Thursday, June 26, 2014

The Future of Scripturalism Revisited: Contemporary Epistemology

In the past few years, I've written a few posts about how I think a Scripturalist epistemology can be plausibly and legitimately developed. These two (here and here) came to mind, although there might be others. When I write these kinds of posts, it’s in part a gentle nudge to Scripturalists that it’s time to take off the training wheels of Clark. 

It strikes me that when a Christian first reads and understands Clark’s theory of knowledge, the effect can be rather like when one first reads, understands, and accepts Calvinism through the likes of Sproul, Piper, etc. The result is an attraction to a sincere and seemingly successful attempt at Scriptural and logical consistency, an attraction magnified by contrast with previously encountered authors or belief systems which didn't seem to do the subject (soteriology, epistemology, etc.) justice. And this attraction naturally inclines one to defend said author or belief system. 

I mentioned Calvinism because that mirrors my own experience. To make a long story short, after I read Sproul's Chosen By God, I began to see God's word as something more than a set of historical facts that have had an impact on my life - a significant impact, but one I took for granted. In addition to that Christianity is right, I saw a way to understand why Christianity is right. I saw design, beauty, art, logic, God. I was interested, and with that interest came a desire to interest others. 

But given that I like to talk to people who don't agree with me, it didn't take long to find out that I would have to develop my understanding of Calvinism beyond the level of Sproul's presentation in order to convince many people as well as increase my own assurance of its tenability - which is fine, since as far as I recall, Sproul's book is meant to be introductory. That involved reading Scripture, other Calvinists, and other authors who disagreed with Calvinism. It also involved self-reflection, evaluating whether I could myself contribute any arguments for or against Calvinism.

When Scripturalists first read Clark, I think they usually similarly develop an affinity for his position and an appreciation for the man given the number of topics he was willing to discuss. Again, there is no problem with this. But if Scripturalism really is Scriptural, there is likely more to it than what one man has had to say about it. Even during his life Clark was happy to see other people try to find ways to strengthen what he thought was a sound, Christian epistemology, and certainly Scripturalism can be elaborated in light of scholarly epistemological issues that have arisen in the some 30 years since Clark died. 

Clark not only wrote about philosophers throughout history, he engaged his contemporaries. That's what Scripturalists need to be doing now. Objectivism isn't really scholarly, but John Robbins' book Without A Prayer is a fair example of the sort of applied epistemology I'm talking about. Robbins didn't seem to be parroting pre-established, stock arguments against Objectivism. I think he gave some good, original arguments. I appreciated that, which is why I didn't just recycle his arguments in a regurgitated, book report fashion when I wrote my own evaluation of Objectivism.

The point is that there are a lot of contemporary epistemological concepts Clark never talked about at length, and they're just as interesting as the ones Clark did talk about. To name a few:

Infinitism, coherentism, foundationalism, positism; internalism and externalism; occurrent and dispositional beliefs; doxastic and propositional justification; pragmatic, deflationary, coherence, and correspondence  theories of truth; infallibilism and fallibilism; warrant, proper function, justification, anti-Gettier case conditions; contextualism; closure; virtue epistemology; etc.

There are even more metaphysical and linguistic categories that Scripturalists since Clark - and Clark himself, for that matter - haven't really touched. On the other hand, here's what I don't think Scripturalism needs more of: [Lockean-like] empiricism is nonsense; analogical knowledge is nonsense; skepticism is nonsense; nihilism is nonsense. These are more or less true, and there's nothing wrong with pointing these out, but these points shouldn't constitute the extent of Scripturalism. They're points Clark and others have already made dozens of times. There's also nothing particularly Scripturalistic about these points. There are other, more pressing issues Scripturalists should be talking about, like what the meanings of knowledge, belief, truth, and justification are or should be - concepts basic to any epistemology but never really given a lengthy treatment by Clark in the context of alternatives, especially ones which have become more popular since his death.


My opinion: if Scripturalism is to have a bright future, Scripturalists need to start talking to and about people with opposing views that fall between the extremes of materialistic, empiricistic, skeptical atheism on the one hand, and Van Tilianism on the other. More often than not, that doesn't seem to be the case. In addition to explicating Scripturalism beyond the introductory level of, say, Crampton's Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark - again, there's nothing wrong with introductory material, but at some point a position has to adapt to new challenges or be abandoned - that's a lot of uncovered ground.

23 comments:

Max said...

