Epistemology Continued...
Click here for Part 2
Click here for Part 1.
In my last post I said this:
Ultimately, exist~dissolve and deviant monk have an outright unquestioned authority. I am not sure what it is.
I know I said that I'd take on the "Materialist Conception of God's Relationship to Creation" charge, but there are a few more things I need to note on the epistemological differences that fueled the debate a couple of weeks ago. I am now sure, as I noted in a comment in my last post, what his authority is, and I want to mention it, openly and clearly, and then pull some implications from it.
At one point in the correspondence, exist noted this as his "authority."
In my perspective of authority, something does not have to attain an absolute value in order to be considered authoritative. After all, in the kind of “authority” we are speaking about in relation to the Scriptures and councils, this value is applied, not inherent...
...the Scriptures and the affirmations of the councils are not authoritative simply because they “are,” as if they have an absolute, eternal value-set that has been lowered on the church. Rather, they are an authority because the church has placed itself under their rule, imbuing them with an authority to outline and delineate the parameters of proper belief. In this way, the “authority” of each is an act of faith that chooses to place itself under the teaching of the apostles, deliberately choosing to believe that they have delivered unto the church, through the guidance of the Spirit, a trustworthy message regarding what they have learned from Christ.
Note the words I emphasized above. I completely overlooked the implications of his notion of "authority" when I addressed them in the last post. If the authority of the Scripture, councils, and creed is derived from our "deliberate choosing" individually and corporately, then I must ask: who is really the authority? Logically, we are. Moreover, it follows from his comments that the Scriptures, councils, and creed are authoritative only if we give that position to them. I have two objections for exist in light of this.
First, exist~dissolve alluded that if we call the Scriptures the "self-revelation" of God, then the Scriptures must logically be consubstantial with God, and that would be idolatry. His position of authority permits him to decide for himself what idolatry is, but it annihilates any right for him to tell us what idolatry is. For him to do so, especially since he defines authoritative as a entirely subjective ideal, would imply that there is an objective authority by which he may judge us against. However, if he were to follow his premises to their logical outcomes, then it should not matter to him what I believe. Since he so ardently tells us how wrong we are, the Reformed creeds do seem to matter quite a bit.
Second, as noted in my comment on my previous post, Christ on several occasions mentioned that "His words shall never pass." Also, in John 12, Jesus tells us this:
44 Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."
Before I begin, the word "authority" in verse 49 was added for clarity by the translators of the NKJV; it does not appear in the Greek. However, when you read this text, you cannot escape the conclusion that, according to the words of Christ, men who do not receive the words will be judged those very words. If follows then that the words of Christ have intrinsic authority due to the fact that the Father is the Source of them. Two aspects of exist~dissolve's epistemology would not permit Christ to say this: (1) If the authority of Christ's words is a status granted by man, what right does Christ have to judge those who do not receive, and hence do not grant them such authority? (2) If language cannot convey literal truth, then (a) I shouldn't take them literally and (b) Christ again has no right to say that his words will judge me, because human language cannot communicate absolute, transcendental truth.
Reformed Cosmology is the Real Reformed Epistemology
Exist~Dissolve asserted this:
I would disagree with [Sola Scripture being the base presupposition of Reformed Theology]. The ultimate foundation of a Reformed worldview is its cosmology, one marked by materlialist conception of God’s sovereignty.
Deviant Monk tells us:
While I believe reformed cosmology is indeed the underlying theological presupposition, the ability of the individual to be the ultimate arbiter of truth would be the underlying epistemoloigcal presupposition.
In other words, they are accusing the Reformed of imposing a presupposed cosmology (concept of the universe's relationship to God) onto the Scripture. The authors of the Bible never intended their words to birth a "materialist conception of God" that we Calvinist--and most evangelicals at that--possess.
Both experience and a basic read of Genesis, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, the prophets, the gospels, the Pauline epistles, the general epistles, and especially Revelation tell me otherwise.
First, I rarely meet a Calvinist who became one without struggling for months to years with the issue. It took me about a year before I understood the significance of it--and Calvinism offended me greatly beforehand. Dr. R Stanton Norman, the professor of theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological seminary began with a quest to obliterate the claims of Calvinism and eventually became convinced of its truth. I can name countless names of established Calvinists--all of whom struggled with accepting it. In other words, none of them started with a "cosmology" they pressed on to the Bible. In fact, they all will tell you that it was Scripture that uprooted their previous "cosmology" at its foundation.
Second, I would like for them to demonstrate how Calvinists impose its beliefs on to the Scripture.
Next, I will address "a materialist conception of God and His sovereignty."
