
I read. I think. I take it all very seriously, more than the clown act does. You know that’s a fact, Erik. Scoring cheap points for Jesus is depraved.
Erik Charter
Posted June 7, 2015 at 6:02 pm | Permalink
Tom,
If you’re seriously mad or upset, maybe just step away for a week, get refreshed, and come back. You ask good questions and I don’t want to see you bitter or disillusioned. No one’s paying you to be here and you shouldn’t be here out of anger or frustration. Life’s too short.
Not mad or upset atall. You were the one who was angry when you left in a huff here some weeks back. Me, I’m fascinated by the depths some people will sink to for the sake of their “Christianity.”
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Mrs. Webfoot is giving them some serious correction here. And she’s showing you how this love works, all in the face of abuse and mockery.
Thank you for not clowning.
LikeLike
Greg, since you’ve been here, you’ve basically stood for two things. First, you’re the bestest because you don’t watch television or movies. Second, notwithstanding that most here have taken vows that we believe in the God of the Bible, you are the bestest because you say it’s logically impossible for God not to exist. Your bombast can be entertaining but only Sean could talk about just two things for ever and still be interesting. But even he doesn’t try it.
LikeLike
Tom,
It’s a little hard to take Mrs. Webfoot completely seriously.
First, because she goes by “Mrs, Webfoot”.
Second, because she herself has her moments of aggressiveness and being disrespectful.
Third, because anyone who comes here knows what they are getting into.
No making martyrs out of anyone here, please.
If she makes a specific argument that you think is cogent, by all means highlight it. I haven’t been any more or less impressed with her than Susan, though. That’s not a put down of either of them. It’s pretty garden variety recent Catholic convert stuff, though.
LikeLike
Erik, when we get Tom riled up like that, we’re at the heart of what’s going on with him.
He called our religion a joke. He officially has denounced us, and is forever ponyboy.
Enjoy your continued existence as an outside pundit, Mr Van Dyke, with no dog in the fight. Enjoy that no one will listen to a thing you say, good or no.
At least you are always good for a chuckle.
Next.
LikeLike
I could listen to nothing more than Sean talking about Speedy Mart and his experiences in Catholic Seminary and be completely satisfied.
LikeLike
Tom,
I’ll share some things I learned from that episode that may be valuable for others.
(1) Keep things between the lines. Don’t delve into people’s personal lives, even if they have volunteered that information or put it online. You’ll provoke a strong response — probably stronger than you want to deal with.
(2) Don’t go after people who are not going after you or are not seeking to be a part of the conversation.
(3) Don’t try to develop “allies” – people who you will owe something to or think owe something to you. Be civil to everyone and don’t expect any more than that in return. Keep it public and don’t try to develop relationships that extend beyond the forum.
If you stick to these things, you can learn a lot from the medium and get a lot of entertainment besides.
As far as your comments go, I do think Darryl violates (2) a bit too much for comfort. Bryan & Jason aren’t here any more. Neither is Mark Jones or Tim Keller. The more the person seeks to make themselves a public figure, the more I get it, though.
LikeLike
AB
Posted June 7, 2015 at 6:35 pm | Permalink
Erik, when we get Tom riled up like that, we’re at the heart of what’s going on with him.
He called our religion a joke. He officially has denounced us, and is forever ponyboy.
No, you make your religion a joke. And Darryl a joke, and his blog a joke.
Erik Charter
Posted June 7, 2015 at 6:35 pm | Permalink
Tom,
It’s a little hard to take Mrs. Webfoot completely seriously.
First, because she goes by “Mrs, Webfoot”.
Second, because she herself has her moments of aggressiveness and being disrespectful.
Third, because anyone who comes here knows what they are getting into.
No making martyrs out of anyone here, please.
If she makes a specific argument that you think is cogent, by all means highlight it.
The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.-Gal 5:6
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.-1 Cor 13:13
She has, despite the abuse and mockery. You remain without ears to hear. It would be better if you just stay honest and stick with the clown act.
I haven’t been any more or less impressed with her than Susan, though. That’s not a put down of either of them. It’s pretty garden variety recent Catholic convert stuff, though.
That speaks well of garden variety Catholic converts, then. In the face of supercilious clowns, they remain kind, they are loving. The difference is obvious to anyone but you.
Third, because anyone who comes here knows what they are getting into.
I take that back. It’s obvious to you too.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 7, 2015 at 6:58 pm | Permalink
Tom,
I’ll share some things I learned from that episode that may be valuable for others.
(1) Keep things between the lines. Don’t delve into people’s personal lives, even if they have volunteered that information or put it online. You’ll provoke a strong response — probably stronger than you want to deal with.
(2) Don’t go after people who are not going after you or are not seeking to be a part of the conversation.
(3) Don’t try to develop “allies” – people who you will owe something to or think owe something to you. Be civil to everyone and don’t expect any more than that in return. Keep it public and don’t try to develop relationships that extend beyond the forum.
If you stick to these things, you can learn a lot from the medium and get a lot of entertainment besides.
As far as your comments go, I do think Darryl violates (2) a bit too much for comfort. Bryan & Jason aren’t here any more. Neither is Mark Jones or Tim Keller. The more the person seeks to make themselves a public figure, the more I get it, though.
Thx. That would reduce the clown act to one comment a day. Good luck with that. 😉
LikeLike
Tom,
Nice save. We know you love us.
You are among my favorite tweeps (read: twitter followers).
Never change, I mean that.
Fore.
LikeLike
Tom, stop copying the whole comment.
It makes you a troll.
Whoever gets comment #964 should have balloons fall down and confetti and $50 amazon gift card.
That will make this thread the one with the most comments at olts.
Good work all around. Couldn’t have done it without each of you.
Here’s hoping piglet is the one that breaks the camels back
Next.
PS
Tom I could not do damage to the church founded by machen, try as I may. Its that good, and you know it. I wont make a dent in what God is.doing with presbyism and neither will you.
Darryl though is a mover and a shaker. His impact will be felt for many years after he breathes his last. I hope his cats continue on the legacy.
Who’s next? Susan, penny for your thoughts?
LikeLike
Tom,
I thought you didn’t like dueling bible verses?
Yet you’re impressed when Mrs. Webfoot does it?
I don’t get it.
If Andrew is under your skin, you probably shouldn’t be judging everyone else in light of him, any more than we should judge you based on _________ Catholic apologist who has irritated us.
Andrew is Sweden on a bender. He’s beyond anyone’s control.
LikeLike
As for the clown act around here, Erik, they’re your allies not mine. Your problem, not mine. And some of you are indeed aiding and abetting.
Among those who do not, I think Mike Mc and Michael behave themselves just fine. So does Cletus, so do Zrim and SDB. The Catholic ladies are exemplary. Even Mr. Turrible was rather within bounds until the harassment drove him a bit over. I took his Thunderballs act more in good fun than self-delusion. I mean, look at his screenname.
But the clown act reflects on Old Life and the ideas contained herein. If that’s the way Darryl wants it, it’s his lookout. Your choice is how much you want to associate yourself with it. Now, to the substance:
Erik Charter
Posted June 7, 2015 at 7:09 pm | Permalink
Tom,
I thought you didn’t like dueling bible verses?
Yet you’re impressed when Mrs. Webfoot does it?
I don’t get it.
There is no duel. There’s a difference between a Biblical concept and verse-slinging. Do you agree with these Biblical concepts?
The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.-Gal 5:6
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.-1 Cor 13:13
If you want to argue with them, then argue with them. Of course since you’re a sola scripturist, you’d be arguing the Bible against itself. The atheists do that, but I don’t see why you would want to.
Mrs. Webfoot [who remains pseudonymous because lines of privacy and decency get crossed here at Old Life] is saying that Christian love is foremost. This agrees with Paul; it agrees with the Two Great Commandments.
The CCC was the first thing that came up, coincidentally [?].
This is not verse-slinging. This is the whole of the law. This is what Mrs. Webfoot is reminding Old Life. Let them mock away. The joke is on them.
LikeLike
Chorts, it’s your fault. I blame you. You chimed in with the soundtrack of your contribution, contribution. I wasn’t responsible after that. How’s Amish holding up? I think in keeping with the Cav’s and Greg’s condition, I would like to suggest, Under Pressure by Queen and Bowie. It’ll annoy Greg, stays with the post on living with uncertainty, indirectly brings in Caitlyn(see Freddie or David-particularly the Stardust years) and gives a nod to the greatest white rapper of all time, Vanilla Ice. That’s four for the money.
Erik, SpeedyMart is good times. I still want to be there when they sell the clear dice and the EPT to the same person. If Walmart is spectacular, SpeedyMart is urban chic.
LikeLike
Erik,
I am bound by my confessional vows, Scripture, and my conscience.
You or anyone:
Come get me.
LikeLike
Tom – As for the clown act around here, Erik, they’re your allies not mine. Your problem, not mine.
Erik – As mentioned above, I don’t particularly consider anyone an ally or an enemy. People are people and are a mix of good ideas and bad ideas. They also have good moods and bad moods and good days and bad days.
Tom – Even Mr. Turrible was rather within bounds until the harassment drove him a bit over. I took his Thunderballs act more in good fun than self-delusion. I mean, look at his screenname.
Erik – I share your assessment. I don’t mind Greg. I like how he can take a punch as well as deliver one. He needs to be careful, though, as many of his accusations border on slander and are not fitting for a Christian.
Tom – Mrs. Webfoot is saying that Christian love is foremost.
Erik – But what is the application of that concept that you are looking at in particular? Would anyone here disagree with that notion in theory?
If your point is that she is loving to people and people aren’t loving to her, I get that somewhat. I don’t appreciate the smug, self-satisfied demeanor of some of the commenters here. It’s antithetical to Christian humility and character. As noted before, though, she dishes it out herself so she needs to be able to take it.
LikeLike
Andrew,
If Tom is a guy who is not a professing Christian, why would you expect Christian maturity and conduct from him?
Is the best way to deal with him to constantly try to get under his skin or to deal with him in good faith, even when he misunderstands you or even insults you?
You need to have a higher standard for yourself.
I know I told you to irritate him pre-crisis, but I rescind that. Treat him with respect and who knows what might happen.
LikeLike
My understanding, Erik, is you are still bound by your subscription vows as am I.
I am with Greg that your choice of shows betrays your vow to heidelberg:
My biggest weakness is listening to DGH and allowing HBO into my home under my watch. Again, come get me. The internet discussions are not as bad as what I am doing with that, you are free to post on your blog why christians can watch the wire, but that’s a losing argument and you know it.
If I was smart, I would have avoided it, and just stuck to star trek. Again, if you want peice of me, I’m here for the taking. Tom and I have a fun relationship, I believe and enjoy ribbing each other. I hope if he feels I overstep my bounds he will call me out. We’ve actually shared a lot of correspondence off blog, perhaps more than I have share with you.
Tom, your opinions welcome.
Clown boy signing off, warriors ahead by 8.
Next.
LikeLike
Sean, you take the big burly hug machine outta Cleveland but usually can’t take Cleveland outta the big burly hug machine. He might live. You just keep makin’ it do what it do.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 7, 2015 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
Tom – As for the clown act around here, Erik, they’re your allies not mine. Your problem, not mine.
Erik – As mentioned above, I don’t particularly consider anyone an ally or an enemy. People are people and are a mix of good ideas and bad ideas. They also have good moods and bad moods and good days and bad days.
Tom – Even Mr. Turrible was rather within bounds until the harassment drove him a bit over. I took his Thunderballs act more in good fun than self-delusion. I mean, look at his screenname.
Erik – I share your assessment. I don’t mind Greg. I like how he can take a punch as well as deliver one. He needs to be careful, though, as many of his accusations border on slander and are not fitting for a Christian.
Tom – Mrs. Webfoot is saying that Christian love is foremost.
Erik – But what is the application of that concept that you are looking at in particular? Would anyone here disagree with that notion in theory?
If your point is that she is loving to people and people aren’t loving to her, I get that somewhat. I don’t appreciate the smug, self-satisfied demeanor of some of the commenters here. It’s antithetical to Christian humility and character. As noted before, though, she dishes it out herself so she needs to be able to take it.
Oh, so you’re responsible for the clown act crisis. I see. 😉
As for what Mrs. Webfoot’s saying, not only is she shaming the behavior of some folks at Old Life, she’s also getting at something key right now.
Personally, Benedict was more to my taste, a major-league philosopher and theologian. Not only Catholicism but Christianity as a whole is adrift in what he called “the dictatorship of relativism”: Not just disagreements about right and wrong, but whether they exist atall!
http://www.lst.edu/academics/landas-archives/373-dictatorship-of-relativism
THIS is the crisis of Christianity, or at least Christianity’s engagement with the world. It’s pre-religious, pre-theistic. We can shut ourselves up in our Van Tillian bunkers, but that is sterile.
Unfortunately for the lost sheep, Benedict and hard-minded theology could bring them home, home to the Church, home even to Christ. It’s not enough to condemn homosexual behavior; everybody knows the Bible condemns homosexual behavior.
How do you tell someone that homosexual behavior is wrong with love? For only with love does it mean anything, only with love does it fulfill what Paul was talking about, fulfill the Second Great Commandment.