Scripturalism is irrefutable. Sadly most Christians don't believe it. You said you like talking to those who disagree, so here I am disagreeing with you on some things. I made a theory that no one could be a Scripturalist before the day the Temple fell in Jerusalem in Christ's generation.

Also I no longer hold to all 5 points of Calvinism, only Unconditional Election (I believe God predestines all things), so that makes me a 1-point Calvinist.

So I am a Scripturalist but I am outside of Protestant orthodoxy. My view of Justification by Faith has become more "Catholic" than Protestant.

PS: You need to learn Greek! God will bless you for it! If I can do it, you can too! I read the Bible only in Greek now. Reply to my message to see how I learned to pronounce most ancient Greek words with just 1.5 years of practice.

Ryan said...

Well, I've written on most of those topics elsewhere on this blog, so if you want to discuss any of them, feel free to look at the tabs to find where I've defended my own views.

As for your theory, what is your reason behind it?

I'm not sure I have the time to learn Greek. What was your practice?

Max said...

"As for your theory, what is your reason behind it?"

I need at least until Sunday (my day off work) to give a fuller explanation, but in a nutshell it's the fact that Scripturalism depends on a closed canon, and new revelations of the Spirit (and the other gifts) would cease when the earthly Temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed on the great day of God's wrath. I still need to refine this theory. This implies the historical traditions about the book of Revelation and John's Gospel are wrong because the historians tell us that those books were written after AD 70 when they say Jerusalem was destroyed. Also they tell us that the apostle Paul's death took place about 67 AD, but Paul himself informs us that "I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion; and the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." [2 Ti 4:17-18] The heavenly kingdom came in AD 70.


"I'm not sure I have the time to learn Greek. What was your practice?"

Don't worry, it takes 30 minutes to 1 hour each day.

1. Go to http://www.bible.is/audiodownloader
2. Select Greek as your language
3. Download the free audio files
4. You will need an interlinear New Testament such as Jay P. Green's interlinear or George R. Berry's production.
5. It's best if you have an MP3 player to listen to the audio
6. Listen to the audio and try to follow along in the interlinear book. Be persistent, don't give up. It might take a year or so to become proficient and pick up new meanings.

Also I recommend you get other ancient Greek literature and a good edition of the Septuagint (Brenton or Rahlfs). Brenton's has the English text beside the Greek, but he only uses about 2 manuscripts for his text. Rahlfs uses more manuscripts, but no English translation. The best source of ancient Greek books is Harvard University's "Loeb Classical Library."

Drake Shelton said...

Max,

What if the "New Testament" was not written in greek?

徐马可 said...

Ryan,

I have not commented on any blog for almost one year now on biblical subjects.

The beginning part of your article echos strongly my feeling toward scripturalism. While I first started to read your blog and Drake's blog in early 2012, I was very excited to learn about this new idea. I spent a lot of time everyday thinking about these matters.

I took great caution in order to understand your position and Drake's correctly, and now I have my two cents.

I will cite what my former pastor (Drake knows who) had told me on this subject that scripturalism is very absurd because it presuppose (in that pastor's word, biblical study, which is empirical.) I did not understand him when I first asked for his opinion in mid 2012.

In this past Spring, after much consideration, I came to my own conclusion, and I agree with what that pastor had said that Scripturalism is a very absurd idea.

Just as Drake has now challenged the original language of the autograph, which I think is very reasonable as Aramic is the attested language used in that location in that time. But that is just one of the reason I concluded that Scripturalism is very absurd.

Ryan said...

"I will cite what my former pastor (Drake knows who) had told me on this subject that scripturalism is very absurd because it presuppose (in that pastor's word, biblical study, which is empirical.)"

Did you mean to say that Scripturalism presupposes empirical knowledge? Can you define knowledge?

Would you define it fallibilistically or infallibilistically (roughly, does it allow for the possibility of error or not)? Internalistically or externalistically (roughly, do we or don't we have access to justification makers)? I ask these questions because virtually no contemporary epistemologist would say that there is empirical knowledge and also be both an infallibilist and internalist.

There are too many problems with this view, like why we couldn't be wrong about our empirical beliefs (dream/brain in vat/demon arguments) or how empirical content could ultimately serve as a justification maker if (since?) its content is not propositional and only propositions can make something true or false. But an infallibilist, internalist view of knowledge just is that for which I have been making a case needs to be true and that in this special sense of knowledge, Scripturalism is necessary.

