ED: I did not realize that epistemological certitude was the purpose of revelation. I guess I have been mistaken...
SH: Yes, you’ve been mistaken—from start to finish.
For one thing, you’re confusing epistemic certainly in reference to the way in which inspiration secures the wording of Scripture with epistemic certainty in reference to the effect of reading or hearing Scripture on the mind of the audience.
These are two quite different things. For someone with your intellectual affectations, you’re a very sloppy thinker.
The point at issue is not the psychological state of the reader, but the autographic text of Scripture.
ED: Yes, this is why the actual self-revelation of God occurred in a person, not a text or a sermon.
SH: We’ve been over this ground before. Yours is an especially inept disjunction.
1.To begin with, 21C Christians know Christ by description, not by acquaintance.
Our knowledge of Christ is mediated by linguistic propositions recorded in Scripture.
2.You further disregard the teaching ministry of Christ. The self-revelation of God in Christ was by no means limited to the person of Christ, but consisted, in large measure, in his teaching. The spoken word—later committed to writing.
3.As has also been pointed out on more than one occasion, given your view that God is ineffable and inscrutable, a divine Incarnation would not disclose the nature of God.
ED: This is why Paul says that knowledge of God is foolishness--after all, the moment you have claimed certitude in quantifying the eternal nature of God is the very moment that you have forgetten the extreme scandal that God in Christ was massacred on a bloody cross. All categories for "knowing", in this light, are completely exploded.
1.Given your theory of language and denial of propositional revelation, you surrender the right of appeal to the Passion narratives or 1 Cor 1-3.
2.If “all categories of knowing are completely exploded,” then we don’t “know” that Christ was massacred on a bloody cross.
3.You also bungle the meaning of 1 Cor 1-3, completely missing the pervasive irony of Paul’s argument.
Paul is not saying that the knowledge of God is foolishness. To the contrary, the knowledge of God is the true wisdom.
His point, rather, is that divine wisdom is foolish to fallen men because fallen men are fools.
God is wise, but men are fools. Because men are fools, they equate true wisdom with folly when, in fact, what they deem to be wisdom is actually foolishness while what they deem to be folly is actually and supremely wise.