[This is what got me banned from the Bayly Blog, simply suggesting that calling people “sodomites” all the time was not “with love.”]
So, there’s a lot more here that Mrs. Webfoot’s quite aware of that she’s trying to get at, but is steamrolled before she gets going. That’s your loss.
Responding any further for now just helps bury what was said above, which is worth people reading. There is no doubt there is a crisis in Christianity, and this love thing has been forgotten. Francis is not my cup of tea, but he is bringing a perspective that is most needed right now, the divine simplicity of St. Francis and the Two Great Commandments.
Hopefully he won’t destroy the Catholic Church in doing it. Y’all are quite right that if the Catholic Church becomes the PCUSA, it’s game over for it.
[Well, actually, if I had to predict, the EOs would become the majority Catholic Church, and Rome would be left for Garry Wills and Sean Michael Winters. Interesting. He doth work in strange ways, afterall.]
Peace, Off to a party.
LikeLike
Cavs should have won the first game and staying with Golden State so far. They are no Spurs.
LikeLike
Greg,
Aside from the bombast and rhetoric, which you take to be holy and most of us take to be silly, I think that the more fundamental problem is how you have imbibed Cornelius Van Til’s outlook on Reformed Christianity, and absolutized it.
If you want to jump into the realm of epistemology, Van Til’s philosophical appropriation of Kuyper, actually stands outside the stream of Reformed Orthodoxy. Van Tillian thought is basically a neo-Kantian idealist imposition on a much older, and frankly, settled Reformed Orthodoxy. Just because it has become fashionable to be Van Tilian in one fashion or another (neo-calvinists, or hardline reconstructionists) in the last 75-100 years in N. American and Dutch Reformed Christianity does not mean that the line of thinking you subscribe to is representative of historic Reformed Christianity.
I could steer you to many sources to back up this assertion – Richard Muller, R. Scott Clark, Darryl’s books, or even to some of the excellent works of some of the Reformed Baptists like James Dolezal and Samuel Reinhan, who have been unearthing a wealth of Reformed Orthodoxy. But, if you want to engage on why I disfavor your Van Tilian approach for something a bit older, I’d be interested in pursuing dialogue – if you can keep your jets cool. Here’s a primer that I’d recommend, it’s a little heavy handed on the rhetoric, but I think you can handle it:
A Critique of Van Til
Its about 75 pages or so, something you could knock out in an evening.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Don’t watch things that violates your conscience.
I’ve actually gotten more selective since my discussions with Greg, although I’m not making any pledges. Mostly just spending my time on other things.
LikeLike
Hey look, Della was involved in a collision. Lebron looks every bit of 270-280. Most guys lose weight as the season goes on…………………..He also looks like he’s got heavy legs. Lebron reminds me more and more of Magic Johnson in how he moves now.
LikeLike
Tom, have you put seven hours into your posts on this thread alone?
LikeLike
Tom,
Agreed on the Baylys. No personal animus towards them, but their rhetoric is not helpful.
Love is not enough to convince someone that homosexuality is wrong. Sometimes people hate you AND your message if they don’t want to hear it.
There are also honest theological disagreements that love is not going to resolve. Many of those disagreements are on display here. Can we be more civil to each other, though? Yes, I think so.
There is a place for humor, however, and good natured jesting, although it doesn’t always go over well.
LikeLike
Note Tom living the L.A. life — a Sunday night party. Likely for the Tony Awards.
And he chooses to hang out with us?!
LikeLike
Erik, thanks
overtime, all, it’s been a good couple years to be a bay area sports fan. Go Curry!
LikeLike
On page 6 of this very thread I asked the following of sdb Jedd:
“Does sdb recognize that [Gen. 1:1] could be wrong? That’s a question, not an accusation. “
To which sdb responded:
>Yes. I recognize that I could be deluded and my atheist colleagues could be right. I don’t think I am or they are… Do you recognize the possibility that you could be wrong?
That is a direct quote regarding the veracity of Gen 1:1. sir and one which Sean later affirmed and Dr. Hart pretty much did too. Along with a few others.
Please pretend that Cornelius Van Til was never born and establish from the bible and or reformed orthodoxy that the God of the bible might be a delusion and the atheists might be right. Essentially that Richard Dawkins and his “God Delusion” MIGHT be correct. That God and his gospel was ever considered as anything less than unassailably true and certain in the witness of scripture or any noted reformed thinkers.
Or we agree.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Greg, if everyone agrees with everyone, or agrees to disagree, where’s the fun in that (h/t Jason Stellman)? You are enjoying your time here at OLTS, right? Tvd and the cage phasers seem to have and all, how many places like OLTS actually exist? There can be only one..
Speaking of which, game 3, Cleveland here we come,all tied up at 1 a piece.
Who’s next
LikeLike
*have fun and all
That’s what playing golf is about – fun.
Comments number, nine hundred, seventy..
Fore?!
LikeLike
Sad to see the Spurs out of it, but this looks to be turning into quite a series! I’ll have to tune in I guess.
LikeLike
@AB You can get us to a 1000. I know you have another 20 or so comments left in you tonight. By the way, what is the record at OldLife?
LikeLike
That had to be the worst played game in the NBA Playoffs since those Riley Knicks-Heat disgraced that had final scores of 75-68 in the 90s
LikeLike
sdb, yeah, I looked one boring saturday day, 963 comments was the previous record holder.
i did my best to try to hit everyone’s soft spots in this comment thread, it’s worked out well. I can’t take us to 1,000 alone, it’s a team effort, to be sure.
these blogs..it’s like the double rainbow..what does it all mean?
LikeLike
vd, t, give us a break. Mermaid condemns one day, takes her meds, and love the next.
LikeLike
vd, t, why do you care?
LikeLike
“As for what Mrs. Webfoot’s saying, not only is she shaming the behavior of some folks at Old Life, she’s also getting at something key right now.”
Sure, vd, t. For you, Garry Wills could shame Old Life.
#ratemyblog
LikeLike
Greg,
I get the fact that some OL’ers draw your ire over perceived waffling on epistemological certainty. The notion that there is the possibility that the Christian faith (Reformed or otherwise) could be false, even if the possibility of remote is in itself an epistemological stance. I realize blood pressure could be rising from some of my OL amigos by saying epistemology three times now, but in my nearly 7 years of kicking around this neighborhood, I would say that OldLifers are epistemologically reserved with respect to what human knowledge can accomplish due to human limitations and fallenness. While they are reasonably certain of God’s existence, maybe even percieving themselves to be 99.5% sure of the truths of the faith they confess, they leave the possibility that they could be completely wrong. You however, are far more epistemologically certain, taking God’s existence as the foundational starting point of your knowing, everything flows from there for you all the way down to the minutiae of Reformed doctrine.
I realize I am looping around your question, but I’d ask you to indulge me for just a minute. The requirement for membership in a Reformed church is a valid profession of faith. Potential members are not asked to give an account for their epistemological commitments, but rather their faith in Jesus Christ. They may have the more certain faith like the centurion who knew Jesus could heal by a word, or they might be like the father of the demon possessed child who believed in spite of his unbelief that Jesus could heal his boy. Even the WCF affirms this:
14.3. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory: growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.
So, what I am pushing back on is your carping over what to me are fundamentally extraneous issues, namely whether they share your epistemology. As important as knowing might be to matters of ultimate importance, God’s standard is not one of knowledge or modes thereof, because these change over time, rather it is fundamentally of faith.
This feeds into what I think is a rather novel approach to knowing, which you have elevated to paramount importance, but I’ll get to that in my next comment. Where I’ll answer your question more directly:
Or we agree.
Not exactly, but maybe not in the way you might think.
LikeLike
Greg,
My problem, more specifically with the basis of your certainty is not that you claim to have it. It’s how you claim to have arrived there (based on your VT commitments). The prologomena of CVT’s entire system is that God exists, and not only this but that the Christian Triune God exists, and without offering any evidence or proof to arguments to the contrary, this is merely an idea. I am aware that CVT argues for the existence of God, but he does so in a transcendental manner consistent with his idealist philosophical commitments – there is no need for proof, deduction or induction, cause or effect, or any external referents to the real world. CVT’s TAG is logically consistent if you grant the premise that knowledge is possible only because God exists.
This whole approach is a radical disjunction from classical Reformed Orthodoxy, that was grounded in a realism inherited from the medieval masters like Thomas Aquinas, and developed further by the Scottish common sense realism. They assumed that the external world indeed existed, that truth was knowable, and that truth must correspond to what we know of the external world. I realize this is reductionistic, and that there’s a lot more to classical Reformed Orthodoxy, but the furthest anyone in this school of thought would go, given their correspondence theory of truth, is that the existence of God could be rationally argued, demonstrated from logic.
The problem with CVT’s starting point is that it is merely an idea, and that God could simply be an idea that exists in the mind of man with no referent to the real world. I could just as easily say that knowledge is only possible because Fearsome All-Powerful Purple Nippled Dragons exist, and be totally logically consistent in my presupposition. So what? What has been proved?
I think you want OL’ers to share your epistemic certainty, but I would argue that your certainty as you understand it in a Van Tilian framework is only an idea in your head. I would encourage you to dig deeper into our Reformed heritage where better answers can be found. Going back to Scripture, Genesis, among other things asserts that God exists, and the world exists, and Romans 1 posits a basic tenet of Natural Theology, namely that God’s existence can be known or inferred from creation. This means that whatever scratches your epistemological itch needs to account better for the ground beneath your feet, not just the space between your ears.
And, where I think you got your ball lost in the weeds with sdb, is elevating matters of epistemology to levels that are only reserved for matters of faith. At the end of the day I don’t care much where you land epistemologically, or if you have arrived at absolute certainty. I do, however, care (beyond all snark) about your faith – which believe it or not is something you have in common with us Old Lifers… even if you are wrong about pretty much everything else.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted June 8, 2015 at 1:02 am | Permalink
vd, t, give us a break. Mermaid condemns one day, takes her meds, and love the next.
D. G. Hart
Posted June 8, 2015 at 1:06 am | Permalink
vd, t, why do you care?
D. G. Hart
Posted June 8, 2015 at 1:09 am | Permalink
“As for what Mrs. Webfoot’s saying, not only is she shaming the behavior of some folks at Old Life, she’s also getting at something key right now.”
Sure, vd, t. For you, Garry Wills could shame Old Life.
#ratemyblog
The shame is yours, Darryl. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
As Andrew Buckingham says: Next.
It’s real garbage mocking Mrs. Webfoot as “Mermaid.” She remains pseudonymous because you have let your commenters break every rule of privacy and decency. She has something to lose here in real life.
Do your own dirty work, man. Tell Andrew you don’t need his “help.” He’s been getting your back but even he’s realizing you’ve been using him.
It’s not funny, Andrew, and it’s not give-and-take between you and me. It’s not fun–that line has been crossed.
You’re being used. Don’t be part of the mockery. Mockery is garbage. Mocking Susan and Mrs. Webfoot is garbage. Don’t be part of it. Defending the Christian religion by mockery and attack is first and foremost what is rabies theologorum.
mercilessly abusive in their attacks on opponents
http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=3132#axzz3cSGQ0Pdj
You have my email address. I understand your passion, but the ugliness here at Old Life is not the Lord’s Work.
Peace, man. Mrs. Webfoot has been teaching me what’s really important.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
LikeLike
@kent I didn’t see the game yesterday…I was going by the box score. Has a finals ever started with two overtime games? I thought the gsw were going to run away with it, but maybe not. What was wrong with the play yesterday? Did Curry go cold from midcourt?
LikeLike
Tom,
I dont publish my opinions here. You don’t know them.
Pray for you church governor/bishops
And be thankful.
#next
LikeLike
#PopeAndMussolini
Insert emotion here
LikeLike
Jed,
Well done.
LikeLike
Jed, I want to start by thanking you for taking your time to bring some thoughtful and substantive contribution here. I assure you I do not feel it owed me by anybody. That’s never been the point.
I see God’s “certainty”, and all that that means, as the “ground of all being” as the confession states. His un-derived ontological eternity of existence as being the grandaddy of all His incommunicable attributes, without which none of the rest make any difference. What good is holiness for instance in a god who may not be there? (yes, I understand how some may call this a mere reformulation of the ontological argument)
You got closer, but you actually still didn’t answer my question and do still miss a couple defining points in my view. I don’t know how much of the rest of this discussion you’ve read.
============================================================
On page 5 of this thread:
MG says: “there’s a lot of wisdom that can be accessed by the natural man looking at the world around him.”
To which I then responded with the following:
Of course there is. Man has throughout his history, by virtue of the remaining though sinfully broken image of God, been so absolutely right about so very much of what he’s observed and published. While, due to this brokenness in sin, being so absolutely wrong about how and why he’s right about it. 1+1=2 for sinners and saints alike and for the same reason. Except sinners spend every second of their lives suppressing that truth in their unrighteousness.
============================================================
That is in response to the first page of the piece you linked last night. I am not trying to be pugnacious for the sake of it. Honest I’m not, but I didn’t even make if off the first page and the guy’s contrasting quotes show he does not understand Van Til. Please see HERE for my brief explanation as to why.
I will have a proper response for you as soon as I can. Thank you again.