Clearly, knowledge can have multiple meanings; Scripture shows that. In its epistemic context it often can mean more than one thing, and pinning down which meaning is in mind is a precondition for any discussion as to what is and isn't absurd. Have you and your pastor considered these points? If so, in what way does Scripturalism presuppose empirical knowledge in the above sense, and how do you defend empirical knowledge in light of the above questions/problems?

徐马可 said...

Ryan,

Sorry for voicing my disagreement, I highly respect the work that you have done and your scholarly writings.

I have no intent to distrupt your endeavor in this field, I am simply sharing my own view since it took me 2 years to come to an understanding of your position, as you can see I am quite careful about it.

I will not speak for that pastor, but only for myself. We shall not say that Scripturalism presupposes empirical knowledge, as in your philosophical definite of knowledge, empirical experiences will not produe and cannot produce knowledge.

Philosophical knowledge requires the direct communication from the omniscient God who alone is the source of knowledge.

I agree with your definite of knowledge and the source of knowledge. So I shall not defend empirical knowledge, as you have endeavored to show already, that such is not knowledge, because there is always going to be possibility of error or misunderstanding.

The absurdity is in Dr. Clark's axiom,as I have been a student of bibilical study and textual study on my own for many years. It cannot be reaonably or honestly said that the King James Bible or other modern translation, or any single family of text can be the axiom of your philosophical system.

The formation of the cannon, the textual families, dispute about the original languages, difference in textual traiditon of single book, Jewish rejection of the NT, some Christian's reject of certain books, some other early Christians's inclusion of certain books. To base the axiom in the current Bible we have (I use KJV at home, not sure which one you use) is absurd.

Following the philosophical system of knowledge, any religious sect can base their axiom in their texts and claim to have infalliable knowledges, which is very problematic.

We do not possess philosophical knowledge that excludes any possibility of error.

Ryan said...

"The absurdity is in Dr. Clark's axiom,as I have been a student of bibilical study and textual study on my own for many years. It cannot be reaonably or honestly said that the King James Bible or other modern translation, or any single family of text can be the axiom of your philosophical system."

To my recollection, Clark never said that, and I certainly have never said that.

"Following the philosophical system of knowledge, any religious sect can base their axiom in their texts and claim to have infalliable knowledges, which is very problematic."

Why? We can subject their axioms to internal critiques just like they attempt to do to ours.

"We do not possess philosophical knowledge that excludes any possibility of error."

None whatsoever? Or none besides "direct communication from the omniscient God who alone is the source of knowledge"?

Max said...

"Max,

What if the "New Testament" was not written in greek?"

Galatians 3:10: “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not continue by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’”

Septuagint (Brenton) Deuteronomy 27:26: “Cursed is every man that continues not in all the words of this law to do them.”

Masoretic Hebrew Text (NKJV) Deuteronomy 27:26: “Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law by observing them.”

Paul quoted the Greek Septuagint.


Matthew 21:16: “Jesus saith unto them, Yea have ye never read, ‘Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?’”

Septuagint (Brenton) Psalm 8:2: “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise.”

Masoretic Hebrew Text (NKJV) Psalm 8:2: “Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants you have ordained strength.”

Jesus quoted the Septuagint, or maybe from a Hebrew text that we don’t possess today.


Acts 2:26: “my heart did rejoice, and my tongue was glad.”

Septuagint Psalm 16:9: “my heart rejoiced and my tongue was glad.”

Masoretic Hebrew Text (NKJV) Psalm 16:9: “my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices.”

Luke and Peter quoted the Septuagint.


Romans 11:9-10: “Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always.”

Septuagint (Brenton) Psalm 69:23: “Let their eyes be darkened that they should not see; and bow down their back continually.”

Masoretic Hebrew Text (NKJV) Psalm 69:23: “Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see; and make their loins shake continually.”

Paul quoted the Greek Septuagint.


1 Peter 2:6: “For it stands in Scripture: Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Septuagint (Brenton) Isaiah 28:16: “he that believes on him shall by no means be ashamed.”

Masoretic Hebrew Text (NKJV) Isaiah 28:16: “Whoever believes will not act hastily.”

Peter quoted the Greek Septuagint.

Septuagint cannot be broken!

徐马可 said...

Ryan,

Thank you for your reply. Let me start with your first response.

"To my recollection, Clark never said that, and I certainly have never said that."

