Folks,
It seems that when a discussion gets underway on this list some members prefer to return to the question of whether one can now know one is saved. Then follows all sorts of confusion that would take days to sort out, probably to no one's satisfaction. So no progress is made.
First, the issue is not skepticism. Even if a sinner cannot know (in the proper sense of the word) that he is saved -- and so far no one has shown that he can -- Scripturalism furnishes us with many truths when all other methods fail, and so skepticism is avoided.
Second, knowledge requires explicit statements in Scripture or deductions from Scripture. It is not the same as assurance or certitude or certainty.
Third, opinions may be true or false. (It is absurd to say that some propositions are neither true nor false.) So Jack's (a hypothetical person) opinion that he is saved may indeed be true, but no one has yet shown how he can deduce it from Scripture. Those who think he can so deduce it must show how it can be so deduced -- but don't try it here for at least a year.
Fourth, Jack's failure is not due to any doubt about Scripture (and it is impossible to doubt a proposition one believes -- one either assents or one does not) but solely to the problem of self-knowledge. He knows the major premise, All believers are saved. He opines the minor premise, I am a believer. Therefore the conclusion, I am saved, can rise no higher than opinion.
Finally, the question is not how does one know one knows? but how does one know? Scripturalism says, one knows only by explicit statements in or valid inferences from Scripture.
Now, gentlemen, move on to another topic.
My reply was short:
Sean, do you opine the canon of Scripture or know it? If the former, does that not mean your axiom and its attendant theorems could be false, in which case knowledge is impossible? If the latter, do you not agree that such would necessitate that you are regenerate due to the fact only God's sheep listen to, hear, and follow the voice of the Shepherd (1 John 4, John 8, 10)? If so, then why isn't that self-knowledge? Or if you would not agree, why not?
Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, I never received a response to this inquiry. After three or four other members made arguments for self-knowledge from Scripture and the WCF, Sean singled out one, a person who with whom I've corresponded for years, by writing:
Mary, do you think someone who denies that Jesus Christ is the one true God and Lord, maker of heaven and earth (John 1:1-3), has any reason to believe, or if you prefer, know, they are a child of God?
Aside from the fact John 1:1-3 does not mention "the one true God," it will not escape the attention of the critical reader that Sean is changing the subject. He started a discussion on self-knowledge. When faced with several challenging objections to his skeptical position, he transitions to Trinitarianism.
Now, I have no objection to discussing Trinitarianism and have done so for months. But I've had enough conversations with Sean to recognize his bait-and-switch. Clearly, Sean's comment is irrelevant to the topic he started. For even if we suppose I am not a Christian, would this refute my argument? No. Despite our disagreements, I assume Sean considers John 8, 10, and 1 John 4 to be canonical. So if these passages teach that one who is not a sheep is not regenerate and cannot hear, follow, or listen to the voice of the Shepherd, then the argument still appears to stand. That I would not be able to know it would not be relevant to whether Sean could be able to know it.
Nevertheless, although she handled Sean deftly, Sean made a few more misrepresentations before I was able to respond. Naturally, the concern for me which this poster showed prompted me to write a summary of why I hold certain Trinitarian views, correcting Sean where appropriate:
Hi Mary. I'm not sure how much exposure you have had to several issues relevant to why I hold to the Trinitarianism of the Nicene Creed, Novatian, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and other early church fathers rather than that of Calvin, Van Til, or Clark. So before answering your questions, I thought it would be best to give a broad sketch of some of this material.
Firstly, I think all Trinitarians would agree with a few tenets:
1. Monotheism: there is one God.
2. The Father is God, the Son (Jesus) is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
3. The Father is distinct from the Son, and both are distinct from the Spirit.
4. The Father, Son, and Spirit each univocally though distinctly possess divine attributes: each is omniscient, eternal, good, etc. Each possesses a mind and a will. On the other hand, they are individuated or distinguished from one another by properties: for instance, only the "first person" is the Father, only the "second person" is the Son, and only the "third person" is the Spirit. They have different thoughts (e.g. "I am the Father") and make different choices with their different wills (e.g. "I, the Son, will to die"), though all of these variances are with the same purposes and ends in mind, of course.
For the past 6 months or so, I have been attempting to reconcile point 1 with point 2. Without qualification, point 2 seems to be an indication of support for tritheism. In fact, I think Sean's position logically resolves either into my own or into tritheism. As it stands, Sean can't consistently affirm point 1, monotheism (see my concluding paragraphs).
The solution I came to was to affirm that what the phrase "one God" means in point 1 is not the same as what "God" means in point 2. In point 2, I think the word "God" means "divine [nature]" or "deity." The Father, Son, and Spirit are each able to be called "God" because each possesses the divine attributes or divine nature. But "[one] God" has more than one meaning. Clearly, when Jesus is said to be the "Son of God," he is not the Son of a divine nature or set of divine attributes - He is the Son of a particular person, the Father.
So one meaning of God is Father. Another meaning of God is divine. I think John 1:1-2 supports this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the Father], and the Word was [divine]." The Word was not the Father, which is Sabellianism. Nor was the Word with some abstract divinity, for the Word Himself is divine.
Now, when we examine the passages in which the New Testament which refer to the "one" God (Mark 10:18, 12:29, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Romans 3:30, Galatians 3:20, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, James 2:19) or "[only] true" God (John 3:33, 5:44, 17:3, Romans 3:4, 16:27, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Timothy 1:17 1 John 5:20), we find that they each refer to the Father alone. Thus, I think monotheism is true because we have one Father: "Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?" (Malachi 2:10). But Trinitarianism is also true because there are three distinct yet equally divine persons. And while this post is primarily about what Scripture and logic dictate - we are Protestants, after all - please note that the Nicene Creed refers to the Father as the one God, not the Trinity.
