"One naive objection to the axiom of revelation
crops up repeatedly: Don’t I have to read the Bible?
Don’t I have to know that I have a book in my
hands and that that book is the Bible? Don’t I have
to rely on the senses to obtain revelation?
First, this objection begs the epistemological
question, How does one know, by assuming that
one knows by means of the senses. But that is the
conclusion that ought to be proved. The proper
response to these questions is another series of
questions: How do you know you have a book in
your hands? How do you know that you are reading
it? What is sensation? What are perceptions? What
is abstraction? Tell us how some things called
sensations become the idea of God. The naive
question – Don’t you have to read the Bible? –
assumes that empiricism is true. It ignores all the
arguments demonstrating the cognitive failure of
empiricism."
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/101a-AnIntroductiontoGordonHClark.pdf
There are two basic problems with this riposte:
i) How do we know the arguments demonstrating the failure of empiricism? By what means, apart from sensory perception, do we come to know what those arguments are? How do we attain an irrefutable knowledge of these irrefutable arguments?
ii) How can a Clarkian ask “How do you know you have a book in your hands?” unless a Clarkian knows what a book is, and what a hand is? How did the Clarkian acquire his knowledge of sensory objects like books and hands–without which he couldn’t formulate a skeptical question about books and hands? How did a Clarkian acquire his knowledge of the English language–without which he couldn’t formulate a skeptical question in English?
The problem is not with question of the empiricist, but the question of the Clarkian. The problem is not with what the empiricist assumes, but what the Clarkian assumes in the very process of trying to deny his operating assumption.
The Clarkian couldn’t question the existence of hands and books unless he had some prior knowledge of what these were. Does the Clarkian think we’re born with a knowledge of books and hands? Are we born knowing every book in the Library of Congress?
The Christian approach epistemology in this way: The knowledge I have of my own being is more sound that I do of things outside of myself - i.e., the physical, objective world. The kingdom of God and the spirit of God are within me, and I know them in the same way I know myself, not in the same way I know the physical world.
ReplyDeleteRevelation comes from within for the Christian and is more sound than that of the physical world.
A) I disagree that the knowledge I have of my own being is any more or less sound than the knowledge I have of things outside myself, given the fact that self-delusion is a very real possibility.
ReplyDeleteB) The kingdom of God/spirit of God are not inside sinners; we are all born sinners.
C) If "Revelation comes from within" then there's no point to having a Bible. Why bother with it? You have "the spirit" and "the kingdom of God" giving you revelation, you sure don't need the Bible.
But all that means is that you're a New Age wannabe, not a Christian.
If the Scripturalist distinction between knowledge and opinion is granted they seem to think that calling something an opinion means an end of the matter. So they can talk about hands and books without ever having to explain why or how they can talk about hands or books.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteA) I can be deluded about the outside world. I can't be deceived into believing that I exist. Wasn't that Descartes' point?
B)My point is for the Christian, for whom the spirit within has been resurrected and whom the Holy Spirit is in.
C)The Bible is only for the immature Christian. Did Jesus need the Bible? Did Paul? I note that textual criticism claims the earliest Christian manuscript we have in 1 Thessalonians, written even before the Gospels, and that letter was written to an established church. How was conversion possible without the New Testament?
ANDREW SAID:
ReplyDelete“If the Scripturalist distinction between knowledge and opinion is granted they seem to think that calling something an opinion means an end of the matter. So they can talk about hands and books without ever having to explain why or how they can talk about hands or books.”
Yes, they can talk about it, but unless words correspond to objects, what does a skeptical question even mean or denote? To formulate a skeptical question, Robbins must use words. And the words have to pick out corresponding objects. If you extend the skepticism to the relation to between word and object, then you can’t even pose a skeptical question that doesn’t question its own intelligibility. The question because self-referentially nugatory.
Jeff Carter said...
ReplyDelete“The Christian approach epistemology in this way: The knowledge I have of my own being is more sound that I do of things outside of myself - i.e., the physical, objective world.”
To the contrary, the Christian approaches epistemology in this way: God created our sense organs. God also placed the percipient in a sensible world. Hence, our sense organs are trustworthy to furnish information about the sensible world–as long as we make allowance for the natural limitations of any medium.
“I can be deluded about the outside world.”
Can you? Based on what? The ability to imagine delusive thought-experiments?
That doesn’t prove that you can actually be deluded about the outsider world. Rather, that only means you can imagine yourself to be deluded about the outside world.
I can imagine many things. I can imagine that I’m Superman. Does that mean I can be Superman?
“My point is for the Christian, for whom the spirit within has been resurrected and whom the Holy Spirit is in.”
i) If you espouse Cartesian skepticism, then that’s the point at which the evil genie kicks in.
ii) It’s the Bible that identifies the Holy Spirit.
iii) Unless you’re speaking metaphorically, God doesn’t resurrect spirits-–he resurrects bodies.
“The Bible is only for the immature Christian. Did Jesus need the Bible? Did Paul?”
i) Apart from the Bible, how do you know who Jesus was? Apart from the Bible, how do you know who Paul was?
ii) Jesus frequently referred his audience to the OT scriptures. So did Paul. Paul also referred his audience to eyewitness testimony regarding Jesus. Testimony which has since been committed to writing, in the form of NT Scripture.
“I note that textual criticism claims the earliest Christian manuscript we have in 1 Thessalonians, written even before the Gospels, and that letter was written to an established church.”
That’s a thoroughly ignorant statement. The dating of 1 Thes isn’t based on textual criticism. Rather, it’s based on reconstructing the chronology of Paul’s life from the Book of Acts, the extant letters of Paul, and general information about the period.