LikeLike
Jed’s solid.
My first experience of friendship came by way of his words on greenbaggins in 2012
Same thread I met DGH.
Yep, its good.
1000?
LikeLike
*friendship in the blogs (I meant to say)
https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/arguments-concerning-the-papacy/#comment-102984
[3]
LikeLike
Greg, do you understand your utter reliance on God?
He could decide to come after you or me, you think you could stand up to that?
Do you know the nature of your own personal noetic effects of sin?
Why would anyone listen to anything someone says on the internet?
Do you acknowledge the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion?
Do you do anything for fun other than lift weights? You really wouldn’t tune in on the radio if your hockey team was in the finals?
That’s just off the top of my head between revs on my exercise machine.. I have another hundred plus if you like playing games online. I know you say this is not a game. Try defending the thought system you think may be represented here instead of attack all the time. Anyone can attack us, who among us can actually defend?
Jed, Jeff C, and a few others. What your doing any player of unreal tournament can do. You are not presenting a consistent strategy, but rather, its always bazooka with you. If you attacked but talked like Jeff Cagle, I couldn’t fault you as easily. As it stands, your moniker fits, like mermaid’s. Laughable.
I’ve got more.
LikeLike
“this love thing has been forgotten.”
prediction was made 1000s of years ago…
Because lawlessness is increased most people’s love will grow cold. Matt 24: 12
I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Rev 2 4
LikeLike
” – there is no need for proof, deduction or induction, cause or effect, or any external referents to the real world. CVT’s TAG is logically consistent if you grant the premise that knowledge is possible only because God exists.”
– I recognize this.
“Honest I’m not, but I didn’t even make if off the first page and the guy’s contrasting quotes show he does not understand Van Til. ”
-Ugh, yeah this is familiar too. Hey, look! Somebody ran into Della again. That poor guy is always getting knocked over. I don’t know how that keeps happening. Shocked, I tell you, just appalled.
LikeLike
I miss my Spurs. Lebron had fiddy minutes. Can one dude win six games? Lance could but then he got in trouble for drug……errr……I mean there were irregularities detected.
LikeLike
The gospel coalition has an article written for when curry wins.
http://m.christianpost.com/news/stephen-curry-talks-about-his-christian-faith-in-mvp-acceptance-speech–138696/
They have the one written for if he loses too. Predrafted, yo.
998…….
LikeLike
And then there was 1,000!
LikeLike
CT,
Good work
LikeLike
It would be enough if LBJ was taking junior high school players to the brink of a championship, but he’s gone way beyond that to take Knicks there. And one of them has been bribed to throw the series. If Cleveland wins anyway, JR may be sleeping with the fishes.
LikeLike
Greg, you keep saying you should be easily refuted and you’ll cease and desist. You’ve gotten plenty of intelligent push back yet you persist in saying nobody really understands. Maybe instead of poorly feigning humility you just come out and admit you like the fight?
LikeLike
B-I-N-G-O, Z. And, rather than a bull in the China shop, he’s more like a jitter bug. “I AM THE PROPHET OF VAN TIL!” “Okay, Greg, let’s talk about the validity of his arguments.” “Er, let’s just talk about certainty. I’M MORE CERTAIN THAN YOU!”
LikeLike
vd, t, why do you care?
You defend little guys. You defend David Barton.
But when it comes to little guys trying to defend themselves from big guy attacks — Protestants are divided, we are you united, you don’t have a pope we do, you are small we are as big as McDonald’s — you side with the big guy.
Real Americans root for underdogs.
LikeLike
MG, I just find it entertaining. Humility is a Christian virtue but Greg can’t stop with epistemic arrogance. I guess it’s ok though–arrogance in the name of Jesus isn’t really arrogance at all. A common epistiexpertologist trait.
LikeLike
Greg’s approach is akin to a Nazi Blitzkrieg. Doesn’t work so well when he gets bogged down in the middle of winter in Russia.
On most sites he would have been banned by now (right or wrong). Not sure he’s set up to play the long game.
LikeLike
Greg,
You got closer, but you actually still didn’t answer my question and do still miss a couple defining points in my view. I don’t know how much of the rest of this discussion you’ve read.
I know that, I was trying to cut to what I see as the crux of the matter, which is your (Van Tilian) idealist epistemology. I confess I haven’t followed every comment on this thread, nor will I spend time digging through it because I don’t have the time, but I am aware of the contours of your arguments. Call it my ironic use of the presuppositional apologetic. If there are specific points you feel are vital to your broader argument that you want me to address, let me know.
Honest I’m not, but I didn’t even make if off the first page and the guy’s contrasting quotes show he does not understand Van Til.
This is my main contention with militant Van Tilians, they can’t really engage substantive critiques of Van Til because they think they already know the answers. They may know “the answers” but only within the closed loop of their epistemic system. I’ll admit Trethewie doesn’t do himself any favors in the paper with his heavy-handed rhetoric, but his points are salient and I would urge you to read as charitably as you can. I encourage you to employ the intellectual rigor to suspend judgement until you at least understand his critique of Van Til.
I see God’s “certainty”, and all that that means, as the “ground of all being” as the confession states. His un-derived ontological eternity of existence as being the grandaddy of all His incommunicable attributes, without which none of the rest make any difference.
I’ll show my hand somewhat, though I was hoping that we could develop the discussion more organically before we got there. I understand where you are trying to go with the confessional “ground of being” regarding God’s absolute ontology, and I agree with you and the confession here. However, what I do not grant, in the context of this argument, is that the Van Tilian has any right to such a premise. This because the Van Tilians, not maliciously or wittingly mind you, render God’s absoluteness (esp. in the Van Tilian affirmation of the creature-creator distinction) as a mere idealist construct – a product of the mind that negates the “ground” for God’s absoluteness. In the Van Tilian system, with its neo-Kantian underpinnings, God could merely be a being that exists in the mind – or he exists in the transcendent noumenal realm that we have no extra-mental access to.
The fact of the matter is Reformed Orthodoxy was so weakened after the Princeton re-organization, fighting liberalism on so many fronts, that it simply lacked the intellectual figures to see Van Tilian, and Kuyperian/neo-Calvinism for what it really was – a foundational revision of Reformed orthodoxy. Had Warfield lived longer, or if there were an intellectual equal to succeed him I do not think that Van Til would have risen to the heights he did. The fact of the matter is that the Van Til-Clark controversy cast the die for Westminster and the OPC, even though both were wrong, if for different reasons. Van Til affirmed the creator-creature distinction, and analogical language of God, but I would simply say these were Orthodox intuitions that had no rational basis in his epistemic system.
LikeLike
Erik,
Well done.
Thanks man. I am running dangerously close to my annual quota of comments and its only June. Once Greg and I finish, I promise I’ll go back to one liners and fart jokes.
LikeLike
Jed, always room for you. Nate, not so much.
LikeLike
Jed, I have started a response to your first 2. No slight to Jeff, who I will always appreciate, but this may be the engagement I was looking for. You will find that the man, Cornelius Van Till is entirely secondary to me. I will have no problem with error in his thought being demonstrated. He’s was still just a man. My loyalty is my God and master.
LikeLike
I do stand by my statement though. If the man’s quotes of Van Til and then Calvin are intended to demonstrate that these were contrasting views and the two would have disagreed, then he really doesn’t understand Van Til.
LikeLike
Greg,
Fair enough, I look forward to your response. If I am ever slow to respond to you, I apologize in advance. My time to devote here is sometimes hit and miss. But, I’d be happy to discuss these matters with you however long it takes.
LikeLike
This thread, being the one with the most comments, should be the dumping ground where anyone anywhere for any reason can just go on and rant to their heart’s content. It’s a good topic (“bible can’t speak to all of life,” better than the “bloomington” one), and it’s already got a lot of good content built in.
Thus my OLTS motion for the day – if you want to argue about anything, or nothing, or just post comments, the bible can’t speak to all of life is your post.
So who’s next? Who just wants to type for the sake of typing, and get something off their chest? Believe you me, it feels great.
LikeLike
I should clarify one more thing before I continue working on my response to Jed.I am souring on the whole enterprise of “apologetics” as ministry to the lost in general. Kuyper didn’t believe in apologetics at all. I wonder if he was right. I find a much bigger problem with deficient or outright heretical views of God inside the church. I’m not as sold on the classic apologetics passages meaning what the they are usually taken to mean as I once was either.
Craig for instance has a horrific molinistic view of God that I denounce myself. Books like “Reasonable Faith” drive me nuts. Nothing could be less reasonable to the unbelieving mind than the idiocy of a long dead Jew, born God of a virgin being the only way to an unneeded reconciliation with His Father who was also God, but not the same person. Talking snakes, global floods, parting seas, floating axe heads, sun standing still, numerous supernatural healings and miraculous feedings and resurrections and demonic kookiness and magic clothes and on and on. All in a time when nobody could test any of it.
That’s’ the stoopidest thing anybody ever heard of. Disney films are more reasonable than that.
The point is, I’m not arguing for Van Til’s apologetic. Or even apologetics in general. I’m arguing for a certain view of God. This is a simple reiteration of what I’ve said a dozen times already, which is that Van Til is not the point. Despite Muddy’s characteristically off target allegations. I can go back and copy and paste myself saying it.
Do understand Jed that I can’t expect you to read this whole thread, but it will be a bit frustrating for me because I will be repeating myself for the “umpty-ninth” time. (you can thank my friend in Montana for that colorful hyperbole), which is not your fault. I agree too. No pressure, no time constraints. That’s what I hate about regular debates.
LikeLike
Greg – Nothing could be less reasonable to the unbelieving mind than the idiocy of a long dead Jew, born God of a virgin being the only way to an unneeded reconciliation with His Father who was also God, but not the same person. Talking snakes, global floods, parting seas, floating axe heads, sun standing still, numerous supernatural healings and miraculous feedings and resurrections and demonic kookiness and magic clothes and on and on. All in a time when nobody could test any of it.
Erik – LOL. That’s good.
No one comes to the Father unless the Father draws him.
LikeLike
Greg,
What do you think about writing up your manifesto, and seeing how many people here you can get to sign your statement of faith?
That way, we can talk about something else on other threads. This one I am trying to have turned into the dumping ground for people who have a gripe. Where people can air greivances.
I personally like to talk about golf.
What do you say?
LikeLike
I was introduced to Christ at a young age and it stuck. My wife wasn’t introduced until college and it met a need. Some never get introduced and never feel a need. Only the Spirit can create the need and facilitate the introduction.
LikeLike
Greg’s Manifesto would be a combo of “Pilgrim’s Progress”, “Raging Bull”, “Goodfellas”, “Dazed and Confused” and Kid Rock’s “All Summer Long”, with some Jimmy Swaggart sob stories thrown in for good measure.
LikeLike
Wait, that would be his autobiography.
The Manifesto would be in the appendix.
LikeLike
I’m willing to hear the man out.
He told Jed that his thoughts are buried in this 1000+ thread.
I bet you he could cobble something together real quick based on what he’s typed here and in a few places.
Come on, Greg. Let’s see it. We can all put it to a vote, baptist style. In a presby situation, you would need to submit to a committee and hope it’s received. But here in the blogosphere, it’s wild west baby.
LikeLike
I’m not doing that now Andrew. Jed has been gracious enough to invest time in a serious conversation. That and the rest of my life will consume all the time I have now. I got sidetracked trying to help a very good online friend steer clear of NT Wright for the last couple hours in a Facebook group and didn’t even get to finish Jed’s response tonight. Quite time consuming to do it right .
I’ve learned my lesson too. It wouldn’t matter what I said. People will see what they want here anyway and then I’d be off trying to clarify and correct for another few hundred comments wading through frat house nonsense. Sorry Bro. That’s not useful to me right now.
LikeLike
Greg,
Well then acknowledge Zrim’s apt insight you are in it just for the fight. If you won’t even put down your basic principles from which you spring from, your blog’s about page is all we have. Until a few weeks ago, you tefernced iunreal tournament until I told you to change.
This blogs mission is easy ascertain
https://oldlife.org/about/
And you seek to change us. Sisiphys, enjoy rolling that rock.
Next.
LikeLike
I’m convinced h**l is the comments section of a theology blog, and the outer levels of that dark place resemble the threads with higher comment counts.
Greg, get off a thread from early April with over 1000 comments and start living your life. Or head back to Facebook. You are stuck and I dont know what else to tell you.
http://heidelblog.net/2015/03/this-might-help/
Next.
LikeLike
Darn, I missed the 2^10 post by 1.
@ Greg: Sorry if I made you feel ignored. I’ve been busy winding down the school year, and I didn’t feel that I had anything worthwhile to say until I’d re-read van Til.
Jed is going to bring a different and valuable perspective here, one that will get at some core issues in van Til. As you consider his comments and mine, keep in mind that he and I are not coming from exactly the same place. I think we’re all post-Kantians now, whether we will or no; he seems possibly to want to retain a pre-Kantian epistemology. But we do agree that one of the elephants in the room is named Kant.
A couple of comments about method.