The axiom, if I understand correctly is that the Bible alone is the word of God. By the word Bible, in generally people refer to either one translation, or a family of manuscript, or to some scholars, a combination of different families of manuscripts. First of all, to define Bible, or to present the exact content of the Bible, requires empirical studies, which always has possibility of errors. For instance, based on comparison of internal consistency, Drake rejected the book of James, while you do not, and some rejected the book of Revelation, while you do not.

To make the matter worse, let us not look at some "small" textual difference or disagreement, but let us look at the broader content of the Bible, things like authorship of the Gospel (who wrote it), dating, order of books or chapters, the collection of the New Testament, even that of the Old Testament, are decision of church councils, and not anywhere spelled out in the axiom or the Bible text itself.

If you get into Hebrew, you will find here and there, there are translation problems proposed by various scholars. Matter of fact, the Hebrew English dictionary is not contained in the Axiom, so there is always possibility of error of translation, as the Axiom was written in Hebrew, so there is always going to be some lost of information in translation, Hebrew is a very beautiful and cunning language. Not to mention about potential of major misunderstanding.

So your axiom is a result of many empirical diciplines including textual studies, linguistic, church history and personal experience. The modern bible presupposes many other things, and it does not qualify as axiom for your philosophical system of knowledge.


"None whatsoever? Or none besides "direct communication from the omniscient God who alone is the source of knowledge"?"

I shall say the latter, human being can only have philosophical knowledge through direct communication from God who is the source of knowledge.

You've heard many older Christians will say, "There are difficulties, but we shall figure it out when we go to heaven"

Allow me to say, the current method of communication through scrolls and scribes and translations cannot qualify as direct communication for your philosophical system which excludes all possibilities of error. Even the most conservative BJU religion department shall say only the original autograph are without mistake, all manuscripts have mistakes, thus will disqualify for an axiom.

Even if we allow, let's say, the KJV family to be the exact Word of God having all the important or major will of God of salvation and worship and Christian morals, let me ask you honestly, what knowledge do you get?

Our brother Drake disagree with you on what kind of food to consume, what day to rest and worship, whether the earth is motionless or orbiting, whether a certain group of people is the antichrist or Satan's friends, whether there is an eternal hell or torment, whether we shall still continue the Jewish law as we can, whether part of the axiom was written in Greek or not. Or to broaden the subject, whether it pleases Jesus to baptize an infant or not, whether it pleases Jesus to use unlevened bread or leavened bread in the sacrament, whether it shall be called a sacrament at all, whether birth control is lawful, did Jesus come in AD 70 or in another time, the precise nature of faith, the precise nature of justification, the nature of eternal generation, the nature of the Trinity, charging interest or not charge interest, slavery or all men were made equal and free, for thousands of years, millions of volumes were written, and we are still scattered in our understanding.

Let us face the reality, even if we grant Scripturalism is true, what kinds of knowledge can we get from it? Let me tell you the reality, Scripturalism is dead.

Max said...

Mark, I think I can answer your questions but I want to hear Ryan's response first.

Ryan said...

"The axiom, if I understand correctly is that the Bible alone is the word of God."

Per Clark:

I know no better presupposition than “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs.”

"First of all, to define Bible, or to present the exact content of the Bible, requires empirical studies..."

Why? The word "Bible" isn't even found in the Bible. It's just a word used for convenience. Clark wasn't opposed to that.

"For instance, based on comparison of internal consistency, Drake rejected the book of James, while you do not, and some rejected the book of Revelation, while you do not."

I noticed this line of argumentation several times throughout your comment: "two people disagree, therefore both can err." That doesn't follow.

"...let us look at the broader content of the Bible, things like authorship of the Gospel (who wrote it), dating, order of books or chapters, the collection of the New Testament, even that of the Old Testament, are decision of church councils, and not anywhere spelled out in the axiom or the Bible text itself."

Ok. Now that we're looking at those, what is it about them that is problematic for Scripturalism? More precisely, why do we have to philosophically know these things in order to know anything about what God has revealed? Or if we don't have to know them, what's the problem?

This seemed to be another trend throughout your post, especially at the end: you assume we need to have knowledge of a seemingly common belief x, so we must find a system which can account for such as knowable. Scripturalism can't account for x as knowable, so Scripturalism is wrong. That's just wishful thinking.

"If you get into Hebrew, you will find here and there, there are translation problems proposed by various scholars. Matter of fact, the Hebrew English dictionary is not contained in the Axiom, so there is always possibility of error of translation, as the Axiom was written in Hebrew, so there is always going to be some lost of information in translation, Hebrew is a very beautiful and cunning language. Not to mention about potential of major misunderstanding."