You might wonder why the Father alone is called the one God if the Son and Spirit are really equal with Him in respect to their divinity. The reason is to be found in the different properties each possesses. The Father, Son, and Spirit are each equally divine. But only the Father is uncaused: the Son and Spirit are, respectively, eternally begotten and eternally spirated of or from the Father. It is for that reason they are subordinate to the person of the Father. It is analogous to a human relationship between a father and son: when a father begets or generates a son, that son possesses humanity. The son is no less human than is his father. But because the son derives humanity from or has humanity communicated to him from his father, he is subordinate to his father. The obvious difference between this and the Trinity is that the relationship between the Father and Son/Spirit is eternal, not temporal, and divinity is communicated rather than humanity.
So the Son and Spirit are co-equal in respect to nature but not in respect to person[al properties]. If they were co-equal in the latter case, then there really is no reason that one person should obey the other. The relationships themselves would be arbitrary.
I think this is a fair summary, and I am of course willing to expand on or point you to posts in which I elaborate on these arguments, so to answer your specific questions:
"So it is a matter of semantics, then?"
In one sense, yes, and in another sense, no. Sean seems to deny that "God" can have multiple meanings, so semantics is relevant. But these semantics have significant implications.
"But Ryan (and I ask this with all humility), when Jesus says I am my Father are ONE---would this language not be considered the same as “one God?”"
Define "one God." We would agree they are not the same person, right? But isn't the "one God" a person? If so, then doesn't it make more sense to say that Jesus and the Father are one in some other sense (e.g. John 17:11, 21-23)?
With respect to what Sean says, then, he is lying when he says I deny the full divinity of the Son and Spirit. He is equivocating when he says I don't believe the Son and Spirit are co-equal with the Father. He is raising a red herring in citing Thomas' confession. The truth is, I tried for several months to get him to answer specific questions about Trinitarianism, and he has offered no reply. He says the Father, Son, and Spirit have one will. I ask if the Father willed to die or assume humanity as did the Son. No reply. He says the Son and Spirit are autotheos and aseity. I ask how then the relationships among the Trinity can be non-arbitrary. No reply. He says there is one God because there is one definition of God. I ask if there is one person because there is one definition of person. No reply. He says the Father, Son, and Spirit are inseparable. I ask how that establishes monotheism. No reply. He says I'm a Unitarian. I ask if he thinks the early church - including the primary opponent of Arius with whom my position is in full agreement - was comprised of Unitarians. No reply. [I am being polite when I say his historical understanding of the Trinity is skewed.] Etc.
So why does he bring up the Trinity now, in a completely different context, after failing to respond for so long? Honestly, it is because he realizes he is facing another uphill struggle on yet another topic: my arguments for the necessity of self-knowledge. In my first post, I use the Socratic method to anticipate the possible responses he could have to my questions. Since the answers to these questions lead to a rejection of his denial of self-knowledge, he blatantly changes the subject, making the same misrepresentations for which I have corrected him dozens of times. He used the same bait-and-switch method when we discussed the Trinity. Will he respond to the arguments I make for the Nicene view of the Trinity in this comment? I really don't have anything else to say. Just watch and see.
I hope your worries are calmed and that you are doing well. Thank you for your kind words.
I have said all of this on my blog at one time and in one form or another. However, seeing it in all at once puts into perspective how systematic Trinitarianism really is. As I said, the discussion board has been useful. In any case, my prediction about the substance of Sean's reply quickly came to fruition:
While Ryan calls me a liar, keep in mind that despite his attempt to paint his view as "Trinitarian," he admits he rejects any view of the Trinity that would be recognized by "Calvin, Van Til, or Clark" not to mention the Westminster Divines or any Christian church anywhere. Further, while pretending to hold to the Nicene creed (he doesn't) he completely rejects the Athanasian creed which states in part:
"So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity."
I think you'll figure out shortly who is the liar.
Again, what had I just said in my last comment?
"Will he respond to the arguments I make for the Nicene view of the Trinity in this comment? I really don't have anything else to say. Just watch and see."
Called it.
Again, this is just what occurred in our discussions several months ago. I make half a dozen or so Scriptural and logical arguments for my view, and Sean passes these by, instead focusing on historical theology. Although Sean is being disingenuous in his representations of this history, even if he weren't, none of it could bind my conscience.
But this is well-trodden ground before. I ask Sean who the Nicene Creed calls the one God, the Trinity or the Father. No reply. I ask Sean whether the Creed says the Son is God of Himself (autotheos) or God of God. No reply. So who is really pretending to hold to the Nicene Creed? Look no further than the person who thinks the Trinity is the one God or that the Son [or Spirit] is autotheos: Sean.
Does Sean explain why I should accept Calvin, Van Til, or Clark's view? No. Does he explain why I should accept the Athanasian Creed? No. Does he respond to any criticisms of their views which I have made? No. Does he interact with the works of early church fathers on whom I have commented? No... Is this all sounding too familiar?
