If it would work, I'd triple dog dare Gerety to turn that post into a syllogism (supplying missing premises, etc). That way all the extra-Scriptural assumptions would be plain for all, including Gerety, to see. But, I think this is wishful thinking. Other than that, let's briefly respond to Robbins (oh, BTW, Sudduth had responded to that quote from Robbins on the Clark list numerous times and caught Robbins in some conceptual muddle-headedness):
"Knowledge is always true."
Deduce that from the Bible.
"One cannot know that 2 + 2 = 5."
Ironically, for Scripturalism, one cannot know that 2 + 2 = 4 either!
"Opinions may be true or false."
Deduce this from the Bible.
"Ignorance is neither true nor false."
Deduce that from the Bible.
"What distinguishes a true opinion from knowledge is an account of that opinion: It is giving reasons."
Can you do the deductions or give chapter and verse?
"[Michael] Sudduth dared me to provide any passage of Scripture that so defines knowledge."
Okay, so what comes next are the deductions of the verses.
"It seems to me that there are many."
What is this "it seems to me" business? No, you know that there are many, right? So let's have 'em.
1. "For example, 'Be ready to give a reason….'"
Yikes! Are you serious? This (part of the) verse from I Peter 3 is a "passage of Scripture that so defines knowledge" as "an account of [a true] opinion: It is giving reasons"? That's ridiculous. I mean, for starters, Peter is not even discussing the topic of "knowledge," much less trying to define it! Second, Peter isn't implying that the "hope" that Christians have is not known until the "reason" is given. Third, the "hope that is within you" isn't "every true opinion whatever." So, Robins goes far beyond the premises with his conclusion in this "exegesis." Finally, this verse wouldn't adjudicate between 1st and 2nd order epistemology. One could give a reason for why one doesn't need to give reasons for all knowledge claims.
2. “To the Law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to that Word, there is no light in them.”
Ummmmmmmmmm, yeah. Without even getting into this one, all one would need to do is cite the verse before 20 and it can be seen that Isaiah isn't defining knowledge as "giving an account of a true opinion": "19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.”
3. "In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
Nope, sorry. How in the world can one think this defines 'knowledge' in the way Robbins did, or that is even Paul's intent? This is an incompetent treatment of God's word. But Robbins's isn't done with this verse yet:
"All, not some."
Even if it were all, we haven't been given the exegesis of this passage where it means: Knowledge (in an epistemic sense, i.e., true belief with an extra ingredient that turns that into knowledge) is defined as "giving a account, a reason, for a true opinion." However, who says it's "all?" Where does Robbins get that that idea? Isn't he a Calvinist? Does "all" mean "all" just because it says "all?" I mean, even Gerety knows better. I found this statement on his blog today: "You’re starting to sound like those who cry ALL means ALL while asserting God’s universal desire for the salvation of all in 1Tim 2:4 and the word “world” in John 3:16 is proof of universal atonement."!
"Hidden, not available to discovery by men."
Well, since Robbins discovered this, I guess this is the proof we were looking for that shows he wasn’t a "man." If he didn't believe he was a man, why did he run for church office?
Anyway, as one email correspondent said regarding the above "exegesis":
As for Robbins' defense, it's rather telling that Scripturalists are"The Scripture is both the content and the account on knowledge."
so lazy when it comes to the actual exegesis of Scripture. Their high
view of Scripture seems admirable until you realize that it's only a
matter of form, not content.
Right, and that's why Scripturalism is self-referentially incoherent. I mean, sounds nice and pious, but it's definitely an instance of zeal without knowledge.
Oh, and to save Gerety the work, I'll offer his response: "The above is another hate-filled screed by another sub-Vantillian who can't see that Van Tillianism is on the way out. All they have are abusive ad hominems against the first and second greatest theologians of the 20th century. [Then, state the above in about 50 different ways, making what could be a one or two sentence response into a 10 page response.]"
Paul said:
ReplyDelete---
That's ridiculous. I mean, for starters, Peter is not even discussing the topic of "knowledge," much less trying to define it! Second, Peter isn't implying that the "hope" that Christians have is not known until the "reason" is given. Third, the "hope that is within you" isn't "every true opinion whatever."
---
Hmmm. This is the sort of prooftexting that says masturbation is required by Ecclesiastes 9:10 ("Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.")