If something is always lost in translation, then why do NT writers quote the LXX as Scripture? This is assuming your own empirical (?) approach to how we learn what Scripture says. I could point out I don't think we can philosophically know what the Hebrew-English dictionary says or what various scholars say about Scripture, in which case it seems to me the objection itself is in need of rephrasing, if such is possible. You have your own axiom[s] which Scripturalists don't accept, so we would see no problem with some issues you might find problematic from your own perspective.

Ryan said...

"So your axiom is a result of many empirical diciplines including textual studies, linguistic, church history and personal experience. The modern bible presupposes many other things, and it does not qualify as axiom for your philosophical system of knowledge."

It appears you're confusing an ontological process with an epistemic foundation. Scripturalists would argue we could only know about the processes you mentioned having actually occurred if and only if revealed by God. Otherwise how you know of them begs the question. It's likely your answer derives from something other than Scripturalism - because if it derived from Scripturalism then I don't see why you would raise this issue - in which case you aren't showing Scripturalism to be internally inconsistent.

"I shall say the latter, human being can only have philosophical knowledge through direct communication from God who is the source of knowledge."

Then I don't see why empirical means of identifying or understanding or believing divine revelation are necessary.

"Allow me to say, the current method of communication through scrolls and scribes and translations cannot qualify as direct communication for your philosophical system which excludes all possibilities of error. Even the most conservative BJU religion department shall say only the original autograph are without mistake, all manuscripts have mistakes, thus will disqualify for an axiom."

Yes, and as you can see from the above quote, Clark has no problem with that. Clark doesn't believe knowledge is acquired through empirical means, except perhaps in the trivial sense of being on the occasion of a sensation or perception.

"Let us face the reality, even if we grant Scripturalism is true, what kinds of knowledge can we get from it?"

The obvious answer is "anything which can be deduced from the revelation as well as the revelation itself." That's what we can get from it. What we have gotten from it will vary over persons.

Regardless, whatever can be gotten from it is more than you can get from any alternative - you're welcome to disprove that if you can - so I don't see how you're in a position to reject what "little" which can be had for what "lot" can't be had.

Max said...

To enlarge on what Ryan said (Part 1 due to length limits):

"If you get into Hebrew..."

I propose that the Septuagint is an inspired and infallible translation, because it was indeed called Scripture by the apostles and I think God did this on purpose to show that non-Jewish peoples and languages are accepted by Him in the New Covenant. You might say the LXX is corrupt because in it Methuselah lived 14 years after Noah's flood, but a case can be made for Noah's flood affecting only his homeland, not the whole world. So Methuselah could have escaped and died 14 years later.

(an empirical argument:) If God wanted His people to read the Old Testament in Hebrew, why didn't He preserve any other ancient Hebrew writings through which to learn the ancient Hebrew language? Many Jewish Rabbis today admit they don't know the meaning of some ancient Hebrew words. Hundreds of ancient Greek books have been preserved for us to study and learn the ancient Greek of the Septuagint. We have virtually NO ancient Hebrew writings besides the Tanakh.

"Our brother Drake disagree with you on what kind of food to consume..."

Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. (1 Tim 4:4)

"... what day to rest and worship..."

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Rom 14:5)

"... whether the earth is motionless or orbiting..."

It is motionless (Psalm 104:5). It's also flat, but that's a whole other can of worms.

"... whether a certain group of people is the antichrist or Satan's friends..."

He is antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son (1 Jo 2:22). Satan has been defeated (Rom 16:20).

"... whether there is an eternal hell or torment..."

There is no eternal Hell. God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). He has purposed it; He will accomplish it. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; either in this life or the next! Again, can of worms. Oh well.

Max said...

Part 2:

"... whether we shall still continue the Jewish law..."

All the prophecies are fulfilled, so the letter of the law has passed away, but the spirit remains. Is it for oxen that God is concerned? (1 Cor 9:9)

"... whether it pleases Jesus to use unlevened bread or leavened bread in the sacrament..."

You got me there. It seems that the ability to baptize and give someone the Holy Spirit was itself one of the spiritual gifts that have passed away.

"... whether birth control is lawful..."

Don't think so.

"... faith..."

It's belief of a proposition as Clark ably defined it in the book What Is Saving Faith.

"... justification..."

It's when you become as innocent and righteous as Christ through faith. Quite simple!

"... Trinity..."