Now, if I cared enough, I could perhaps find support for my Trinitarian position in Reformed authors. But given that historical theology isn't conscience-binding, I really find it ridiculous for Sean, a fellow Scripturalists of all things, to use it [with less than stellar effect] as his primary rebuttal. That's a Roman Catholic method, not a Protestant one. Nevertheless, I recall several statements which support my view with which Sean cannot agree. One is given by Jonathan Edwards who, speaking of the immanent Trinity, eternally subordinates the Son and Spirit to the fount of divinity, the Father, so as to non-arbitrarily explain their economic activity:
"Though a subordination of the Persons of the Trinity in their actings, be not from any proper natural subjection one to another, and so must be conceived of as in some respect established by mutual free agreement, whereby the Persons of the Trinity, of their own will, have as it were formed themselves into a society, for carrying on the great design of glorifying the deity and communicating its fullness, in which is established a certain economy and order of acting. Yet this agreement establishing this economy is not to be looked upon as merely arbitrary, founded on nothing but the mere pleasure of the members of this society, not merely a determination and constitution of wisdom come into from a view to certain ends which it is very convenient for the obtaining. But there is a natural decency or fitness in that order and economy that is established. It is fit that the order of the acting of the Persons of the Trinity should be agreeable to the order of their subsisting. That as the Father is first in the order of subsisting, so he should be first in the order of acting. That as the other two Persons are from the Father in their subsistence, and as to their subsistence naturally originated from him and are dependent on him, so that in all that they act they should originate from him, act from him and in a dependence on him. That as the Father with respect to the subsistences is the fountain of the deity, wholly and entirely so, so he should be the fountain in all the acts of the deity. This is fit and decent in itself. Though it is not proper to say, decency obliges the Persons of the Trinity to come into this order and economy. yet it may be said that decency requires it, and that therefore the Persons of the Trinity all consent to this order, and establish it by agreement, as they all naturally delight in what is in itself fit, suitable and beautiful."
http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/jonathan-edwards/miscellaneous-writings/the-trinity/
Finally, it seems Sean is a little huffy that I call him a liar. Sean, you don't get kid gloves any more. You don't get the benefit of the doubt. I've bent over backwards to explain my view to you dozens of times, and if you still don't see fit to correctly represent it, I have no problem calling you out. If you want to use this as your excuse to exit this conversation - an exit which, I suspect, was and is forthcoming in any case - that doesn't bother me. My responses to you are no longer to convince you but to prevent you from doing spiritual and intellectual harm to others. Your allegiance to Clark is taking precedence to Scripture, whether you realize it or not.
This particular discussion really is a microcosm of our months of discussion. Sean picks a topic. I respond. Sean switches topics. I point this out but respond anyway. This continues for a while, then Sean waits a few weeks and starts the process all over again. It's one charade after another. The difference is, I expect it now. It is perhaps for this reason that the conversation took a rather nasty turn after my last comment above. In my last blog post, I pointed out Sean's hypocrisy in moralizing on his blog while making backhanded remarks behind closed doors. As a close to this post, I hope readers will remember the following as just one more evidence of this (Sean's comments are indented, my replies are not):
You're losing it Ryan. Now you're threatening me? Do you really think I'm afraid of you? Like I've said before you are a very arrogant young man. A theologically blind one too. More concerning is that you sound like someone on the verge of a nervous breakdown. That's no joke. I don't think you're well. I mean, you're arguments to Patrick were so bizarre (I hope to blog on it soon) that I really started to fear for your mental health.
My advice to you is get off the Internet for a couple of months and devote your time to studying the Scripture and prayer. Good advice for anyone really. In your case I would recommend mediating specifically on those passages of Scripture that affirm the equality of the Son to the Father. Maybe then with doubting Thomas you may one day call upon Jesus Christ as your Lord and God too.
And, you're right, we really don't want people with an allegiance to Clark on a Clark list. 8-P
Supposed threats and my mental health... well, at least these are new. But they are even less worthy of a response than your arguments, if that is possible.
I am serious Ryan. I don't think you're well.
I guess when all else fails, one is left with questioning his opponent's sanity to justify ignoring his arguments.
33 comments:
"Sean, do you opine the canon of Scripture or know it? If the former, does that not mean your axiom and its attendant theorems could be false, in which case knowledge is impossible? If the latter, do you not agree that such would necessitate that you are regenerate due to the fact only God's sheep listen to, hear, and follow the voice of the Shepherd (1 John 4, John 8, 10)? If so, then why isn't that self-knowledge? Or if you would not agree, why not?"
Ryan, this is a very profound question. I am in the process of getting to know your system, so I may have asked questions that sounds not very smart, as I am still beginning to learn and evaluate Scripturalism, so please bear with me.
So, when you asked "do you opine the canon of Scripture or know it" Do you mean more generally, so to speak the existence of a written revelation by the Spirit (either in one particular manuscript tradition, or mixed in several different traditions), or more particularly, so as to you know the precise one family or one manuscript of the Scripture to be the canon, or you know the canon exists in many families or manuscript traditions, but you are able to identify everyone of them, implying a deep aquitance with every detail words or phrase of the Scripture.
The former suffices.
Ryan, thanks for the clarification. So if by canon of scripture you mean the knowledge of the general existence of a complete written revelation either in one particular manuscript family or scattered in several different traditions. Does that imply you cannot know the precise full content of a certain book in the canon? Thus imply the possibility for error in the axiom? (at least not material)
To me, I know the book of Jude is part of the revelation, but I am really really not sure about whether the doxology contains the word "through Jesus Christ" or not.