(1) You have asked for sdb et al to produce Reformed sources for their view. This is actually backwards. You are proposing a doctrinal standard: If one believes that epistemological humility is an appropriate stance, then one is out of accord with the Confession and the Bible. On that basis, you’ve actually said some pretty strong things about sdb, Muddy, and others (including me, I guess), things that amount to chargeable offenses. You clearly feel justified in doing so, but I wanted to make the stakes clear.
In Reformed polity, the one proposing new doctrinal standards bears the entire burden of proof to show that the standard is a good and necessary inference from Scripture. That’s straight-up WCF 1.6, 1.10 and 20.2.
So while sdb and Muddy and Jed and I might be generous and provide Scriptural and historical support for our views, we actually don’t have to unless we are teaching those views as doctrinal standards — that is, making judgments based on them.
But you, as the proposer and the one passing judgment, do. That’s a key part of what it means to be Reformed in doctrine (and epistemology!).
(2) Specific language matters, and a recasting of that language needs strong justification. You’ve opined that
In other words, you see yourself as upholding garden-variety Reformed thought, but using new epistemological language for that thought.
What if you’re mistaken on that point? Could it be that with the change in language comes a change in idea also?
Maybe not, but that’s not self-evident. It needs proof.
After all, the Federal Visionaries also believe that they are upholding garden-variety covenant theology using new terminology — and we would agree that the outcome of their recasting is in doubt with respect to church courts (i.e., some pastors have been rejected, others exonerated, all have been told to “watch their language”).
So as you look at van Til and the Confession, keep in mind that it’s not a given that they are saying the same thing. Different words might herald different ideas.
LikeLike
@ Greg:
A comment about van Til.
I think Muddy hit the nail. You do seem to have a confusion between ontology and epistemology.
For van Til, God’s aseity is the ground of His certainty about Himself. His knowledge of Himself is analytic, not synthetic (taking this from Defense of the Faith). Humans, meanwhile, have an analogical knowledge at all times. This is a part of their creatureliness, not a result of the Fall.
Well, the clear implication is that the kind of certainty that God has can never be available in that form to humans.
God and His existence are “ontologically certain” — that is, if there is a God, He must be the ground of being of everything, such that “The fact that there is anything shows that God exists.”
But His existence is not “epistemologically certain” — that is, we don’t have the same analytic, immediate knowledge of God’s existence that He does of Himself.
I think this is one way in which you seem to be departing from and going beyond van Til.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Strong.
Greg’s got himself backed into a corner where smart people are responding to him in a substantive way.
Bluster and rhetoric are not going to win the debate for him, now that several people are taking his challenge seriously.
We’ll see what he’s made of.
LikeLike
One point I would make:
As humans we are aware of multiple stories about gods coming from multiple cultures throughout history. None of those gods can be verified by our senses. We believe them to be false gods – to not exist.
We do believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet we can no more can verify him by our senses than gods who do not exist.
The difference is that we have faith in this one true God and not in the others. Faith is different than certainty.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for your comments. I think your insights will offer an important counterbalance to mine. I agree with you that Kant absolutely must be dealt with both in questions of epistemology, as well as ontology. I think the issues he raises about the mind and the world of ideas is important, but as you might suspect I think he got it all wrong. His phenomenal/noumenal distinction obscures much of what we hold as axiomatic in Christian Orthodoxy – not just WCF and the Reformed confessions, but the confessional tradition of the church stretching back to Chalcedon and Nicea.
I personally think we need to build off of Reformed Scholasticism and its spiritual and intellectual anteceedents, but in a way that deals with the advent of modern philosophy – namely Kant. I think this is within the ad fontes spirit of the Reformation itself. But, alas I am a layman, not a scholar, and there is only so far I can take this. But, I see the efforts by some at WSCAL, Richard Muller, and some exceptional Baptist theologians like James Dolezal moving in this direction. I know this hints at my commitments, but I think you get where I’ll be coming from as a result.
As hard as I am on Van Til, I don’t think we need to anathematize him from the Reformed tradition, or anything of the sort. He had many orthodox intuitions, but I would contend this is in spite of his system of thought not as a result of it. I simply think we need to see the Van Tilian expirament (along with Kuyper, and the neo-Calvinists) for what it was – take what is valuable from them, and move on in a fashion that is more consistent to what Reformed Orthodoxy has been since its inception.
Is my confessional slip showing?
LikeLike
Erik says: “Greg’s got himself backed into a corner where smart people are responding to him in a substantive way.
Bluster and rhetoric are not going to win the debate for him, now that several people are taking his challenge seriously.”
Yeah because my couple dozen long detailed comments have been all bluster and rhetoric right?
You don’t owe me an apology Jeff, you said you didn’t want to continue. I say again. Nobody owes me anything. And I have no feelings of being ignored brother. That’s not the point. I would also reiterate that while you and I started down this path with Van Til, he is not the primary focus for me. The godhood of God is the primary focus for me.
It will not be possible to address 2 people in the same level of detail as one. I’ll do my best to discern what is most useful between you two for the discussion as a whole. I ask your mercy ahead of time. I am hoping in the next hour or two to finally have my REALLY big one done addressing Jed’s first 2 big ones.
Andrew, ya need to calm down man. For your own good. I am open to input from anybody, but I am going to do what I believe God wants me to to do. If that conflicts with what you want me to do, I’ll be sorry about that, but you are going to have to learn to live with it or life is going to be a drag.
Lemme get back to finishing Jed’s response please.
LikeLike
Jeff & Jed, an idea: proceed with the discussion whether Greg joins or not. Why? Because it interests (all about) me. If I feel like I can enter the conversation without excessively lowering the quality I may chip in as well.
LikeLike
Muddy,
I guess this means I’m going to have to go dig The Critique of Pure Reason out of the attic. I hope the mice haven’t done too much damage.
LikeLike
Greg, it’s just that I’ve seen all this before, in high school philosophy class.
It’s like I tell my wife: As long as you are happy, I’m happy.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Impressive, Jed. I would have just perused Copleston.
LikeLike
I took a couple classes under a Kantian from Austria. He had wild and wooly gray hair and a beard, and would lecture with arms waving and voice booming. On Monday he would assign you a paper to present to the class on Wednesday. He wrote books like No Many is Not a One, For The Case Is A Comparison. We loved the man but had no idea what he was saying.
LikeLike
(This is a couple hours work, more actually. I’ll do my best to keep up)
Jed says: “The notion that there is the possibility that the Christian faith (Reformed or otherwise) could be false, even if the possibility of remote is in itself an epistemological stance.”
It is indeed. What I’m looking for is a godly biblical character or teaching, or a noted historic reformed witness of this epistemological stance.
Jed says: “OldLifers are epistemologically reserved with respect to what human knowledge can accomplish due to human limitations and fallenness.”
Not any more reserved than I have myself repeatedly stated is the case. To the natural man that is.
Jed says: “While they are reasonably certain of God’s existence, maybe even perceiving themselves to be 99.5% sure of the truths of the faith they confess,”
And herein lies the problem. I do not care, and neither does God, how reasonably certain THEY are about anything. I care, as does God, about how eternally and comprehensively certain HE is about everything. THEY are not the measure. HE is and there is the idolatry.
Jed says: “they leave the possibility that they could be completely wrong.”
And in so doing as regards the veracity of the one true and living God, they do declare Him a liar and themselves God in His place. This will be explained more in a minute.
Jed says: “You however, are far more epistemologically certain, taking God’s existence as the foundational starting point of your knowing, everything flows from there for you all the way down to the minutiae of Reformed doctrine.”
The confession does this exact thing. Beginning with SELF authenticating scriptures infallibly and inerrantly revealing the SELF existent and SELF attesting God.
Not upon rational human arguments or fallible analysis of evidence. WHOLLY upon God who IS truth itself, the author thereof. What I need is testimony from one of the divines for instance that says what these guys are saying. For the record, there are many contemporary Presbyterians who get this. Many. I don’t fancy myself the lone surviving voice.
Jed says: “The requirement for membership in a Reformed church is a valid profession of faith. Potential members are not asked to give an account for their epistemological commitments, but rather their faith in Jesus Christ.”
Faith in Jesus Christ, intellectually speaking, IS a radical epistemological transformation from death in sin to new life in Christ. Upon justification a man’s entire W-w is birthed from the first Adam into the last. This does not depend upon his ability to explicitly articulate that in so many words. That is a why I say my independent, fundamentalist baptist, Arminian, dispensational, kjv only friends, who would be aghast at the suggestion of a possibly false gospel, are living in the right epistemology even they’ve never heard the word, nor the name Dr. Cornelius Van Yil.
The command to “repent and believe and believe the gospel” is a command to trust death and life of Jesus as our righteousness, step down from the throne of our life and agree with the God of Gen 1:1 that He is God and we are not. The intellectual component of that is that we now joyously recognize that reality starts with Him and not with us. It does for unbelievers too, but they suppress that truth in their own unrighteousness.
Jed says: “They may have the more certain faith like the centurion who knew Jesus could heal by a word, or they might be like the father of the demon possessed child who believed in spite of his unbelief that Jesus could heal his boy. Even the WCF affirms this:
14.3. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory: growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.”
And here again Jed is the fundamental confusion and conflation of categories that I have been decrying all along. I am not talking about the subjective human exercise and experience of faith. I’m talking about the eternally objective God whose promises and nature have spawned that faith and continue to sustain it.
Don’t you see? (Van Til always said that in his classroom lectures 🙂 ) The pivotal difference here is the people on this site failing to recognize that in Christ we get to view reality from God’s perspective by that faith. We cannot know reality the exact same way God knows it because with Him alone all knowledge is original and internally comprehensive and consistent. His doesn’t require faith in another. However, having in the new birth the mind of Christ and being made partakers of the divine nature, we now live in HIS certainty. It’s not ours. That’s why we’re supposed to believe His promises.
Jed says: “So, what I am pushing back on is your carping over what to me are fundamentally extraneous issues, namely whether they share your epistemology. As important as knowing might be to matters of ultimate importance, God’s standard is not one of knowledge or modes thereof, because these change over time, rather it is fundamentally of faith.”
Did you hear what you just said sir? You just said that knowing things of ultimate importance, knowledge and modes thereof, CHANGE over time? One of the following three possibilities must then be true.
1) You have stated this in haste and therefore sloppily and inaccurately in which case I will gladly receive your clarification.
2) You have just launched a full frontal assault on the immutability of God.
3) You do not view God as the ground of all being and knowledge, in which case then my questions to Erik would turn to you.
Jed says: “This feeds into what I think is a rather novel approach to knowing,”
Of course I don’t see my approach, once understood. to be novel or unique at all. I see it as simply affirming the Godhood of God.
Jed says: “My problem, more specifically with the basis of your certainty is not that you claim to have it. It’s how you claim to have arrived there (based on your VT commitments). The prologomena of [your] entire system is that God exists, and not only this but that the Christian Triune God exists, “
Depending on how you mean this, I would say that in my system, the triune God of Christianity is pre-propositinal and therefore pre-prologomena.
Jed says: “and without offering any evidence or proof to arguments to the contrary, this is merely an idea.”
That would be the unbelieving defense against it and viewed through the eyes of the fallen autonomous first Adam, it would be correct. That’s not the Christian view though. The Christian view sees this God with the mind of Christ through the eyes of faith, both of which are Gifts of this God for this very purpose. Post regeneration, this God has been promoted from a probably fictitious noumenal curiosity (falsely held as such because of sin) to the “ground of all being” who alone has created and fills, yet transcends and sustains all of both noumenal and phenomenal reality. (to take a stab at Kantian terminology)
Jed says: “[You] argue in a transcendental manner consistent with [your] idealist philosophical commitments…
I am not conceding idealism to you as per the above, which I have a feeling is going to be revisited quite a bit as this charge of idealism is certainly key to you.
Jed says: ” – there is no need for proof, deduction or induction, cause or effect, or any external referents to the real world.”
First principles, that is, epistemology, is by definition unprovable in the usual evidentiary or logical sense. That would call upon a standard more basic than itself for testimony as to it’s soundness or validity. No. To offer “proof” for the God of WCF II is to insolently reduce Him to an object of our investigation with ourselves perched as judge over Him. It is to call the apostle a liar when in Romans 1 he spells out in the clearest language possible that God is already known in, around and to us. Would you presume to offer better proof than God Himself? Please see again the SELF authenticating scriptures of WCF I:IV above.
Jed says: “CVT’s TAG is logically consistent if you grant the premise that knowledge is possible only because God exists.”
What other, better premise do you find in scripture or the standards?
Jed says: “there’s a lot more to classical Reformed Orthodoxy, but the furthest anyone in this school of thought would go, given their correspondence theory of truth, is that the existence of God could be rationally argued, demonstrated from logic.”
I do not find correspondence theory in the scriptures or the reformed Standards. Romans 1:18ff, indeed the entire Canon, starting right at Gen. 1:1 takes God’s existence for granted and WCF I:IV is unequivocal in it’s proclamation of the self authenticating nature of the scriptures. If the scriptures are self attesting and authenticating, then so is the God of the scriptures who is in fact assumed from Gen. to Rev. to be truth itself
Jed says: “The problem with CVT’s starting point is that it is merely an idea, and that God could simply be an idea that exists in the mind of man with no referent to the real world.”