I actually suspect that there is no Trinity. I think Orthodox Christians condemn Unitarians because the Orthodox view of the atonement and forgiveness of sins depends on Jesus being an infinite person in order to somehow take an infinite punishment. But I don't see anything in the Bible about sin deserving an infinite punishment. In fact, Jesus himself said "concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32). According to Jesus it's only the Father who knows; not even the Holy Spirit knows (unless the Spirit is the same as the Father). This scripture seems to debunk the Trinity.

"... charging interest or not charge interest..."
"... slavery or all men were made equal and free..."

It is profitable to debate moral questions from the Pentateuch and follow it as best we can. I think God's Law can answer any moral question.

"for thousands of years, millions of volumes were written, and we are still scattered in our understanding."

It doesn't mean we should stop seeking God's truth in the Bible.

徐马可 said...

Ryan,

Thanks for all the comments and your patience and openness to critiques.

1. I have asked you to present a definition of Bible, this is important, because it is your axiom for knowledge. You answered that the word is used for convenience. This is not what I mean, what I mean is by Bible, you mean a collection of books, but can you produce me a single text or a family of texts, without any possibility of error is the Word of God? This is impossible, thus disqualify Scripturalism.

2. The difference in LXX with the existing Hebrew text indicated there was in circulation two families of old testament texts, in some way totally different from each others. This is a big blow to the certainly of the OT texts.

3. These two points indicated that the we do not have the axiom of Scripturalism. I am saying this because I agree with your definition of philosophical knowledge. If I can say, we cannot know until we go to heaven.

4. The latter part of your argument is hard to engage, because you have arbitrarily selected your axiom, when I challenged about this, you are simply defending this axiom which you have arbitrarily selected, and saying "what is wrong with that?" The reason for this is because I am attacking the foundation of Scripturalism, also the weakest part of it, because it was selected arbitrarily. As a honest student of Bible and history, you have to say, with even the most conservative, it is impossible to reproduce the content of the autograph, and the existing texts we have contains many uncertainties, thus Scripturalism may only be applied to the autograph, since there is no autograph, Scripturalism cannot be applied to the modern bible.

5. You mentioned that I always like to present disagreement between believers (particularly Drake's case) as an argument against Scripturalism. You have said it right, disagreements weakens the foundation of any system, particularly, disagreement between honest believers and seeker of God. I am challenging this system particuarlly on a social impact.

This system breeds absolute confidence in one's own understanding, because the absoluteness of one's belief, it is a bed for violence and absurd behaviors against other people, you have experienced such things yourself.

Max,

Thank you for your comments. Your comments are like fresh breeze from the ocean, I found myself in 99% agreement with all your comments, except the inspiration of the LXX and faith.

It appears you are a Unitarian Universality now (the traditional conservative ones), I admire these believers for their behaviors and testimony, but I can warn you and Ryan as well, Trinity (Triune God, one essence three unconceivable persons) is the foundation of Christianity, if you reject the Christianity, it is not far from rejecting Christianity (as we know it)as a whole.

Regarding the Law, I agree with your reading, that Paul does not teach the observation of the Jewish law, in Drake's argument, since Paul cannot contradict the law, he cannot teach the abolition of the observation of the Jewish law.

My method is simple, Drake's principle is wrong, namely there is no reason to suppose Paul cannot contradict the law, what Paul teaches clearly contradicts the Torah and Jesus, so Paul and the Torah cannot be taken consistently.

His mistake is that he wants to keep both of them, you cannot, you either choose Paul, or you choose the Torah.

Regarding Hell, the Torah never mentions about eternal torment, but the NT invented eternal torment in the Book of Revelation and Jesus's own teaching (although can be explained in light of the OT to mean something different).

徐马可 said...

Max,

Regarding your answer to my last point, I can only show you the example of Drake, this path will get you nowhere, you will lose friends, lose fellowship, lose jobs, and it can do no good to you and your family.

Ryan said...

"...can you produce me a single text or a family of texts, without any possibility of error is the Word of God? This is impossible, thus disqualify Scripturalism."

I cannot produce or point to a text or family of texts which I can philosophically know is the word of God written. Neither can you. This doesn't disqualify Scripturalism, though. I can know there is such a family of texts, because God has revealed He preserves His word. But I don't access that revelation through empirical means. You might ask how I know that "God preserves His word" is a divinely revealed truth apart from empirical means. I meant to link you to this post on Scripturalism and textual criticism in my last comment, with particular attention to the last half of it:

http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2013/05/clark-scripturalism-and-textual.html

Scripture - the inspired autographs or accurate translations thereof - corresponds to truth, so Clark often metonymically refers to Scripture or the Bible (physical texts) when he means divinely revealed truth (propositional, mental). The main point is Clark doesn't axiomatically begin with something physical, although I understand the confusion.