Or in another sense, I know the OT was written in the Hebrew tongue, and I tend to believe in the current square form, but some argues it is written in the paleo or Samaritan form which does not have an ending form for any letter, if that is the case, it at least remove that special message in Isa. 9:6. But whether I know for sure it is the Aramaic square or paleo or other pictographical proto type, I really don't know for sure.
Is what I am saying contraditing the Scripturalism? Thanks,
"So if by canon of scripture you mean the knowledge of the general existence of a complete written revelation either in one particular manuscript family or scattered in several different traditions."
To give a fuller reply, I wouldn't generalize too broadly. My argument at least presupposes that the concrete Johannine passages I mention are divine revelation. Obviously, if God has spoken, he has spoken something. Complete inability to recognize what has been spoken would preclude the ability to rationally justify that speaking has occurred. There might be question about particulars - Scripture itself distinguishes between milk and solid food, difficult and easily understood sayings, etc. - but being non-dogmatic about these for so long as one has questions about them ought not shake our confidence.
"Does that imply you cannot know the precise full content of a certain book in the canon?"
Not logically - there is no reason one could not know the full content of the canon, but such knowledge is not a given. I have never met such a person.
Well, I know it isn't that popular but I don't believe in scribal errors (I think alleged ones can be explained), so I go with the majority of source-language texts as the full content of revelation. That means Hebrew Masoretic text and Greek Byzantine text. I realize there are differences but I don't think it changes meaning. That's just my view.
Ryan, thanks for the further explanation, I got your idea, it is very reasonable.
A further question, tools and resources like lexicon are complied by scholars using dictionaries and historical writings, sometimes (I don't process that scholarship), the precise meaning is to be gathered throug the use of lexicon or comparing historical writings, how does this kind of situation, if true, fit into your system of knowledge.
BTW, you also mentioned the knowledge of all the content of the canon (speaking into each words) is not logically impossible, but only not given by God to anyone yet. To this I agree, thus it appears before we learn knowledge from the Bible, there is a pre-knowledge which is given directly by God to us without means.
Max,
When you say majority, do you mean the majority as of a certain age or time, or you are speaking majority to include the whole history?
Also when you say you don't believe in scribal error, I take it to mean, God preverse his word in one single family of manuscript tradition, is that right?
Mark Xu,
You asked Ryan:
"A further question, tools and resources like lexicon are complied by scholars using dictionaries and historical writings, sometimes (I don't process that scholarship), the precise meaning is to be gathered throug the use of lexicon or comparing historical writings, how does this kind of situation, if true, fit into your system of knowledge."
This is the same as when God teaches language to a person, it seems.
Also you asked me:
"When you say majority, do you mean the majority as of a certain age or time, or you are speaking majority to include the whole history?"
I mean the majority of HAND-written copies that are still extant. Next, you asked:
"when you say you don't believe in scribal error, I take it to mean, God preserve his word in one single family of manuscript tradition, is that right?"
Not necessarily. I think the differing manuscripts contain God's words, but not all of them. My opinion is that the majority texts contain all the right words, that is all. But you might ask why I say it's my opinion if I know it's God's word. Hmm, I haven't figured it out. I guess I just take it as an axiom. If I don't stand for something I'll fall for anything.
You also said:
"some argue [the Hebrew text] was written in the paleo or Samaritan form which does not have an ending form for any letter, if that is the case, it at least remove that special message in Isa. 9:6. But whether I know for sure it is the Aramaic square or paleo or other pictographical proto type, I really don't know for sure."
I think there's strong evidence the Torah was written in the paleo-script. The familiar square-script was invented 1000 years after Moses, it seems to me. This does not alter the sound or meaning of the language.
Mark,
"...how does this kind of situation, if true, fit into your system of knowledge."
I don't make any pretense of justifying empirical research on epistemic grounds. However, I do believe there is a practical application of empirical principles (link). In this context, the practical application would be opined study of the alternative interpretations available. We can go straight to Scripture to verify or falsify whatever information we supposedly derive empirically. Perhaps this paragraph will clarify what I mean (link):
But how, then, is one to account for the Scripturalist's behavior? If I cannot know that I am in dialogue, why can it seem that way? If I am going to be consistent with Scripturalism, I must indeed admit I am opining any conversation; however - and this is the point - the purpose of epistemology is not so much a justification of one's beliefs to others as it is to oneself. Self-realized problems with various epistemologies or one's own epistemology may be introduced through the medium of opinion; I was reminded, for instance, of the issue of the canon when I opined a "C"atholic asked me about it (see above link). When one considers that one's opinions are the ultimate products of God, and that God causes everything for a reason, it is not surprising that Scripturalists should venture into alleged communication: to measure what is opined against God's word. Hence, when a question comes to mind through the medium of alleged dialogue, as was the case with the canon, I returned to God's word to answer the question, a question which, even if a "C"atholic did not ask me, still enabled me to grow in grace and knowledge of God, enabling me to glorify in His sufficiency all the more. And that is the chief end of man, is it not?
"...To this I agree, thus it appears before we learn knowledge from the Bible, there is a pre-knowledge which is given directly by God to us without means."
A "pre-knowledge"? What do you mean, and why does it appear that way to you?
Ryan,
Thanks for your time to respond to my question, due to my background, I find it very hard to understand some of your professional words or structures, I don't mean you are unclear but I am not used to it.
-A "pre-knowledge"? What do you mean, and why does it appear that way to you?-
By a "pre-knowledge" I mean the principle of the Bible being the only infalliable source of our knowledge, or the only rule to judge other matters. This principle cannot be derived through the study of the Bible itself, but must be given directly by God through the Spirit to us.