Again. Only from the standpoint of the sinfully self sufficient unregenerate mind is this true. How can God be self attesting and authenticating as the scriptures and the confession proclaim and His creation be a required referent to His existence? This smacks of Barth where God exists only AS his revelation. Depending on where in Barth you read. (another story altogether)
God exists without the mind of man OR the so called “real world”. Every fact other than Himself is a created one. THEY have no existence or definition without HIM. Not the other way around
Jed says: “I could just as easily say that knowledge is only possible because Fearsome All-Powerful Purple Nippled Dragons exist, and be totally logically consistent in my presupposition. So what?”
No you couldn’t. It is possible to contrive an imaginary entity that meets the requirements for an apparently consistent non-Christian epistemology. It would require the positing of an arbitrary “ground of all being” possessing all the eternal incommunicable attributes of our God. I’ve met one man who has done such a thing. A Frenchman I talked about several pages ago. It is not true however that just any ol fantasy fits the bill.
Jed says: “What has been proved?”
The God of the bible cannot be “proven” in the courtroom of finite fallen human logic and evidence. He must be pre-propositionally assumed before ANY knowledge is possible at all. Even sinners innately know this according to Romans 1. That’s the truth they are suppressing in their unrighteousness.
Jed says: “I think you want OL’ers to share your epistemic certainty, but I would argue that your certainty as you understand it in a Van Tilian framework is only an idea in your head. I would encourage you to dig deeper into our Reformed heritage where better answers can be found. Going back to Scripture, Genesis, among other things asserts that God exists, and the world exists, and Romans 1 posits a basic tenet of Natural Theology, namely that God’s existence can be known or inferred from creation. This means that whatever scratches your epistemological itch needs to account better for the ground beneath your feet, not just the space between your ears.”
Having denied your charge of idealism for the reasons I’ve given thus far, I must propose that this entire statement is attacking a position I am not advancing.
Jed says: “At the end of the day I don’t care much where you land epistemologically, or if you have arrived at absolute certainty. I do, however, care (beyond all snark) about your faith”
And here again is our fatal disconnect. Faith IS epistemology. All men have one of two objects of life defining faith and one of two inescapably resulting epistemologies. God’s and all the rest, which amount to the same man centered idolatry.
I know probably hundreds of people who have never heard the word “epistemology” and couldn’t write 5 syllables in a discussion like this. When asked however, if the Christian faith might be a delusion and their atheist workmates might be right, the mind of Christ dwelling in them by faith would respond in puzzled horror that I could even ask such a thing. I come over here with all these sooper smart educated officers and I’m told that yes, the Christian faith MIGHT be a delusion and the atheists might right.
The former are living in the life and mind of the last Adam with no explicit klnowledge of epistemology whatsoever. The latter are claiming the life of the last Adam while stubbornly self consciously clinging to the mind of the first. THAT is my problem.
Epistemology, that is, who occupies the throne of my heart and mind (2 aspects of the same thing), who is worshiped in short, IS what changes when one is justified and made alive in Christ. The redeemed heart hands the crown to Jesus. Progress in sanctification is made as we put off that old man and put on the new. Jesus made clear that the heart is what a man is (girls too) Deeds and speech flow from there.
LikeLike
Jeff says: “In Reformed polity, the one proposing new doctrinal standards bears the entire burden of proof to show that the standard is a good and necessary inference from Scripture. That’s straight-up WCF 1.6, 1.10 and 20.2.
An uncertain, possibly nonexistent God, leaving pagans with an excuse is the new position. The burden is on you until what should be the very easy task of showing otherwise is forthcoming. I’m waiting.
LikeLike
Greg,
Reddit christianity is hosting a presbyterian on thursday, it’s called “ask me anything”, it’s hosted by
Thurs 6/11 Presbyterian /u/TurretOpera, /u/GoMustard, /u/thabonch
source link click here for details.
You could ask presbys in the reddit world and get up voted, down voted, etc and talk with people at lightning speed. Thought you might be interested, I know the internet is your playground 😉
Just FYI.
LikeLike
Here’s last year’s PCA ask me anything it gives a good idea of what people in the wider world think about conservative presbyterianism, what gets upvoted, and it’s kind of like oldlife, only the good comments filter up, the bad ones go away. I wonder if you hvae any history on reddit…
LikeLike
Greg,
You contradict yourself right off the bat:
“It is indeed. What I’m looking for is a godly biblical character or teaching, or a noted historic reformed witness of this epistemological stance.”
“And herein lies the problem. I do not care, and neither does God, how reasonably certain THEY are about anything. I care, as does God, about how eternally and comprehensively certain HE is about everything. THEY are not the measure. HE is and there is the idolatry.”
So are you looking for examples of actual human beings or are you not?
LikeLike
Erik, I’m looking for a godly biblical character or teaching, or a noted historic reformed witness for the idea of one’s subjective experience of certainty being the gospel they preach.
I promise you I have not contradicted myself.
LikeLike
Greg: An uncertain, possibly nonexistent God, leaving pagans with an excuse is the new position.
Those are your words, not mine nor sdb’s.
Again: You bear the entire burden of proof here. If you don’t wish to shoulder it, you may certainly say so.
LikeLike
Great thread. I can learn something and get a good laugh at the same time.
Win-win.
LikeLike
Greg,
So you’re saying if we cite someone who supports you, you’ll say “exactly!”. If we cite someone who supports us, you’ll say “I don’t care!”.
Doesn’t sound like a game I want to play.
LikeLike
And here again Jed is the fundamental confusion and conflation of categories that I have been decrying all along. I am not talking about the subjective human exercise and experience of faith. I’m talking about the eternally objective God whose promises and nature have spawned that faith and continue to sustain it.
Don’t you see? (Van Til always said that in his classroom lectures ) The pivotal difference here is the people on this site failing to recognize that in Christ we get to view reality from God’s perspective by that faith. We cannot know reality the exact same way God knows it because with Him alone all knowledge is original and internally comprehensive and consistent. His doesn’t require faith in another. However, having in the new birth the mind of Christ and being made partakers of the divine nature, we now live in HIS certainty.
Greg, you need to ‘splain this. It’s already been confessionaly denoted that faith(phenomenologically and ontologically) waxes and wanes. However, in what you’ve written here, this reads like you’ve divorced that reality from a yet distinct ontological transformation at the new birth. To which I respond, I never ‘know’ as God ‘knows’ via some sort of infusion(new birth or otherwise), distinct from faith, as defined in the confession.
LikeLike
Jeff says: Greg: An uncertain, possibly nonexistent God, leaving pagans with an excuse is the new position.
Those are your words, not mine nor sdb’s.
On page 6 of this very thread I asked the following Jeff:
“Does sdb recognize that [Gen. 1:1] could be wrong? That’s a question, not an accusation. “
To which sdb responded:
>Yes. I recognize that I could be deluded and my atheist colleagues could be right. I don’t think I am or they are… Do you recognize the possibility that you could be wrong?
That is a direct quote regarding the veracity of Gen 1:1. sir and one which Sean later affirmed and Dr. Hart pretty much did too. Are you going to tell me that in conceding to unbelievers that your God may not exist and they may be right that you have not afforded them an excuse denied by Romans 1? I need somebody to help me understand this.
Erik asks: “So you’re saying if we cite someone who supports you, you’ll say “exactly!”. If we cite someone who supports us, you’ll say “I don’t care!”.
No Erik, I have no idea where you got that from. When I preach the gospel to an unbeliever, I do not base the authority I bring to that encounter upon MY fallible faith. I proclaim to them the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the forever settled in heaven, (Psalm 119:89), utterly true and certain Word of the one true and living Almighty God.It’s not about me. It’s about him. Do you see the difference?
I would never tell a man dead in sin, by nature a child of wrath and enemy of his God that his God may not actually exist and his unbelief may be correct. Find me THAT anywhere in scripture or reformed history. (am I typing in tongues or something?) THAT is what I just for the 15th time quoted from sdb.
LikeLike
Greg: Are you going to tell me that in conceding to unbelievers that your God may not exist and they may be right that you have not afforded them an excuse denied by Romans 1? I need somebody to help me understand this.
No, I have not afforded an excuse. And yes, I’ll try to help.
Why no excuse? Because God’s existence and divine attributes are written on the heart.
Why concede that “I might be wrong, but I don’t think I am”? Because there is no deductive or inductive argument that can guarantee God’s existence as a necessary consequence. Those are the only coins that spend in the unbeliever’s world. So I cannot, in terms he will accept, intellectually compel him to admit that God exists. I can proclaim it, and if the Spirit moves, he will believe it. That’s all.
I think van Til would say as much. The heart of presuppositionalism is that no evidence can be fully dispositive in the face of unbelieving presuppositions.
LikeLike
Jeff says: “Why no excuse? Because God’s existence and divine attributes are written on the heart.
God’s existence and attributes are written everywhere Jeff. Please tell me which parts of “what has been made” they are NOT written on and in. You can start by telling me what, aside from God, has not been made.
Jeff says: “Why concede that “I might be wrong, but I don’t think I am”? Because there is no deductive or inductive argument that can guarantee God’s existence as a necessary consequence.”
Not the God of the bible. Correct.
Jeff says: “Those are the only coins that spend in the unbeliever’s world. So I cannot, in terms he will accept, intellectually compel him to admit that God exists.”
I dunno. I just don’t know. Where pray tell are we told to spend the pagan’s coin in the pagan’s world? He already KNOWS God exists. THEE God. What we have in common with him is the image of this God. We don’t approach him on his own terms. That’s the point.
We come to Him as ambassador’s of Christ on God’s terms. We tell him in God’s NO uncertain terms that his own terms are death. We command him in Jesus name to forsake his life and surrender all that he is and all that he has by faith in repentance of his own terms to Jesus Christ who alone can reconcile him to His offended creator. Conceding him his terms is not only giving him an excuse, it is surrender before the first shot’s been fired. What kinda Calvinism is this around here? That piddles with fallen men on their own terms?
Jeff says: “I can proclaim it, and if the Spirit moves, he will believe it. That’s all.”
Which is what Kuyper said. I’m not unsympathetic to this viewpoint. However, “proclamation” biblically set forth and necessarily deduced, is broader than a simple witness that “Jesus is Lord and you better believe it.” Though sometimes that’s appropriate.
Jeff says: “I think van Til would say as much.”
Van Ti would have cheerfully submitted to being slowly boiled in oil before ever, in one trillion years, allowing the minutest possibility that His God might not exist and Bertrand Russel might be right. Trust me.
Jeff says: “The heart of presuppositionalism is that no evidence can be fully dispositive in the face of unbelieving presuppositions.”
The heart of my W-w is the God of the scriptures as most faithfully represented in WCF II. He is a singular class of being and knowledge that is SELF authenticating and attesting. Truth and certainty themselves. Yes, Christian epistemology IS the ontological trinity. That’s not confusion, that’s by design.
I would never (and neither would Van Til) tell a man dead in sin, by nature a child of wrath and enemy of his God that his God may not actually exist and his unbelief may be correct. Find me THAT anywhere in scripture or reformed history. (am I typing in tongues or something?) THAT is what I just for the 15th time quoted from sdb. I’m still waiting.
LikeLike
Greg,
First off, thank you for taking the time to put together a response. I realize this subject matter takes time. In my next comment I will address the points you raise specifically. Some of them are more in line with the guts of what we are talking about, some less. But, let me cut a little closer to that with some observations and suggestions.
1) Re: Epistemology – I realize you are genuine is saying you can take or leave Van Til, and your concerns are more for God, his existence and what that implies for your epistemic loyalties. However, in my years of dialoguing and debating with Van Tilians, you come across as thoroughly Van Tilian in your approach as anyone I have interacted with. Unless you strongly object, or you can supply areas where you significantly depart from CVT in your own epistemology or method, I’d like to draw this debate to an argument between a Van Tilian position versus a historically confessional (for lack of a better term – I’m up for suggestions) position. The more dispassionate and less personal we can make this discussion, honing in on facts, assertions, arguments, and counter-arguments the more productive I think it can be. That isn’t to say that these matters aren’t deeply personal to us, but we are sufficiently far apart in our assumptions that I’d like to make as much room for charity, and as little room for unnecessary offense as possible.
2) Re: Ontology – The Van Tilian epistemology you are arguing, as Jeff has noted earlier is grounded in God’s aseity. This is really an ontological position before it is an epistemic one. This is because you are claiming that God as a being exists – being/existence is properly the domain of ontology. I realize you are presupposing God – but how and more importantly, why? Do you see any place for traditional theistic proofs or arguments for God’s existence (e.g. from Anselm, Aquinas, etc.)?
3) General Principles – I would argue Kant was trying to address, among other issues in his philosophy, the problem of the mind (ideas) and the world, and how humans understand and interact between these dialectical poles. From what I can see from your concerns here, you are pressing (in Van Tilian terms) the mind and God from which everything branches. This is based on what I have seen so far, maybe you are actually broader, but consistent with CVT, it seems that the dialectic between God and the mind, or knower is where you are building out your epistemology. Obviously you are seeking to constrain this within Scripture – no Reformed epistemology can forgo this. So I would ask, do you think I am being fair here or not?