4 comments:
For me it was the study of the reformed position, which allowed me to slough off my own presuppositions and expectations of the character of God. After studying the issue deeply, I was able to see the problems I had with both sides. Only after the realization that I had assumed so much about both positions and about the character of God was I able to set down and give the Scriptures another honest reading. The actual writings of the reformers were nowhere near as influential in my current understanding as the Scriptures themselves. The teaching of the reformers simply allowed me to temper my presuppositions to the point where I could read the Scriptures without bias. I did not impose a Calvinistic bias on the Scriptures; they imposed one on me. I honestly have fought it tooth and nail but I am finding it a losing battle. Of course, this would be a futile exercise if I did not believe that the Scriptures were 100% accurate.
brent--
I completely overlooked the implications of his notion of "authority" when I addressed them in the last post. If the authority of the Scripture, councils, and creed is derived from our "deliberate choosing" individually and corporately, then I must ask: who is really the authority? Logically, we are. Moreover, it follows from his comments that the Scriptures, councils, and creed are authoritative only if we give that position to them.
I would stress that this is a misrepresentation of what I have advocated. As I said in my last response to you, the problem with your understanding of my position is that you are viewing the Scriptures and the church atomistically, as if they can be categoriezed separately. However, I specifically deny that such a bifurcation is possible. THerefore, this whole charge of self-determined authority is a misnomer, for I am not advocating that the authority of Scripture/tradition arises from the individual assent to it.
First, exist~dissolve alluded that if we call the Scriptures the "self-revelation" of God, then the Scriptures must logically be consubstantial with God, and that would be idolatry. His position of authority permits him to decide for himself what idolatry is, but it annihilates any right for him to tell us what idolatry is. For him to do so, especially since he defines authoritative as a entirely subjective ideal, would imply that there is an objective authority by which he may judge us against.
?? I have never advocated that the authority of Scripture/tradition is "an entirely subjective ideal." Therefore, I do not see that your critique is consequential to my actual position.
However, if he were to follow his premises to their logical outcomes, then it should not matter to him what I believe. Since he so ardently tells us how wrong we are, the Reformed creeds do seem to matter quite a bit.
The Reformed creeds matter to me only because they are, IMO, error that is promulgated to people who are less willing or able to critically engage and identify the serious errors upon which the creeds are established.
If follows then that the words of Christ have intrinsic authority due to the fact that the Father is the Source of them. Two aspects of exist~dissolve's epistemology would not permit Christ to say this: (1) If the authority of Christ's words is a status granted by man, what right does Christ have to judge those who do not receive, and hence do not grant them such authority? (2)
As I said before, the church affirms the authority of the Scriptures because they contain the apostolic witness, the testimony about Christ of those who learned at Christ's feet. Therefore, the authority of Christ's teaching is assumed by my position, and is precisely reflected in the church's attribution of authority to documents that contain the apostolic witness to such teaching.
If language cannot convey literal truth, then (a) I shouldn't take them literally
How would determine a literal "taking" of these words? Your position assumes a standard for literality (against which to compare a particular interpretation), even though such is a quite nebulous concept.
and (b) Christ again has no right to say that his words will judge me, because human language cannot communicate absolute, transcendental truth.
As I have said continually, my point is not a denial of the ability of language to communicate truth. My point, rather, is that human language cannot communciate truth in an absolute, transcendental (propositional) way. In other words, while it is possible to speak truth about God, I am merely denying that this truth-speaking somehow encapsulates the nature of divine, which assumption is foundational to the deployment of propositional language.
In other words, they are accusing the Reformed of imposing a presupposed cosmology (concept of the universe's relationship to God) onto the Scripture.
Well, it is not an accusation that is limited to Reformed theology: everyone brings a cosmology to the Scriptures.
The authors of the Bible never intended their words to birth a "materialist conception of God" that we Calvinist--and most evangelicals at that--possess.
If they didn't intend it, then why do you affirm such a materialist conception?
Both experience and a basic read of Genesis, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, the prophets, the gospels, the Pauline epistles, the general epistles, and especially Revelation tell me otherwise.
A "basic read?" What does this mean? I assure you, my "basic read" and your are entirely different things, be it in terms of cosmology, soteriology, etc.
First, I rarely meet a Calvinist who became one without struggling for months to years with the issue. It took me about a year before I understood the significance of it--and Calvinism offended me greatly beforehand. Dr. R Stanton Norman, the professor of theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological seminary began with a quest to obliterate the claims of Calvinism and eventually became convinced of its truth. I can name countless names of established Calvinists--all of whom struggled with accepting it. In other words, none of them started with a "cosmology" they pressed on to the Bible. In fact, they all will tell you that it was Scripture that uprooted their previous "cosmology" at its foundation.
I do not see that this is a particularly compelling argument. Everyone has to come down on a cosmology somewhere. What you have described above could just as easily be accounted for by the documented effects of successful propagandizing. There are examples of such "conversions" of influential thinkers in all areas of thinking, and all forms of cosmology.