"The difference in LXX with the existing Hebrew text indicated there was in circulation two families of old testament texts, in some way totally different from each others. This is a big blow to the certainly of the OT texts."

This 1) doesn't answer my question about NT authors quoting the LXX as Scripture, and 2) begs the question by assuming empirical means of knowing. The first addresses your argument on your own grounds, the second on mine.

You go on to say "These two points indicated that the we do not have the axiom of Scripturalism," but you're not looking at Scripturalism through the lens of Scripturalism. You're appealing to an empirical axiom Scripturalist's reject in order to make your argument, and you already admit this other axiom cannot yield philosophical knowledge. But then why should I be concerned what you think these points imply, given they could be wrong on your own admission?

Ryan said...

"The latter part of your argument is hard to engage, because you have arbitrarily selected your axiom, when I challenged about this, you are simply defending this axiom which you have arbitrarily selected, and saying "what is wrong with that?""

Are you an antifoundationalist? Also, this is how apologetics works. You think Scripturalism is dead. You're "attacking" it, as you say, so of course you shoulder the burden of proof in attempting to show it's dead.

"Scripturalism cannot be applied to the modern bible."

I hope my link clarifies what it is Scripturalists assume as their axiom at the outset: not physical texts, but the divinely revealed truth itself to which the physical texts correspond.

"I am challenging this system particuarlly on a social impact."

That's absurd. Firstly, a philosophical system doesn't stand or fall on the basis of how consistent its adherents are in respect to their adherence. Secondly, you're overlooking all the agreement among believers. This whole line of conversation reminds me of how Roman Catholics sometimes argue against Protestantism on the basis of there being so many denominations. How do Roman Catholics lump these denominations into Protestantism in the first place? How do you lump believers together in the first place? Through common beliefs. But this is significant.

Jesus was the Son of God. He died for the sins of His people. He was resurrected in victory over sin, that those who believe in Him shall be saved. Simple truths, yes, but are they any less important than the more complex ones which are [naturally] where we find more disagreement? Scripture itself distinguishes between milk and meat.

"This system breeds absolute confidence in one's own understanding, because the absoluteness of one's belief, it is a bed for violence and absurd behaviors against other people, you have experienced such things yourself."

On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily lead to that, as I can also attest. So I don't see how this is relevant.

Max said...

"The difference in LXX with the existing Hebrew text indicated there was in circulation two families of old testament texts, in some way totally different from each others."

Zionists and Dispensationalists will tell you that Jews have perfectly preserved the original Hebrew texts unto this day, because the ethnic Jews still have the oracles of God entrusted to them as Paul said (Rom 3:2). But with the close of the old covenant, this privilege evidently ceased because we see the apostles quoting the LXX against the current Hebrew text. This means there was a Hebrew text in apostolic times, but it became corrupted. So, I deny your premise that the Hebrew Masoretic Text existed in apostolic times.

"I can warn you and Ryan as well, Trinity (Triune God, one essence three unconceivable persons) is the foundation of Christianity, if you reject the Christianity, it is not far from rejecting Christianity (as we know it)as a whole."

I am convinced that Orthodox Christians say this because of their faulty view of atonement. What bugs me is that Christians sometimes designate a cult by their denial of the Trinity or deity of Christ.

Now one group of people denies Christ's deity and teaches that God will eventually save everyone; another group says if you reject the deity of Christ, you will go to eternal hell. Which group sounds more like a cult?

"Regarding the Law, I agree with your reading, that Paul does not teach the observation of the Jewish law, in Drake's argument, since Paul cannot contradict the law, he cannot teach the abolition of the observation of the Jewish law."

I'm not sure what you mean...

"My method is simple, Drake's principle is wrong, namely there is no reason to suppose Paul cannot contradict the law, what Paul teaches clearly contradicts the Torah and Jesus, so Paul and the Torah cannot be taken consistently."
"His mistake is that he wants to keep both of them, you cannot, you either choose Paul, or you choose the Torah."

Can you explain why you think Paul contradicts the Torah and Jesus? I think they are all in harmony. Are you alluding to Matthew 5:19 ?