Or state it further, the fact that the Bible consists of 66 certain books is something cannot be acquired in any mean through the Bible. This is our belief given by God.
The other thing I would like to ask you is how does historicism fit into Dr. Clark's system, I know Drake is also a historicist but I have not had a chance to ask him that.
"Or state it further, the fact that the Bible consists of 66 certain books is something cannot be acquired in any mean through the Bible. This is our belief given by God."
It is true there is no explicit table of contents delimiting what are the exact contents of Scripture. But as we are able to hear, listen to, and follow God's voice due to the self-authenticating nature of His word to those who do not suppress the truth - facts which Scripture does teach - we are able to know that there are "66 books." In other words, Scripture is self-attesting. Obviously, God cannot illuminate us apart from experience, but I don't think that mitigates against the Scripturalist principle that all knowledge is justified by divine revelation in general and [currently] Scripture in particular. You'll have to tell me whether this agreeable to you.
"The other thing I would like to ask you is how does historicism fit into Dr. Clark's system, I know Drake is also a historicist but I have not had a chance to ask him that."
What do you mean by historicism?
Ryan,
I got so busy lately at work and with my family that I have not many time to engagement in the conversation with you.
You wrote, "Scripturalist principle that all knowledge is justified by divine revelation in general and [currently] Scripture in particular. "
I agree with this statement (if I understand it correctly), and I have a few more concrete examples or scenarios I would like to see your evaluation if they are in agreement with scripturalism. I find using concrete examples help me to understand your view.
1) Historicism, in general I mean the notion that the Biblical prophecies are designed to foretell a certain concrete historical event. The particular question say for example, we believe in the Babylonian captivity, this prophecy was vindicated by the Scripture account itself, however, there are other stuff, say the AD 70 destruction of Temple, this is a quite common belief among many people that this is the fulfillment of certain prophecy, if this is true, the mode of the event is described in the Scripture, but the actual account of this event, from which we compared it to the Scriptural account of the description, was not Scripture, but various accounts from historian. In the instance of the Apocalypse, if the prophecies are future events after the 1st century, all accounts came to us through historians.
2) Numerology, Ireneaus taught us that the word Latineos added up to 666, thus many believed to be the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy in revelation. Also many believed in the sacred numerology of certain dimensions, distances, durations to contain historical event or rather chronology. (i.e. third day, 2,300 days, 7 months, 2 months, and etc)
3) Does Bishop Usher's chronology fits into Scripturalism or it is totally nonsense.
4) Some believe the heaven or stars are the work of the hand of God, thus shows the glory of God (evidenced from book of Job) just as the two tablets are also work of God's finger, is that nonsense to Scripturalism?
Thanks for your response.
I forgot to add this, Jesus told us when we saw the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to, no matter what that means, let us say (use a funny example), if this was fulfilled in December 21,2012, and a certain young man in 2035 reading a historical book about the horrible alien invasion of the Temple Mount, and the setting up his own throne in Jerusalem. The young man then say in his heart, this is indeed the fulfillment of Jesus's prophecy. Now, since the account comes to the young man through a historian, not the scriptural itself (I mean the alien invasion and the horrible war in Jerusalem), will this fit into Scripturalism?
1) I would categorize events whose occurrence we have come to believe in by means other than Scripture to fall under opinion. This is not to disparage the work of the historian - for everyone must act on their beliefs, some of which God may have determined to be stimulated by such work - but to protect philosophic knowledge from including contradictories. Now, I think it is perfectly reasonable to act as if our opinions are true even while fully realizing they may be false. That's why they're opinions. But noting apparent correspondence between events does not justify an assertion that they in every respect concur. I believe Clark points this out in respect of the crucifixion itself. The crucifixion is not only historically significant, it has metaphysical significance. But we can't attain knowledge of the latter via historic or empiric research. One could note all the features corresponding between the life of Jesus and OT prophecies of the Messiah, even to the extent that the belief that they refer to the same individual is relatively well-founded, but it is because such has been God-breathed that propositions pertaining to these events rise above relativistic criteria to absolute knowability. I hope this general reply makes sense of your particular examples. You can repeat specific questions if not.
2) I err on the side of caution here, though in respect to efforts in biblical theology I do think numbers can carry ascribed significance. For instance, newly born infants had to wait 8 days before being circumcised. Given what we know about the or at least a signification of circumcision (spiritual rebirth), that 8 corresponds to the days of [new] creation is a belief I hold. Might I be wrong? Yes. But in my mind, it explains the data better than the answer "8 was chosen arbitrarily." Perhaps there are clearer and examples which can rise to the level of knowledge, but the idea. More likely is that in the case of your example, people who go looking for numerical significance everywhere will find it everywhere because they will find a way to impute them everywhere.
3) To be honest, I have no idea. Maybe? Creation studies haven't captured my interest either.
4) Scripturalists would reply that the question is not whether the heaven or starts are the work of the hand of God or whether they serve to indicate His glory - for the Bible says both - the question is whether we can philosophically know such on the basis of anything other than divine revelation. The answer is no.
Mark,
Lemme give my 2 cents. You wrote:
"...however, there are other stuff, say the AD 70 destruction of Temple, this is a quite common belief among many people that this is the fulfillment of certain prophecy, if this is true, the mode of the event is described in the Scripture, but the actual account of this event, from which we compared it to the Scriptural account of the description, was not Scripture, but various accounts from historian. In the instance of the Apocalypse, if the prophecies are future events after the 1st century, all accounts came to us through historians."