As opposed to the God-mind dialectic, I would say that my own understanding of historic Reformed epistemology accounts for four things:
I) God
2) Mind
3) Scripture/Revelation
4) The World (Creation)
LikeLike
Greg,
Come burn papal bulls with me as we fight off the heretic roman catholics on other threads.
Seriously, what are you doing out here, man? What’s your end game?
I’m having fun, and you’re just stuck in neutral. Come live and enjoy life. For realz.
LikeLike
Andrew,
I’ve seen all this before, in high school philosophy class.
It’s like I tell my wife: As long as you are happy, I’m happy.
Nothing wrong with being satisfied with the answers you have, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with Greg pushing for answers here. I’m cool with having this conversation and wouldn’t want to shut it down until we have dug a little deeper.
LikeLike
Jed,
That’s fine.
I don’t know what your adult sunday school classes are like at your church.
But in the OPC, we find a smart minister and grill them.
So far, Greg is just putzing around on the interwebz, making himself look silly. If he and everyone is having fun, that’s fine. Just saying, from this OPCers perspective, you guys will end up at Deut 29:29 and Isaiah 55:8-9.
Don’t listen to me, listen to R Scott Clark and What can we know, and how?.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
@Jed would you say that the reformed confessions assume (or require) a distinctive “reformed” epistemology?
LikeLike
2 quick things Jed. If as you say, I am as thoroughly Vantillian as anybody you’ve known, a thing I don’t even deny, then why must the discussion go back to Van Til? Is my representation deficient after all? I’m not objecting per se to your doing so, I just won’t be bound by anything except ultimately scripture, but also the reformed standards.
If I were to be convinced that Van Til was irreconcilably inconsistent with the standards at some point, unless I were to see overwhelming weight to Van Til’s version, I would side with the standards. I will side with the scriptures every time.
You had to see this next point coming. I need a very precise working definition of how you are using the term “dialectic”. That term is festooned with baggage from all over the place. I may be willing to allow a certain narrowly understood “dialectic” in my system. I need to know how YOU are using it though. God/mind isn’t very revealing.
For the sake of expediency for the moment, I’ll tentatively give you everything else while reserving the right to possibly revise later.
Thanks, I do very much appreciate your time as well.
LikeLike
Greg,
I’ll hit these one or two at a time, just to keep from dumping a 2500 word response. It may take me until Thursday to get to all of your initial points, but feel free to fire back or bring up other issues.
Regarding the possibility of God’s non-existence: It is indeed. What I’m looking for is a godly biblical character or teaching, or a noted historic reformed witness of this epistemological stance.
You won’t find many, if any who would argue substantively for this possibility. However, the distinction between Classical (pre-Kantian) theism, which includes Reformed Scholasticism, and post-Kantian theism, namely Van Tilian theism is how God’s existence is understood and argued for is that Classical theists argued that knowledge of God’s existence is a posteriori, where as CVT argues that it is a priori. The towering figure here being Aquinas, like Kant must be reckoned with, argues that God’s existence can be rationally argued based on what is observed in creation. He sees five distinct ways which God’s existence is argued: 1) Motion (Unmoved Mover), 2) Causation, 3) Necessity/Contingency, 4) Degree, and 5) Teleologically.
CVT, and other post-Kantian theists will argue that knowledge of God is a priori, therefore the external world (Creation) is not referenced, rather the possibility of knowledge is premised on God’s existence, and logically argued from there. However, beyond the logical coherence of the argument, there is no external referential to the argument, no empirical or rational process.
Without getting so much into the philosophical reasons why I think an a priori knowledge of God’s existence is problematic (I am not going to say impossible) is because I think the notion is hard to square with Romans 1:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 ESV
I would say that Paul is employing a posteriori reasoning here. 1) God has shown men of himself (existence included), then, 2) men perceive this, how? 3) through creation. Paul isn’t arguing that God’s existence is self-evident or that we have a priori knowledge of him independent of our experience and perception of creation. He is saying we arrive at this (by God’s design) precisely the opposite, evidence for God’s existence is hardwired in creation within us and outside us in the world, and this evidence is so compelling as to leave us without excuse, and men perceive this through observing creation.
I think that part of the problem is that CVT runs awfully close to conflating ontology and epistemology, when Classically ontology precedes epistemology.
LikeLike
Jed would you say that the reformed confessions assume (or require) a distinctive “reformed” epistemology?
sdb,
First, no I do not think that the Reformed confessions demand an epistemology – in the sense that one must have a well developed, philosophically informed epistemology to subscribe to the confessional standards. But, yes I do think that the Reformed confessions assume a history of theological and philosophical inquiry that includes epistemic commitments. The remarkable consensus of the confessions also point to the fact that these epistemic commitments were broadly shared.
So must Joe Plumber have a well developed Reformed epistemology to subscribe to the confessions? I don’t think so. But, I would say that understanding and sharpening one’s epistemic commitments upon the confessional tradition certainly isn’t a bad thing.
LikeLike
Greg,
Frances Turretin basically follows the Thomistic a posteriori approach to demonstrating God’s existence:
LikeLike
Greg,
Much of what we are debating here hinges on whether you are right or wrong on a couple of statements:
I. Faith IS epistemology
I would argue that they are quite distinct, even if they might inform each other and interact on many levels. However, faith justifies, epistemology does not. Faith is trust, or belief beyond what the mind apprehends or what the senses perceive. Epistemology is simply the process of knowledge, how one knows what they know. Faith saves, knowledge can puff up. Can you explain or elaborate here, because that seems really non sequiter-ish to me.
II. Christian epistemology IS the ontological trinity. That’s not confusion, that’s by design.
The Trinity is necessary, epistemology amongst creatures is contingent otherwise you loose the Creator/creature distinction. I don’t think you are trying to conflate here, and CVT would say that the Trinity is the basis for Christian epistemology. All you have here is a premise, but you haven’t defended it. It’s an assumption I cannot share until the premise is proven. Moreover it is a total collapse of ontology into epistemology, being into knowing.
LikeLike
Jed, I’m not gonna be able to go along with your exegesis of Romans 1. The reason why is on my huge comment, but that’s ok 🙂 I’ll tell you why when I get a chance. Please understand. I am not denying the existence of the classical “proofs”. Not even for today. Sproul and Geisler?
Jed says: “You won’t find many, if any who would argue substantively for [the possibility of the nonexistence of the Christian God].”
I know. Thank you. Now. The trouble is we DO have such people right here on this site. Can we grant Greg The Terrible his premise? That THIS is the new position?
Turretin employing the classical proofs has nothing to do with my contention for the last month,. Which is that a possibly non-existent Christian God is a product of the post modern age.
[From my huge comment]
“I know probably hundreds of people who have never heard the word “epistemology” and couldn’t write 5 syllables in a discussion like this. When asked however, if the Christian faith might be a delusion and their atheist workmates might be right, the mind of Christ dwelling in them by faith would respond in puzzled horror that I could even ask such a thing.”
I’m making the same claim for the scholastics (some of them anyway) who as I said a long time ago, didn’t speak in explicitly epistemological terms. The fact of their utilizing a posteriori language in their theology proper does not translate into the propensity to posit a possibly nonexistent God. THAT sir is what my point has been.
I think I pretty much agree with your piece to sdb. Where it counts most anyway.
I’m barely awake. Thanks again for your time. Jeff too. And can’t forget Erik. Andrew I haven’t quite figured you out yet, but I’m really getting there.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted June 9, 2015 at 11:22 pm | Permalink
Greg,
Frances Turretin basically follows the Thomistic a posteriori approach to demonstrating God’s existence:
Turretin’s evidence for the existence of God centered on the traditional cosmological and teleological arguments. He did not assume any innate knowledge of God, but maintained that such knowledge must be demonstrated so that different rational enquirers would independently come to the same conclusions. As long as one examines the evidence using reason, one will come to the conclusion that God exists… his proofs for the existence of God are generally traditional scholastic arguments. (Martin Klauber Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-Protestantism: Jean-Alphonse Turretin (1671-1737) and Enlightened Orthodoxy at the Academy of Geneva
That’s the lesson I take away from Paul on Mars Hill. First they must believe God exists–or might exist!–before you attempt to describe Him.
Good discussion, gents.
LikeLike
“a possibly non-existent Christian God is a product of the post modern age…propensity to posit a possibly nonexistent God.”
Greg, you’ve made this ungenerous characterization repeatedly. Honestly, you don’t have to say it a 14th time. And you did say that the very act of proving God is tantamount to positing a possibly non-existent God, hence the relevance of what Jed is saying.
“Can we grant Greg The Terrible his premise? That THIS is the new position?”
No. I forget who you were initially railing against but no one has signed on to your caricature. Saying it a 15th time will not make it so.
It seems to me that you fail to make distinctions between faith, evangelism, apologetics, and philosophy. Like I’ve said, most of the contributors here have taken public vows that we believe in the God of the Bible (faith) and would not promote a gospel message that did anything but robustly preach the reality of a holy & gracious God (evangelism). But then it’s a different question as to what can be “proved” in the realms of apologetics and philosophy, and I think it’s silly/naive to be dogmatic about any particular method in those realms.
LikeLike
Faith – Confessing that I believe.
Evangelism – Preaching that you should believe.
Apologetics – Arguing that you should believe.
Philosophy – Gesundheit.
LikeLike
I’m still waiting to hear what this other ‘thing’ is that’s supposed to be the ‘mind of Christ’ and is ontologically and phenomenologically distinct from supernatural faith. There’s glory which does away with faith, when we know as we’ve been known, though we still argue creator-creature distinction, but outside of that, I’m not familiar.
LikeLike
Muddy continues to play in the weeds while the picnic is over here. (btw. yes it IS a post modern contrivance)
Sean, that sounded like a substantive question. I honestly don’t think I understand what it is asking though. If you would be so good as to rephrase it, I will try, in the midst of all this, to answer it as best I am able, as soon as I can..
Jed , seeing that we are headed into the text (always a great idea), I find the Lockman crew and their “New American Standard Bible” to be the most useful as a base for this task. What is your view of that translation? Doing and typing serious exegesis and exposition of even a relatively small meaty passage is very time consuming. I appreciate your patience as we both agreed upon.
I don’ want to disrespect anybody else and may have to take a detour or two as well, thus taking even more time. That’s not even mentioning my offline responsibilities. It may not even get done today, but I’ll try.
LikeLike
Greg,
You’re doing much better pacing yourself, and addressing multiple people in one comment box.
My thanks.
LikeLike
Greg, everything I say and do, by definition, is substantive. But what I’m asking is what this ‘mind of Christ’ certainty is that transcends supernatural faith both ontologically reckoned(SR) and phenomenologically considered(SR and actualized). I quoted you a few comments back positing this distinction as the ‘mind of Christ’ and outside of glory where faith is done away with, I can’t place this ‘knowing’/mind of Christ’.
LikeLike
Greg,
The NASB is a great translation, I’ll be happy to use it. The one I have is NASB Updated, so it won’t have the Thees and Thous. I usually quote here from the ESV because their online version is so easy to cut and paste from – I am actually not a big fan of the ESV. I use the NASB for serious study, and the NIV when reading large portions of Scripture.
LikeLike
The reason pacing is important is because all of these discussions are hundreds even thousands of years old. No new ground is ever covered. The blogs are good for pointing people to resources for futher study. I personally think Greg should keep hammering away at what he thinks are the 7th commandment violations in this region of reformed webernetting space, he does much better on that front than anything else as far as I came concerned, though I know when Greg (read: you) look in the mirror, you fancy yourself an amateur Van Tillian, and that’s cool, that’s cool, man (I may sound like this guy when I type, but I mean, come on, it’s a blog, people, it’ll be here in 1, 2, 5 10 years, and whenever we want to, we can chime in iwth our favorite scene, 24/7, and time of day, let’s everyone chill, and by the way, is Greg lifting weights today, Greg, I hope you do, who’s next?)
LikeLike
Andrew,
Sorry amigo, but I think you are seriously whiffing here. Do you know of any serious non-Clarkian critique of Van TIl out there from a NAPARC scholar? CVT is still a sacred cow in too many influential circles to be worth the risk. I have literally had to scour the interwebs to find anything. A few of us think its an important enough discussion to drop our proclivity for BS and get down to it. I would love to point to more meaningful critiques of CVT, trust me, I am a layman and of limited philosophical and apologetic ability – but beyond the Trethewie article I linked to, which has all the subtlety of a fart in church, I haven’t seen one.
Besides, if these conversations are so blase, why do you waste your time with them? Don’t you have some golfing to get to?
LikeLike
That’s great news Jed. I started my response on Romans 1 this morning. I always tell people that I am no scholar of Koine Greek, but I ain’t gittin snowed either. I know enough to get by. The NASB is a masterpiece. Took like 15 years to complete and done by reverent, conservative first rate men in their respective specialties. The Lockman method is also right on as far as I’m concerned. Honestly, they should have just done the 95 version in the first place in my opinion though.
The ESV was produced for financial reasons. It’s a perfectly good work overal, but I could have lived just fine without it. The NIV pushes dynamic equivalency right up to the limit of what I’m willing to still call a translation. The gender neutral 2013 version is terrible. Moo should know better and be ashamed of himself. The older versions can be useful though.