"Regarding Hell, the Torah never mentions about eternal torment, but the NT invented eternal torment in the Book of Revelation and Jesus's own teaching (although can be explained in light of the OT to mean something different). "

I don't think the NT says anything new about punishment by fire; we can parallel Rev 14 with Isaiah 34 and see that those fires eventually stopped burning. The fire is eternal on condition that something else exists; the fire ceases when the thing burns up.

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah suffered "eternal fire" (Jude 1:7). Same with the "eternal punishment" in Matthew 25:46. It probably refers to the sin against the Spirit, which shall not be forgiven, "neither in this age, nor in the age to come" (Mt 12:32), meaning the sinner would be hardened in sin the rest of their life on earth. Remember, sin ends at death, because "he that is dead is freed from sin" (Rom 6:7); and in my view, this means the punishment for sin ends at death also.

"Regarding your answer to my last point, I can only show you the example of Drake, this path will get you nowhere, you will lose friends, lose fellowship, lose jobs, and it can do no good to you and your family. "

Well, my family are all atheists anyway. The last church I attended was Dutch Reformed... boring sermons, dead church. I like a church where you can ask questions during the sermon! The speaker / pastor needs to interact with the audience! I don't know what church to go to, but something good must come if we read the Bible. I'll do it no matter what.

Also, I'm in Canada where it's taboo to talk religion at work. Whatever happens, it's God's will.

徐马可 said...

Ryan,

You are right, I cannot produce or point you to a family of text which I can know without possibility of error that it resembles the autograph. And I am very glad you are willing to admit the same.

For the past year, after the battle on Trinitarianism and seeing all that befell on some friends. I thought about this matter very closely and reviewed my study carefully, and I came to some broad agreement with the general idea of secular divinity schools. This is the reason while I said Scripturalism is dead, I actually admire the consistency of the philosophical system, the reason I say your axiom is arbitrary, is because now, I hold a skeptical view of the biblical text, there are many theories out there, some within the bound of historical Christianity, some without. I do not have my own theory, nor do I attempt to produce one theory of the origin of the text and different families. But I came to the conclusion that you cannot say with honesty after a careful study of the Bible, that it is 1) the word of God; 2) the preserved revelation of God or even 3)the heritage or text of the Jewish people. I also came to appreciate the "truth" of neoplatonism.

To say, using your word that the text correspond to the revealed truth of God is very arbitrary, for any text can be said to be correspond to the revealed truth of God, but also an insult to God. Because God is perfect and pure, if we attribute some rather flawed composition to God, I think it is bearing false testimony of God.

I admit I cannot mix social impact of the theory into a valid philosophical argument against your system, as you pointed out. But I do think my argument is very fair and common sense.

You have given me a very small creed, but as you know even we limit our scope to this small creed, yet, there are so many different theories just over each word of your small creed which you titled simple truth.

There are only two solutions, that I am learned and right, and other people are wrong because they are not sincere or they are fools. or that I am the chosen and others are misled by the devil. You have no other choice.

If you live consistently with your belief, you will have to live the life of Drake, the only chosen man among the lost and confused devil controlled world with Satan's children.

My friend, allow me to say something emotional, if you search the Scriptural, there is one prophecy is definitely fulfilled with no controversy, that He came not to bring peace but sword.

I was very saddened over the experience of some of my friends, and I really hope you do not fall into this pit.

Max said...

"I was very saddened over the experience of some of my friends, and I really hope you do not fall into this pit."

I want to hear their story. What happened?

Ryan said...

Mark,

You can't consistently argue that you have no theory regarding the Bible and yet also argue that all honest people will admit it may not be the word of God et. al. And what neoplatonic "truths" are you referring to? I was going to say that a more Platonic view of Scripture - consistent with Scripturalism - would be that the primacy of the intellectual world over the physical world which is patterned after it explains why we can say Scripture as writ corresponds to divinely revealed propositions without having to appeal to an empirical process or arbitrariness (which I still don't see on what basis you hold it as arbitrary, since nothing about the correct translations is flawed). What's the problem with this? Why can't this be true? Or if it can, why do you think it can be false? You can't argue against something unless you are for something.

"I do think my argument is very fair and common sense."

If it's not valid, it's not fair.

My friends and family have been relatively receptive and accepting of my theology. I'm sorry you haven't had the same experience, but I don't think you can paint everyone with the same brush. And again, we cannot judge a philosophy by who believes it but whether the reasons for believing it are sound.