That's a good question and I think I can answer it. When Jesus spoke of Jerusalem's demise, he said "All these things shall come upon this generation [of people living then - GENEA - or 40 years of time; see Matt 1]" (Matt 23:36). If we can know that the people Jesus spoke to are now dead, then we can know that 1st century Jerusalem has been destroyed. Well I guess it's my opinion that it happened, so it's good. Also Paul said the spiritual gifts would cease when "the perfect man" comes (Eph 4:13, 1 Cor 13:10). Also, he told his readers to act as if the hoped-for event had already happened (Eph 4:17, Rom 13:11-14), probably because it was so near (Rom 16:20). So it's clear that when the perfect man came, Paul's Ephesian reader would no longer need the special "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers." So if the gifts ceased, then the perfect thing has come. I don't see any obvious (key word) miraculous gifts today so I opine the perfect thing came.
Hallelujah! "Tabernacle of God is with men..." (Rev 21:3) that's good news!
"2) Numerology, Ireneaus taught us that the word Latineos added up to 666, thus many believed to be the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy in revelation. Also many believed in the sacred numerology of certain dimensions, distances, durations to contain historical event or rather chronology. (i.e. third day, 2,300 days, 7 months, 2 months, and etc)"
I doubt it... unless God specifically tells us the meaning of a number.
"3) Does Bishop Usher's chronology fits into Scripturalism or it is totally nonsense."
Yep, it's true. I believe the earth is young.
"I forgot to add this, Jesus told us when we saw the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to, no matter what that means, let us say (use a funny example), if this was fulfilled in December 21,2012, and a certain young man in 2035 reading a historical book about the horrible alien invasion of the Temple Mount, and the setting up his own throne in Jerusalem. The young man then say in his heart, this is indeed the fulfillment of Jesus's prophecy. Now, since the account comes to the young man through a historian, not the scriptural itself (I mean the alien invasion and the horrible war in Jerusalem), will this fit into Scripturalism?"
Jesus mentioned that in his discourse in Matt 24, and afterwards said "This generation [of people today - GENEA - or 40 years time] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (verse 34). That means the abomination was set up in the 1st century.
Max,
Thanks for your input, the example I set up is a joke just to make an extreme case.
My question is not really about the interpretation of these prophecies but whether historicism ever fit into Scripturalism. I am very slow to understand these matters, and I want to carefully learn them, that is why I keep using examples to have Ryan evaluate.
Coming back at Bishop Ussher's Chronology, I believe it is totally biblical, for I have actually spent time re-calculating the whole Genesis account. However, the critical issue comes when we are to calculate our current age using Anno Mundi, we need to find a reference point, in this case, it is Solomon's Temple, Babylonian Captivity, Cyrus's liberation of Jerusalem. Now, these accounts were only given by historians, so with the historian we can only calculate up to Cyrus using AM, but that cannot solve the problem of knowing for sure what exactly happened after that, seeing historical accounts are not revealed. You may use the 70 weeks to get to Jesus's time, but still, the history from Jesus to us can only be obtained through historian and the continuity of the calendar.
Ryan and Max,
Thanks for your help in evaluating my questions, I appreciate your time and effort in helping me to understand your views. I have learned a lots of philosophical ideas from your writing, but I find I am very slow in regard to philosophy, as I put most of my study in other biblical subject.
You wrote:" I would categorize events whose occurrence we have come to believe in by means other than Scripture to fall under opinion. "
Am I then right to say, things like the Captivity, Cyrus's liberation of Jerusalem is true knowledge (sure it is), but other things, say the actual fulfillments of other prophecies, whatever they may be, can only be opinion, because such we are only able to know through other accounts. (i.e. our confession calls the Pope that Man of Sin, and that Antichrist, and many other Protestant historicist interpretation of prophecy)
Then you wrote:" Scripturalists would reply that the question is not whether the heaven or starts are the work of the hand of God or whether they serve to indicate His glory - for the Bible says both - the question is whether we can philosophically know such on the basis of anything other than divine revelation. The answer is no."
So, if the Bible says the heaven declares God's glory and line by line it utters his majesty. Am I then warranted to study the stars and heaven to gain knowledge about God's glory? Or maybe even some hidden code as some learned men have supposed.
Back to a practical question which is related both to worship and chronology, the Sabbath.
I am not sure what view you guys hold to, but for me and Drake, since we come from the Scottish background, we observe the Sabbath day and refrain from all worldly employment and entertainment that day, in agreement to the Confession. However, a certain question arose to me two years.
Basically, my question is in the situation of DST, do we actually observe Sabbath till 1:00am Monday, or 12:00am Monday. To dig it deeper, how do we even know the Sunday in our current calender is truly and really a Sunday, or how do we know the calendar system of seven days a week has not been interrupted throughout the history by evil people. This either 1) requires your belief in the continuity of the calendar; or 2) belief in the preservation of the calendar system.
To dig even further, another more difficult question, arises, that is to say, WIHTOUT ex-biblical historical writings say the Talmud as suggested by learned Dr. Lightfoot, we don't even know Jesus was raised on Sunday. For this interpretation is solely based on late Jewish writings and reconking method,but not directly , not even remotely derived from the Scripture. My only solution is a belief in a some sort of preservation through the church.
Ryan and Max, can you help to comment on this using Scripturalism principle, I think the Sabbath is quite a good example, joining 1) chronology issue and 2) lexicon uses to determine biblical words (especially in this case, where the common interpretation violates the revealed biblical usage, but favors the ex-biblical usages)
Thanks!