I personally struggled for years with the errors of evangelicalism which I now oppose. Does not this example qualify in the same way as the "proofs" you have offered above?
"I personally struggled for years with the errors of evangelicalism which I now oppose. Does not this example qualify in the same way as the "proofs" you have offered above?"
Yes, but only if you consider the source which influenced your current position to be an authority. What we are contending is that our conversion came from studying the scriptures and using them as the proof texts for our current position. Therefore, since we believe the Scriptures to be sufficiently authoritative, our current position is correct whereas our former one, which was based on information external to the Scriptures, is incorrect. What is the source of the information which initiated your struggle? By what source other than your own rationale do you declare your former position to be incorrect?
Exist –
would stress that this is a misrepresentation of what I have advocated. As I said in my last response to you, the problem with your understanding of my position is that you are viewing the Scriptures and the church atomistically, as if they can be categoriezed separately. However, I specifically deny that such a bifurcation is possible. THerefore, this whole charge of self-determined authority is a misnomer, for I am not advocating that the authority of Scripture/tradition arises from the individual assent to it.
Your first presentation of your concept of authority certainly seem to imply that it was both the church and the individual who places himself/herself under the authority of the Scriptures, especially when you said, “the ‘authority’ of each is an act of faith that chooses to place itself under the teaching of the apostles.”
I understand that you may not believe the implication drawn from my analysis of your concept of authority. However, analysis still stand—regardless of the bifurication of Scripture from the creeds and councils I may make in my source of authority. In fact, in my analysis of your epistemology, I made no bifurication when presenting your authoritative sources. I noted that Scripture is on equal footing as the church councils in matters of authority.
I understand that in your view, the church corporately places herself under the authority of the apostolic witness of Christ. However, it is presumed that, in your view, a man must choose to place himself under the authority of the church. Logically, we still have the same problem as before: Do Christ’s words as documented in the Scripture have the power to judge the unbeliever, the one who does not receive the words of Christ and, consequently, does not place himself under the authority of the church?
I have never advocated that the authority of Scripture/tradition is "an entirely subjective ideal." Therefore, I do not see that your critique is consequential to my actual position.
Pardon my inability to connect dots. Could you then explain to me how Scripture and tradition are authoritative to people outside your expression of the faith?
The Reformed creeds matter to me only because they are, IMO, error that is promulgated to people who are less willing or able to critically engage and identify the serious errors upon which the creeds are established.
By your use of the word error, you smuggle in the notion of accessible and objective truth. For how do you know what is error without some sort of measure of what is correct?
How would determine a literal "taking" of these words [Brent: “If language cannot convey literal truth, then I shouldn't take them literally”]? Your position assumes a standard for literality (against which to compare a particular interpretation), even though such is a quite nebulous concept.
When I said, “I shouldn’t take them literally,” I was referring to the words, “Language cannot convey literal truth.” That statement operates as a literal. In fact, when you say that “standard of literality” is a “nebulous concept,” you again make a state you expect me to take literally, for the intended meaning for each word is quite clear.
As I have said continually, my point is not a denial of the ability of language to communicate truth. My point, rather, is that human language cannot communciate truth in an absolute, transcendental (propositional) way. In other words, while it is possible to speak truth about God, I am merely denying that this truth-speaking somehow encapsulates the nature of divine, which assumption is foundational to the deployment of propositional language.
You said this in response to my comment that, “Christ…has no right to say that his words will judge [an unbeliever], because human language cannot communicate absolute, transcendental truth.”
When Christ says, “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day,” He certainly implies that fact that the words He is speaking at this point in time, words spoken to human beings in a human language, carry the power to judge. If these words have the power to judge, then they must convey a transcendental meaning. In fact, in this account, Christ’s denotes the Father as the source of his words—and thus an intrinsic authority and power exist in them because God is the source of them.
If [the biblical authors] didn't intend [a materialist conception of God], then why do you affirm such a materialist conception?
I was presenting your position, not mine.
I do not see that [most Calvinists did not become so without a struggle] is a particularly compelling argument. Everyone has to come down on a cosmology somewhere. What you have described above could just as easily be accounted for by the documented effects of successful propagandizing. There are examples of such "conversions" of influential thinkers in all areas of thinking, and all forms of cosmology.
I would agree that this is certainly not a compelling argument for the “truth” of Calvinism, but it is a relevant argument to the charge of cosmology being the most fundamental epistemology in Calvinism. In most of the cases, the “propaganda” was texts of Scripture, not the subversive and brainwashing arguments of men. Ironically, your use of the word “propagandizing” formed a meaning saturated with emotional charge, which is the most effective tool of propaganda, by the way.
Post a Comment