Sean, what does (SR) mean? I still don’t think I’m really following your question. I promising you I am not being gratuitously difficult.
LikeLike
Hi Jed,
When I asked Greg to summarize his position, he was unable.
I’m with Zrim, he’s here more because he likes the fight, and I don’t see him providing any new information or valuable insights. I believe his position on trying to call reformed people to watch less lewd material is his strong suit, so he should name that trump and see how many points he can garner in this round.
He uses his experience arguing epistemology to attempt to build up his street cred so that he can, in the final swing, go once again after the hollywood genuflecting ways of us reformed and the shows we talk about here online.
I’ve been watching his ways now for months, and even over a year and a half. I see how he uses the reformed confessions at his whim to try to snuff out other people’s arguments. Make no mistake – hollywood is his real target, and he’ll stop at nothing to build up his case and keep hounding at that, his major project. Again, read his “about” section on his blog. Why do you think he has an “Erik Charter” dedicated section on his blog?
So by all means, continue down this path with him. If you don’t want to enable me, the best thing is to let me bloviate and not allow me to explain what it is I am doing out here. Personally, he should be going formal means and seeking out the OPC in his area, he’s an activist, and will only be frustrated the longer he continues fighting online as he is.
Hi Greg.
LikeLike
Greg, from what I can tell, you are centering in on the comment of one interlocutor (sdb) and extrapolating that out to mean the entire old life theological society webernettic industrial complex systematic matrix agrees.
There is literally little to none “OLTS” proper mindset, except for that which exists between the ears of our feline loving host. That’s my take. The real world of old school presbyterianism exists, and you can read all about it here that’s hot off the presses, and in your OPC 10 minutes from where you live.
I repeat – go vist Rev. Wilson and send the regards from a man who was in Rev. Harley’s church from 2001-2004. You are an addict of these interwebz, for real. I see this addiction crippling your ability to do actual work in teh church. You need not join the OPC, but find out what reformed-dom looks like in your real life, and get involved in whatever small way you can. I could be totally off base, and hey, take this thread to 2000 comments all about van til and all that. But seriously, I know I am the odd man out. THe best you can do is tune me out, not repond, and just let my words pass on and wonder whether this comment along with many others goes the way of the wordpress trash can. It means nothing to me, I’m only trying to help you out. Get involved in real life, that’s what I told curt day to do. The internet is a horrible place to make your mark. Expect frustration ahead.
I could go on..
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
I could go on..
I have no doubt.
LikeLike
Greg, and why do you think that is? If you are so inclined?
LikeLike
@Jed,
“First, no I do not think that the Reformed confessions demand an epistemology – in the sense that one must have a well developed, philosophically informed epistemology to subscribe to the confessional standards.”
No argument there.
“But, yes I do think that the Reformed confessions assume a history of theological and philosophical inquiry that includes epistemic commitments. The remarkable consensus of the confessions also point to the fact that these epistemic commitments were broadly shared.”
This is what I was getting at. Very interesting. I’ll be interested to see how you and Jeff move forward (if you do so) and how your conclusions intersect with the modern so-called “reformed epistemology” associated with Plantinga et al.
LikeLike
Greg – “First, no I do not think that the Reformed confessions demand an epistemology – in the sense that one must have a well developed, philosophically informed epistemology to subscribe to the confessional standards.”
Erik – I can just see the notice in the church bulletin:
Wanted: Men with a well developed, philosophically informed epistemology to subscribe to the confessional standards. Also must be able to tolerate long and often tedious meetings. Contact Elder Vander Vander if interested.
LikeLike
SR=Special Revelation
LikeLike
We’ve seen nothing like Andrew’s hounding of Greg since Janet Mefferd took down Marc Driscoll…
Andrew: Old Life’s Watchman on the Wall.
LikeLike
You just attributed a quote from Jed to me Erik.
LikeLike
Sean – Greg, everything I say and do, by definition, is substantive.
Erik – I marvel daily at the confidence that Speedy Mart’s “special offerings” can insert in a man.
LikeLike
Please click on Greg’s latest message (by way of his OLTS posts) to see where he’s at right now…
LikeLike
Greg, so let me reflect your position back to make sure I have it.
(1) There is no possibility that God does not exist. (Axiom)
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Is this a fair summary?
LikeLike
Jeff, it seemed to me that Reymond wrote his Systematic Theology (or whatever he called it) based on those two assumptions.
Made for some amazing dismissals, in a very dismissive way, throughout his book.
I didn’t prefer this method to others…
LikeLike
sdb,
I’ll be interested to see how you and Jeff move forward (if you do so) and how your conclusions intersect with the modern so-called “reformed epistemology” associated with Plantinga et al.
I must confess, while I can track with the basic contours of Plantiga’s thought (along with other Reformed analytic philosophers), I have a hard time wading through their mathematic syllogisms. Jeff would probably be far better here than I would ever hope to be. I will say, when given the choice between CVT and Plantiga, I’d choose Plantiga any day. As someone who holds to a theistic model of evolution very similar to Terry Gray, I very much appreciate his evolutionary argument against naturalism. That said, I see Plantiga et. al. trying to re-cast Orthodoxy along their analytic epistemic commitments – and in many ways they do come to a warranted defense of Reformed orthodoxy.
However, my leanings are decidedly scholastic and Thomistic (w/ sympathies to Common Sense Realism) – and while the Reformed Scholastics and framers of the Reformed confessions felt absolutely free to depart from Aquinas in many areas, I see them sharing the same epistemological foundations, especially Thomistic ontology. Here I’d commend the work of Dr. James Dolezal as someone who is carrying that torch today. He, I think fairly criticizes the analytic philosophers/theologians of dispensing with the epistemic basis for Divine Absoluteness, specifically God’s simplicity and his impassiblity, upon which Western Christian theism has been founded since at least Chalcedon.
I don’t know if this is within the bounds of what Greg and I are discussing, but I’d be happy to flesh this out with Jeff.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’d be curious to hear your response my comment to sdb.
LikeLike
sdb,
To continue the last comment, where my sticking point with Plantiga is, is with his possible worlds semantics. I realize that the advances of science have opened the door for us to discuss possible worlds, and speculate on the nature of reality and God in them. However, I would contend that the only world we can have knowledge of – and the only one God created is the actual world. This may include dimensions and realms beyond our powers of observation, but if God has created something, it exists in the world he has created, whether in physical or spiritual dimensions.
Even if something like, say a Multiverse exists, which I am not convinced it does, the ontological properties to all of these ‘verses, dimensions, et. al.” belong to the world. Here, I use the world as synonymous with all creation. Much of Plantigas arguments build out from his own ontological arguments. However, like my comment to Greg regarding Romans 1, I would say that the best arguments for God’s existence, corresponding to the truths we observe in the world, are cosmological in nature – I would argue that even causal and teleological proofs for God are a subset of cosmological proofs.
Some of these debates are really old, and whether you side with Anselm or Aquinas determines much of where you would land.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Greg, so let me reflect your position back to make sure I have it.
(1) There is no possibility that God does not exist. (Axiom)
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Is this a fair summary?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WCF I:IV
IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The authority of Genesis 1:1 , for which it ought to be believed DEPENDETH NOT UPON THE TESTIMONY OF ANY MAN OR CHURCH, BUT WHOLLY UPON GOD (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be believed, because it is the Word of God.
What’s your Westminster confessional “oldlife” take Jeff? That’s mine.
LikeLike
I have and enjoyed Plantinga’s God, Freedom, and Evil.
The advantage of analytic philosophy is that arguments are checkable. The disadvantage is that they can be really hard to read. But then, so are Hegel and van Til.
Like you, I don’t think the Bible (hence Confession) requires a particular stance on epistemology. Put another way, doctrine is epistemologically invariant.
I think Thomists are going to struggle with sensory perception and mis-perception, and also with statistical inference and probability.
And indeed, modern science isn’t friendly to substance and accidents.
But since my expertise is math and not philosophy per se, I welcome correction.
LikeLike
Greg,
I applaud your high view of the confessions – and after you are done with your rebuttal to my Romans comment (which was admittedly truncated), I’d be interested to see how you actually read the Confessions.
I get the sense that you are reading WCF in a synchronic or prima facie fashion – that is without reference to it’s historical context, simply as a faithful rendering of Scripture. At first blush there’s nothing wrong with this, and lots of folks read it this way.
However, I would urge you to put down your “synchronic” lenses for a moment, and read the Standards diachronically that is, with reference to its historical context. The presence of footnotes is an indication that the Westminster Divines wanted to have us read the confessions this way. The footnotes were far more than brief biblical proof-texts, but a reference to the discussion and commentary on the Scriptures used to support the Confession
I think I’d have a far better understanding of your position, and not have to infer it if you would tell me why you hold to this:
LikeLike
“Put another way, doctrine is epistemologically invariant.”
What a great turn of phrase!
LikeLike
Greg, I’m sorry to be dense, but I didn’t understand your response. Are you saying I did or didn’t accurately summarize the position?
LikeLike
Thanks Jeff,
I’d pretty much agree with your take here, as far as some of the weaknesses of Thomism, though I think modern Thomists – who are not surprisingly Roman Catholic – do attempt to deal with some of the blind-spots in Aquinas.
I give a hearty amen to your take on epistemology and doctrine. I’d go so far to say that the historical context of Scripture (especially the OT) was largely pre-epistemological in the sense that they didn’t have any sort of modern, well-defined epistemology, and their worldview (I know, that verboten OL term) was very much a product of the Ancient Near East, as well as the later western influences of early Greco-Roman thought. Scripture has epistemological implications of course, but I don’t see a “biblical epistemology” in the sense that Scripture teaches an epistemology.
And, modern science isn’t just unkind to substance and accident, but to metaphysics in general. Even though the two are quite distinct and can exist just fine in the same world.
LikeLike
Erik, thanks.
Guys, trying to make this my last (we know how that goes). The three comment per day rule is the best thing that I think happened to Oldlife. From here on out, I may just try to enforce that with posting this from my blog when I see someone going over too much, like TVD is doing on the “white smoke” thread. Jed and others, I wish no ill will, I just think these things are old arguments, and if progress is being made here, I don’t wish to disrupt. You guys are great and making for interesting reading. I hope you guys also get to get outside and do your favorite outdoor / gym activity at your earliest opporunity. Thanks for the interaction. Grace and peace. Truly.
Jeff Cagle
Greg, I’m sorry to be dense, but I didn’t understand your response. Are you saying I did or didn’t accurately summarize the position?
I believe the scriptures and all that they teach because they are the Word of the God of the scriptures. Like the confession says.
All human reason is eventually circular if left to itself. Circular reasoning explains nothing. This is why circle escaping “faith” is the only basis for human knowledge. Everybody has it. It’s only a matter of what in. The choices are, the ancient Christian scriptures and the God who reveals Himself therein, or some idol.
By that God’s sovereign electing grace, I choose the former. What about you?
LikeLike
See, it’s about hollywood. I told you all, but seriously, none of you listen.
Greg, we get it. Keep rolling that rock,sisyphus. Post on a thread with less comments and less old. Seriously, when did this blog become facebook.
THREE COMMENTS PLEASE 😉
Who’s next? Can you all please just stop commenting on this thread, yes, I am talking to each and everyone one of you, like this
Queue GtT:
“andrew, i never said hollywood, i said idol…”
yes, i know, but i know where you are goign. please just stop greg, for your sake. please?
next
LikeLike
Sherrif Andrew, give it a rest. If you don’t want to participate then don’t. But stop trying to dictate the perameters of this discussion. If Darryl wanted us to can it, all he has to do is ask.
LikeLike
Greg,
I think you are equating faith and epistemology. Can you provide warrant for this?
For example, if you are going to justify this exegetically what is the overlap between Faith [emunah (Hebrew)/pistis (Greek)] and Knowledge [da’at (Hebrew)/gnosis (Greek)] ?
Or philosophically, how does Van Til (or you) see faith as the way to escape the circular reasoning.
I think you have done a fairly good job of stating the premise of your argument here, but what is your logical, or exegetical defense of this premise? So far I am left to conclude that faith for you functions as a Kierkegaardian leap that actually bypasses knowledge, or at least some sort of external referentiality of your truth claim. Do you intend this or not?
LikeLike
Yes! Down with metaphysics, vive la empiricism .
LikeLike
Which would you like first. My exegesis of Roman 1:18ff or the answers to the questions you’ve asked here in your last?
So far I am left to conclude that faith for you functions as a Kierkegaardian leap that actually bypasses knowledge,..
So help me, I almost said you were gonna says this exact thing. I would.
LikeLike
Greg,
Sorry if I am jumping too far ahead – I actually had time on my hands today. I would say answer the issues you feel most pertinent, and if you are already working on something go with that. I would think the Romans exegesis would be best, since we talked about that first. But, by all means, do what suits your needs best.
So help me, I almost said you were gonna says this exact thing. I would.
Ha! Interesting. I’ll look forward to your response in due time.
LikeLike
sdb,
For some reason this conversation reminds me of a more sanctified version of conversations I had in my twenties where we didn’t lack for weed (before it was bred into the stuff that could sedate a rhinoceros), carne asada nachos, and Radiohead as background music.