"Am I then right to say, things like the Captivity, Cyrus's liberation of Jerusalem is true knowledge (sure it is), but other things, say the actual fulfillments of other prophecies, whatever they may be, can only be opinion, because such we are only able to know through other accounts. (i.e. our confession calls the Pope that Man of Sin, and that Antichrist, and many other Protestant historicist interpretation of prophecy)"
Yes. The status of a belief is only as strong as its foundational premises. We may have good reason, given our opinions, to think these things - for an argument can be perfectly valid without being sound - but because premises which are not ultimately founded on divine revelation are always subject to revision, it remains opinion.
"So, if the Bible says the heaven declares God's glory and line by line it utters his majesty. Am I then warranted to study the stars and heaven to gain knowledge about God's glory? Or maybe even some hidden code as some learned men have supposed."
No. That would be a leap in reasoning. That it has been divinely revealed that creation manifests God's glory does not imply we are able to know anything apart from divine revelation.
"To dig it deeper, how do we even know the Sunday in our current calender is truly and really a Sunday, or how do we know the calendar system of seven days a week has not been interrupted throughout the history by evil people."
Fulfilling divine commands does not require philosophic knowledge:
http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2011/05/science-and-importance-of-opinion.html
Extra-biblical traditions are to be examined in light of Scripture. To borrow and modify a popular saying by Wittgenstein, in regards to philosophic knowledge, whereof Scripture does not speak, thereof we must remain silent.
So in this particular instance.
What is the basis of your knowledge of 1) this coming 24th is truly a Sunday, or so to speak, a even number of 7 days passed between the first day and this coming Sunday, 2) the interpretation of Sunday as the day of resurrection, should it rather be an opinion?
Thanks!
"Coming back at Bishop Ussher's Chronology, I believe it is totally biblical, for I have actually spent time re-calculating the whole Genesis account. However, the critical issue comes when we are to calculate our current age using Anno Mundi, we need to find a reference point, in this case, it is Solomon's Temple, Babylonian Captivity, Cyrus's liberation of Jerusalem. Now, these accounts were only given by historians, so with the historian we can only calculate up to Cyrus using AM, but that cannot solve the problem of knowing for sure what exactly happened after that, seeing historical accounts are not revealed. You may use the 70 weeks to get to Jesus's time, but still, the history from Jesus to us can only be obtained through historian and the continuity of the calendar."
Any statements about AD / BC years are an opinion, I agree. The Anno Mundi statements would be biblical truth. I forgot whether it's possible to trace the number of years from creation to Jesus simply from the biblical data... I think the date of 586 BC is needed for that. Well actually you can get to 3418 Anno Mundi, and then get the corresponding BC date of 586 from historians.
"Back to a practical question which is related both to worship and chronology, the Sabbath. I am not sure what view you guys hold to, but for me and Drake, since we come from the Scottish background, we observe the Sabbath day and refrain from all worldly employment and entertainment that day, in agreement to the Confession."
Me and Drake differ in this, in that his eschatology is historicist and I am full-preterist. I believe the Sabbath was for the nation of Israel, and a type of Christ; and when the second coming happened (in the generation Jesus lived in), it was done away for good. Drake doesn't believe the second coming happened, so for him, every "jot and tittle" of the Law is still binding on Jews (Matt 5:18), and since the Gentiles were coming into the community of the Jews to be saved (in 1st century - for salvation is of the Jews, John 4:22, Eph 2:12), the Law would be binding on them also. But faithful Christians (who are true Jews) were dying to the Law (Rom 7:4) so they would not be bound by it anymore. God gave a grace period in that time (Acts 10:9-15), so that his new covenant people didn't have to obey the Torah, but the old covenant people were still bound by it.
God's people were righteous in Christ, by grace, and therefore by that mercy they were compelled to freely serve God (Rom 12:1) and walk in holiness (Rom 13:11-14). That's my view - Christians keep the whole Torah through Jesus. Rom 14:5-6 says that the day a man regards makes no difference... I recommend you check out Don K. Preston, he's pretty good (though I don't like his writing style).
-Peace
Mark,
"What is the basis of your knowledge of 1) this coming 24th is truly a Sunday, or so to speak, a even number of 7 days passed between the first day and this coming Sunday, 2) the interpretation of Sunday as the day of resurrection, should it rather be an opinion?"
1) Again, I don't claim I can "know" when the next Sunday is. But like I said in my last post and argued in the link I provided, fulfilling a command doesn't require knowledge, just opinion.
2) John 20:1. What we call "Sunday" was what was called the "first day of the week." The meaning is the same, and that's what is important. I see no difference between this case and the use of an extra-Scriptural word like "Trinity" insofar as each word is colloquially used to summarize some biblical doctrine[s] or saying[s].
Ryan,
Thanks for the input, I may not have put it very clearly, the particular question I have is not about the word Sunday itself, is about the interpretation of the biblical phrase into Sunday, this is a talmudic interpretation. The biblical phrase is a feminine cardinal numeric, plus genitive plural. What the talmudic interpretation has done is to ignor the plural, and to give the plural genitive noun another meaning, whether it is right or wrong, it is an interpretation.
The question is not to discuss the validity of the interpretation, but how does this particular example, namely, the interpretation of Sunday fits into Scriptrualism, or how do you view it from a scripturalist point of view.
I'm not following your question. Perhaps that is due to my lack of knowledge of Greek/Hebrew.
