Sunday, February 17, 2013

Illumination and Self-Knowledge

Before effectively banning me from further comments on his post on assurance, Sean Gerety, “replying” to my link to a chapter Clark has written on the subject in which he clearly supports self-knowledge by stating, among other things, that “We know that we know the Lord by keeping his commandments,” objected to my view on the grounds that it allegedly requires assured knowers to be infallible. He cites a quote by Clark to this effect. What he fails to mention is that he had earlier made the same argument to me privately, and I told him I never said knowers were infallible. In fact, I pointed out I have said just the opposite: the knowledge by which we have sufficient reason for assurance can be lost. Sean and I agree God’s truth is infallible and our possession of such is not. But that does not mitigate against the fact we can indeed [unmistakably] know infallible truth. As John Robbins said,
Truth and error are opposites. Truth, by definition, neither contains error, nor is uncertain, nor is liable to error. Knowledge, by definition, is apprehension of what is true. One cannot be said to know what is false. One can have false information, but one cannot have false knowledge. “False knowledge is a contradiction in terms.” What is true cannot be in error. What is known cannot be false. Therefore, knowledge is infallible. (Without a Prayer, pgs. 255-256)
Similarly, Clark notes that the very prophets who were the mediums God spoke infallible truth through were themselves fallible (cf. Karl Barths Theological Method, pg. 226). These men knew themselves, yet they were not infallible. Further, on pg. 245 of that same book, Clark not only distinguishes between inspiration and illumination but also explicitly supports the second premise of my argument for self-knowledge, viz. that only regenerates can justifiably recognize the Bible to be the word of God. As Sean has both conflated inspiration with illumination - once again misrepresenting my actual position in the process by asserting I must claim “extra-biblical revelation” - and said unregenerates can have epistemic knowledge, he really ought to read the following paragraph very closely:
Second, Barth confounds the inspiration of the Scripture with the illumination of the reader. He commends Luther for insisting that the word of Scripture can be recognized as God’s word only because of the work of the Spirit which has taken place in it takes place again and becomes an event for its readers. This second work “is only a continuation of the first.” Now, if this were so, the readers would soon be writing more Scripture; for since the first work of the Spirit, his work in the prophets, resulted in the writing of the Biblical books, a continuation of the same work would result in additional books of the Bible. Undeniably there is an illumination of some readers of the Bible. By the testimony of the Spirit a man is convinced that the Scripture is in truth the Word of God; by the Spirit’s illumination a believer may come to an understanding of a better understanding of this or that passage. Luther was right when he insisted that the Bible can be recognized as the Word of God only because of the work of the Spirit; but this is a totally different and distinct work. To recognize that the Bible is the Word of God is not to receive an additional Ten Commandments. Barth also quotes Calvin, Institutes I, ix, 3. But neither the quotation nor the chapter from which it is taken supports Barth’s view. Calvin is discussing the testimony and illumination of the Spirit, not the inspiration of the Bible; and he gives no hint that this work in the believer is only a continuation of that in the prophets. Quite the reverse: the chapter is entitled, “The Fanaticism Which Discards Scripture under the Pretense of Resorting to Immediate Revelations.” How better could Calvin deny that illumination is the same work as that which occurred in the inspiration of the Bible?

6 comments:

MikeD said...

You quoted Clark with approval as follows, "We know that we know the Lord by keeping his commandments."

Am I right that you would not take either instances of the use of the word knowledge (from the quote) as what you call philosophic knowledge?

The reason I ask is that below you say, "The knowledge by which we have sufficient reason for assurance can be lost." I take you to mean that we could have been wrong about the assurance you speak of, hence, it was not philosophic knowledge in the first place.

So if not philosophic knowledge, what type (definition) of knowledge is it?

Perhaps I'm missing the point of the quoting of Clark in the first place, but you attempt to prove (philosophic) knowledge of one's salvation by a deductive argument from knowing which propositions are God-inspired, while Clark is asserting knowledge (that can be lost) of one's salvation is possible from, dare I say it, the experience of obeying God's commands. Are not you and he speaking of two very different things?

MikeD said...

Not quite a wrench in the works but it's funny to note that Clark says in the link you provided, "It was good bread; I know!"

Probably should have said, "I opine!" to retain Clarkian clarity.

Drake Shelton said...

Ryan,

Sean G. does not deserve the amount of attention you give him. Your mind is too valuable to waste on that obstinate mule.

Drake

Ryan said...

MikeD,

"Am I right that you would not take either instances of the use of the word knowledge (from the quote) as what you call philosophic knowledge?"

No. I would take it that way.

"The reason I ask is that below you say, "The knowledge by which we have sufficient reason for assurance can be lost." I take you to mean that we could have been wrong about the assurance you speak of, hence, it was not philosophic knowledge in the first place."

No, what I mean is one can reject philosophic knowledge even as a Christian. He can entertain doubt even when such doubt is irrational.

"Perhaps I'm missing the point of the quoting of Clark in the first place..."

Because Sean and other Clarkians pay little attention to logical and biblical arguments.

"Clark is asserting knowledge (that can be lost) of one's salvation is possible from, dare I say it, the experience of obeying God's commands. Are not you and he speaking of two very different things?"

I don't think so. Scripture says a man can know his thoughts (1 Corinthians 2:11). I have no problem with experiential knowledge if such is justifiable and justified by Scripture.

Ryan said...

Drake,

"Sean G. does not deserve the amount of attention you give him. Your mind is too valuable to waste on that obstinate mule."

They're not for him, and I can usually write these posts in under two hours. He's just a useful foil at this point.

Anonymous said...

You might find this useful or interesting.

http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2013/02/scripturalism-skepticism-and-knowledge.html