“Heyyy maaaan, but what about the constructive empiricists, what’s that all about?” To be followed by the long chirp of a ‘water-pipe’. Some things are better left in the past – but I am pretty sure sean would’ve been game.
LikeLike
It’s been a long time, but I wasn’t always a Christian Jed 😉
LikeLike
Dude, I’m sure I have no idea of that of which you speaketh. I’ve diligently kept these lips from the dope, the devil’s brew and wanton women. Unless I didn’t. Then, It’s going down for real………………..
And it was bean and cheese tacos at Taco Cabana then dodging the priests who were rolling in late after tying one on.
‘Mr. Moore shouldn’t you be in your room? Uh, well, uh, yea, probably. That’s where we were headed, father.’
‘At 1 a.m. you were headed back to campus, Mr. Moore?’
‘Uh, yea, well, we got hungry but we were there earlier.’
‘Mr. Moore if you are not back in your room in ten minutes……………….
LikeLike
Jed says: “I think you are equating faith and epistemology.”
From 2 pages ago.
“Faith in Jesus Christ, intellectually speaking, IS a radical epistemological transformation from death in sin to new life in Christ. Upon justification a man’s entire W-w is birthed from the first Adam into the last. This does not depend upon his ability to explicitly articulate that in so many words. That is a why I say my independent, fundamentalist baptist, Arminian, dispensational, kjv only friends, who would be aghast at the suggestion of a possibly false gospel, are living in the right epistemology even if they’ve never heard the word, nor the name of Dr. Cornelius Van Til. [or probably any other name will come up here]
The command to “repent and believe and believe the gospel” is a command to trust the death and resurrection life of Jesus as our righteousness, step down from the throne of our life and agree with the God of Gen 1:1 that He is God and we are not. The intellectual component of that is that we now joyously recognize that reality starts with Him and not with us. It does for unbelievers too, but they suppress that truth in their own unrighteousness.”
While not synonymous, they are inextricably bound up and defined by one another.
LikeLike
Greg,
While not synonymous, they are inextricably bound up and defined by one another.
Alright, that does clarify your argument somewhat. When you get a chance to comment on this, could you explain how they are inextricably bound, and how one defines the other. For the sake of the discussion, I’ll simply grant this until you feel like you have adequately delineated this, then we can get to where I might agree or disagree.
As an aside, thanks for your candid answers, I am enjoying this discussion immensely.
LikeLike
Got buried in work today guys. Gotta take it when it’s here. Thank you Jesus 🙂
LikeLike
Man what a draining day today. No work for a couple weeks and then I get hit all at once. (Independent computer repairmen)
Being half asleep last night, I missed this part when I copied and pasted my last response from my blog to Jed:
===================================================
Jed says what I’ve been saying all along: “You won’t find many, if any who would argue substantively for [the possibility of the nonexistence of the Christian God].”
To which I then responded with:
“I know. Thank you. Now. The trouble is we DO have such people right here on this site. Can we grant Greg The Terrible his premise? That THIS is the new position?”
To which Muddy now responds with:
No. I forget who you were initially railing against but no one has signed on to your caricature. Saying it a 15th time will not make it so.
So assuming Jed and I are correct, what we have here is the following
1) In the oldlife days nobody argued for the possible nonexistence of God.
2) Today people do.
3) What they do today is not the new position.
Welcome to the post modern world.
====================================================
I hope to get some more work done on Romans 1 later. Piecemeal seems to be best there. SEAN, I actually haven’t forgotten about you, but I’m only one guy.
Jed asks: “could you explain how [faith and epistemology] are inextricably bound, and how one defines the other.”
Rather than assume. as we both have been doing, that we are talking about the same things, let’s define our terms.
FAITH is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God. And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (Hebrews 11) That whole chapter, the famous “Hall of Faith” is about people who in one form or another, demonstrated that they considered God to be more reliable than their reason, senses or hearts desires. On no other basis than God’s word.
EPISTEMOLOGY, is that branch of philosophy that seeks in very short, to answer the question, HOW do we know? Not how do we know this or that particular object of subject of knowledge, but how do we know anything at all? From whence arises the inescapable sense of pragmatic certainty whereby you and I are unable to intelligibly have this conversation unless we both unconsciously presume that the basic structures of logic will unfailingly continue to function? Of course the definition I just gave already assumes a certain epistemology even for the definition itself. One’s epistemology cannot be “proven” by logic or evidence. It is that by which all else is ultimately proven or not.
What are your thoughts? I suspect you will have trouble with my definition of epistemology.
Jed says.. I am enjoying this discussion immensely.”
I appreciate that.
It’s not that I don’t enjoy your company or anybody else’s or that I don’t find these discussions stimulating. I don’t know if “enjoy” is the right word for me. I suppose I actually do, but given my choice? I’d rather never dispute with another professing christian as long as I live. Not to sound over pious, but I’d much rather win souls and strengthen younger believers. I do this because I believe with all my heart that God wants me to do it. Or I wouldn’t.
LikeLike
@ sdb: How does a constructive empiricist deal with faith claims? I would imagine that if Moses or Thomas were a constructive empiricist, each would have to view “God is speaking to me” as empirically inadequate.
But then van Frassen is a committed Catholic, so there ya go.
LikeLike
Greg,
I’ve been jammed up with stuff on the homefront, and probably won’t get to responding until later tonight or perhaps tomorrow evening. Feel free to send me any other responses, and I’ll get to those as well.
LikeLike
No problem Jed. I’ve been very tied up too. This is why I like online discussions. Can go at everybody’s own pace.
LikeLike
Still hung up Jed, but do feel free to give your thoughts on my definitions In the meantime if possible.
LikeLike
Guys,
The party’s over. You missed your window.
LikeLike
@Jeff I just saw your comment. Strictly speaking CE is an account of science (objectifying inquiry), however, by eschewing metaphysics, it is an account of science that makes room for faith without obscurantism. This was the point of his latest book, “The Empirical Stance”. I’ll leave it at that in case this comment gets lost…
LikeLike
Nonsense Erik!!! That’s the beauty of online debates. There is no window.
LikeLike
Greg, just refer us to the textbook you are copying this stuff from. Will save you all kinds of time and waste of the bandwith purchased for this site.
It’s easy, just type in…
“100 Big Amazing Facts About Christianity (Big Books 1975) pages 2 to 6”
That will suffice
The conversation is clearly not getting past page 6 after about a year of this on here.
Cheers.
LikeLike
Puritan Board would clearly welcome this debate as long as the contestants could learn the secret handshake to gain entry.
Greg could wear a tinfoil viking hat that would enable direct contact with Van Til throughout the proceedings.
LikeLike
The PB has a large contingent of closet NKJO and theonomists, which keep it under wraps most of the time.
And they’ll ban you in two seconds if you disagree with them, or aren’t “nice” to the quirks of the worst members and moderators.
LikeLike
Hi Greg,
I wanted to challenge one small piece of your argument. You have suggested that
Greg: An uncertain, possibly nonexistent God, leaving pagans with an excuse is the new position.
Or put another way, if there is the slightest possibility of God’s non-existence, then an unbeliever has an excuse for his unbelief.
I don’t think this syllogism is correct. It assumes that we are justified in making really, really bad bets as long as there is the smidgen of a chance of a winning outcome. In real life, we don’t think this way.
Consider seat belts. Is there a chance that if I drive without belting my kid, that he or she might arrive at the other end safe and sound? Yes. Do I therefore have an excuse for failing to put a seat belt on him or her? Absolutely not.
To take a more extreme example, suppose Alice picks up a gun, points it at Bob (who is innocently reading the Washington Post in his chair), and pulls the trigger. The gun fires, and the bullet strikes Bob in the chest, leading to death by bleed-out.
Alice is charged with manslaughter. In court, she argues as follows:
Alice: When I pulled the trigger, I was just playing with it. I knew there was a chance that the gun might not be loaded, and that even it was loaded, there was a chance that it might misfire, and even if it didn’t misfire, the bullet might miss Bob or at least fail to kill him. Those chances give me an excuse.
You and I know how well that will go over. A chance of success is not a sufficient excuse for making a terrible bet.
Likewise here, betting against God’s existence is a bad bet even if there is a smidgen of a chance of success. (Paging Blaise Pascal. Paging Blaise Pascal. Please report to the archive section of Old Life. Blaise Pascal, please report to the archive section.)
So I think we need to reject the syllogism if there is a chance of God’s non-existence, then the unbeliever has an excuse for unbelief. There is an excuse only if the unbeliever has a good bet.
LikeLike
Greg,
I am out of hand for serious comments (ones that take time and forethought) until later in the week. My oldest has a heart condition and this week he has his semi-annual testing. But, I haven’t abandoned the conversation.
LikeLike
I keep holding on to the hope that one day you’ll say something grown up and meaningful KENT. But alas, that day, if it ever does come, is not yet upon us.
Does anybody pay for hosting by bandwidth anymore? A monthly fee with a possible cap that I promise you, if in place, I am not endangering. It would be much more honest to just say you don’t like me because I shove your face into things you don’t wanna see than to portray this pathetic pretense that you’re concerned about Darryl’s bandwidth.
I got turned down at Puritan board Erik. (I don’t think they liked my church) I have specific reasons for being on this blog.
LikeLike
Jeff, sorry, it’s impossible that Pascal made The Wager in the 1600’s. Greg has already established that The God Who Might Not Exist is a modern invention. Funny how Pascal says we should bet on God because of the superior benefits of doing so but Paul says if Christ is not raised from the dead we should not be Christians. So if Greg is consistent he likes Paul the least, Pascal only slightly better and like himself the most.
LikeLike
Greg,
I am out of hand for serious comments (ones that take time and forethought) until later in the week. My oldest has a heart condition and this week he has his semi-annual testing. But, I haven’t abandoned the conversation.
Of course you should tend to that far more important family matter Jed. And may our great and glorious God, in whose image and by whose hand we are fearfully and wonderfully made, show Himself merciful and mighty in and through your child in this season of difficult providence.
LikeLike
Greg, you remind me of something that happened at a summer factory job during university.
A lifer there approached me, a kind elderly man, and asked if I had studied Calculus.
I replied that yes, one year in high school, one serious science course in University and a bird elective business course as well.
He asked if I could explain it to him over lunch the next week.
I think I stood there very still for about 30 seconds trying to ponder the dynamics of the whole situation.
Greg, you are playing games now for over a year on trying to define epistemology, you aren’t cut out for this kind of discussion at all, and I fear this is turning into a “pig party” with people stringing you along.
Worry more about meeting the honest needs of your day, do several people a favour.
Pretty please?
LikeLike
Thanks Greg, your prayers are truly appreciated. We’ve been dealing with Jackson’s condition for 7 years now. The skill and care of his doctors and medical team has been a real blessing. He’s in great health now, but we have to stay on top of the defect. There will be more surgery down the road, but for now it has to be monitored. God has been gracious through the whole process, and we trust his providence wherever it leads.
LikeLike
you aren’t cut out for this kind of discussion at all, and I fear this is turning into a “pig party” with people stringing you along….Worry more about meeting the honest needs of your day, do several people a favour.
Your concern is touching, but I’ll take my chances. Clearly being far more cut out for this than I am, why don’t you actually participate and show us why? You’re welcome not to watch at all of course too.
There’s a whole lot more truth in what I say here than you have any interest in acknowledging. Isn’t there? Both on this topic (which really only started a couple months ago.) and that Satanic entertainment sin machine you love so much.
You have at least a dozen empty, vapid, meaningless comments to me in this thread alone which can be fully summarized by this staggering, goose bump inducing profundity:
Save yourself some typing from now on and just copy and paste those two words. That’s all you’re saying anyway.
LikeLike
Kent says: ” you aren’t cut out for this kind of discussion at all,”
Can I ask why you say this Kent? I promise I’m not picking a fight. I honestly want to understand your thinking.
Jed, how is your oldest doing? Feel free to email me if you like. (anybody else too). tiribulus@yahoo.com
LikeLike
Come on Kent. Don’t be like that. I asked you an honest question. I’m really interested in your answer.
LikeLike
Greg, talking about higher works of theology is not consisting of putting your toe in and saying “this is very interesting” and getting absolutely nowhere in over 200 posts. No matter how honest the intent is of the parties.
If you missed the boat on your doctorate in the early part of your life, that’s how it went. You can possibly try again in the 2nd half of your life. It is a lot of hard work and you had better be ready to take on a work load that you can’t even imagine, with the huge chance it gets you nowhere in life.
You can’t just scan a chapter on Van Til or Tillich or Pannenberg and talk about it like the Yankees game last night.
LikeLike
Thank you. No sarcasm at all, but not only do I have no desire to do so, but it would be impossible for me to get any kind of degree. I am not an anti intellectual, anti education person either if that’s what you think.
It is true that just about everybody on this site is better read and better informed than I am. I hope so. They spent a whole more money than I did.
I do however also hope to continue this conversation.
LikeLike
kent,
You’re raining on our parade here man. The Terrible One and I haven’t finished our discussion because of some pressing time constraints on my end. Much to your chagrin, it shall proceed.
LikeLike
JED!! There you are!!! You don’t write, you don’t call!! 😦
LikeLike