Ryan,
Sorry for the ambiguity, I mean the interpretation "first day of the week" is based on a wider historical context of Talmudic writings and other 2nd Temple Judaism sources, if we solely get our context in only biblical literature, we cannot arrive at this interpretation. Because literally, the text is, "First of the Sabbaths" which naturally may refer to the post passover (great day) seven weekly sabbaths before the pentecost which is the fiftieth day.
The word SABBATON can also mean "week" like in Luke 18:12. Jesus said he would be raised in 3 days, so that demands him rising on the day after the Sabbath. "First [day] of the weeks" just means "first [day] of each week."
Max,
Thanks for your input, no, this is not to argue for Drake's position, but to have Ryan to evaluate this particular interpretation in the context of scripturalism.
I am quoting from memory, Lk 18:12 does not have Sabbatwn, but a singular, and it is totally different a phrase than the 8 Sunday passages.
To make twn sabbatwn as of each week singular is an interpretation in the Talmudic context, you can only proof my fallacy of word study by using Talmudic interpretation, and second temple Judaism writings.
Also, just to make it a bit more complicated, the two instances of the appearance of the word sabbath in Matthew 28:1 are all plural. I have never seen anybody touch it, except some German in Bengel's work if my memory serves.
"I am quoting from memory, Lk 18:12 does not have Sabbatwn, but a singular, and it is totally different a phrase than the 8 Sunday passages."
All I said was, if SABBATOU (sing.) in Lk 18:12 can mean week, then SABBATWN (plur.) in Mt 28:1 can mean weeks. Do you disagree? I think I can paraphrase Matt 28:1 as, "In the end of the weeks [i.e. end of the 7th day], as it began to dawn toward the first [day?] of the weeks, came Mary..."
It's sort of like English where we say "at the end of the games" but it also means "at the end of the final game" but the latter is in a plainer style. The text was translated "week" because in English people just don't use the expression "end of the weeks."
Max,
My point here is not to argue in favor of Drake, but to show in order to grasp the full context, and not to commit word study fallacy, Talmudic interpretation has been incorporated which is not biblical revelation, so it appears to me, in scripturalism, the interpretation "first day of the week" can only be an opinion.
You wrote:"All I said was, if SABBATOU (sing.) in Lk 18:12 can mean week, then SABBATWN (plur.) in Mt 28:1 can mean weeks."
First of all, let us grant Sabbaton mean week in this particular Luke context, the Matthew 28 context is different, because Matthew 28's context is about one singular day, as we have a cardinal numeric, so it is not talking about one week but one single day of something. In Talmudic context, this is precisely how days of the week is reconked in that certain Talmudic writings, first day of the week, second day of the week, but still, it does not solve the plural issue, and without the Talmudic interpretation, one cannot arrive at the interpretation of "first day of the week", "first day of the weeks" the most literally, if we allow Sabbatwn to mean weeks. Still as you know, THE WEEKS is totally different than each week.
Then you wrote:" It's sort of like English where we say "at the end of the games" but it also means "at the end of the final game" but the latter is in a plainer style. The text was translated "week" because in English people just don't use the expression "end of the weeks." "
This further raise my question to Ryan, as how he will evaluate this, if you employ English grammar to justify your interpretation of the Biblical text. Your game and games example actually do harm to your interpretation, because the one cardinal numeric modify a day, not a week, because a week contains seven days, not just one day, but Sabbath is only one day.
Well, the rendering "In the end of the Sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of the Sabbaths" does not make much sense.
Max,
"Well, the rendering "In the end of the Sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of the Sabbaths" does not make much sense. "
This is not a rendering of any text, note, the two sabbatwn ONLY appear in Matthew 28:1, and in that text, it does not contain the phrase "in the end of", but "after" or "latter"
It may not make as good sense as the Talmudic interpretation, but so far as biblical theology goes, Christ died before the great Sabbath day or the passover day, and was raised on the first seven weekly sabbaths, the seven sabbaths are biblical terms, they follow the great annual sabbath day or the passover, and pentecost is the fiftieth day.
So this rendering will make sense, so the interpreters have to decide which one makes more sense or more probably, and in doing so, require ex-biblical account, and seems to me can only fall under opinion in the context of scripturalism.
PS. In biblical text, both Hebrew and Greek has another word for week, look into the Concordance, all of the week appearances in NT were that common word, except in the 8 "first day of the week" passage, the word is Sabbatwn.
"This is not a rendering of any text, note, the two sabbatwn ONLY appear in Matthew 28:1, and in that text, it does not contain the phrase "in the end of", but "after" or "latter""
I fail to see how "after the Sabbaths" makes good sense. Also, make sense of John 20:19, Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 - they also have the plural SABBATWN.
"It may not make as good sense as the Talmudic interpretation, but so far as biblical theology goes, Christ died before the great Sabbath day or the passover day, and was raised on the first seven weekly sabbaths, the seven sabbaths are biblical terms, they follow the great annual sabbath day or the passover, and pentecost is the fiftieth day."
How could he be raised on more than one day? I do not get it.
"PS. In biblical text, both Hebrew and Greek has another word for week, look into the Concordance, all of the week appearances in NT were that common word, except in the 8 "first day of the week" passage, the word is Sabbatwn."
What is it in Greek? I only see 9 instances of "week" in English translations of the NT.
Max,
It seems we are getting off the topic, I may not have chosen a good example in this context. But thanks for all your thoughts and input.
Post a Comment