“How was conversion possible without the New Testament?”
It wasn’t by means of private revelation. Rather, it was by the spoken word–where the written word was unavailable.
Jeff said:
ReplyDelete---
A) I can be deluded about the outside world. I can't be deceived into believing that I exist. Wasn't that Descartes' point?
---
That you know that you exist isn't much. You can still be deluded about the nature of who you are. In fact, you are (by "you" I mean the universal you, which includes you specifically too, but which would also include me and everyone else).
The fact of my existence doesn't tell me all that much about who or what I am. It's not insignificant, naturally, but there's far more to know than simply that I exist. Am I a good person or an evil person? I can't answer that question by probing myself--I need an external standard.
You said:
---
My point is for the Christian, for whom the spirit within has been resurrected and whom the Holy Spirit is in.
---
But you've conveniently left out how a dead, unbeliever becomes resurrected and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. Even if I believed the rest of what you said, you're skipping hundreds of steps that are sort of necessary for you to establish, ya know...
You said:
---
The Bible is only for the immature Christian.
---
Apparently you've never read it.
Regardless, doesn't this invalidate your previous point? After all, you specifically say "Christian" in the above, so you are referring to someone who has the kingdom of God and the spirit in himself (to use your terms), yet the Bible is still needed right? Doesn't that mean that [ahem] the spirit sorta isn't doing his job there under your theory???
To address some points a little out of order, you said:
---
I note that textual criticism claims the earliest Christian manuscript we have in 1 Thessalonians, written even before the Gospels, and that letter was written to an established church. How was conversion possible without the New Testament?
---
I was unaware that we had an inspired apostle in our midst, one who was getting revelation from God on par with Scripture! Tell me, Jeff--if God is giving you revelation right now, why are you not doing what Paul did? Why aren't you writing it down and proclaiming it to the nations?
Is it because it doesn't match what the rest of the Bible says? Or maybe it's because what Paul did is vastly different than the kind of revelation that you think you're getting from God, which means that your above point is rather moot.
In any case, the above is the only thing that could possibly constitute an "argument" in anything you've written so far. But it relies on a complete misunderstanding of what Scripture is.
1) In one very limited sense, it is true that the entire Bible is not necessary for one to gain salvific knowledge of Christ. Indeed, I think that you have that in the Old Testament alone. However, this brings us to:
ReplyDelete2) The New Testament greatly clarifies what is presented in the Old and makes it easier for anyone to grasp the Old Testament. It was given to us because it's useful. God has revealed more of Himself through the New Testament, and His greatest revelation is through Christ Himself. Which brings us to:
3) There is no longer any continuing revelation from God. Hebrews begins with the following:
---
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
---
The reason I included verse 3 is to show that if God has revealed Himself to us through His Son, then there is nothing better by which He could possibly reveal Himself. In the past, God used shadows and types; now Jesus has come.
Since we have all this already, there is no need for us to have continual revelation granted to us, as if Scripture was not sufficient already. There is therefore no reason to believe that "Revelation comes from within for the Christian" (as you originally claimed).
As it is, God has revealed everything in Scripture and you stand condemned for saying, "That's not enough, God."
To mop up, you said:
---
Did Jesus need the Bible?
---
First, that's a stupid question and you know it. But secondly, yes. He used Scripture all the time. When Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus, Jesus didn't respond back by saying, "I feel from the Spirit that you're wrong." Rather, He quoted Scripture back. When He went to the synagogue, He quoted Isaiah to the Pharisees. He condemned the Jewish leaders for not knowing the Scriptures. The examples are endless.
Jesus COULD have said, "By my own authority I rebuke you." But He didn't. He referred to Scripture.
Seems that he definitely held a higher view of Scripture than you do.
And I maintain that if quoting Scripture was good enough for Jesus to resist Satan, then it's good enough for us. Again, we have no reason to claim extra-biblical revelation.
You said:
---
Did Paul?
---
Same as above. Paul quoted Scripture many times. Read Romans, for example, and see how often he quoted it.
When you realize how often people who have apostolic authority instead quoted Scripture, you'll see how your claim that the Bible is for the immature Christian demonstrates that you ARE that immature Christian.
Steve said
ReplyDelete'Yes, they can talk about it, but unless words correspond to objects, what does a skeptical question even mean or denote? To formulate a skeptical question, Robbins must use words. And the words have to pick out corresponding objects. If you extend the skepticism to the relation to between word and object, then you can’t even pose a skeptical question that doesn’t question its own intelligibility. The question because self-referentially nugatory.'
My point was they think calling something an opinion means they don't have to explain how or why they came to believe it. I don't think this is correct. If they want to talk about, more so believe in, hands and books and words on a page I think they should explain themselves because I cannot understand how their scepticism allows them to.
I admit this is giving an inch where your objection, which I hadn't considered, does not, but then, perhaps, they are less sceptical than they think they are.
ANDREW SAID:
ReplyDelete"...perhaps, they are less sceptical than they think they are."
I'm sure that's true. It's a pose-the way pomos pretend to deny absolute truth–even while they denounce "white privilege," &c.
Andrew:
ReplyDelete"My point was they think calling something an opinion means they don't have to explain how or why they came to believe it".
Here's something one Scripturalist (Gerety) has said: "I think it is more important to provide an account for the things you believe are true."
So, either they believe their opinions are true or false. If they believe that they are false, they should drop them. If they believe that they are true, they need to try to "provide an account" for them. If they cannot, then their epistemic status isn't positive. In fact, they're unjustified. Thus, there's still the question, why, on Scripturalist grounds, should they have a positive cognitive attitude toward books and hands and such.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteThat is more or the less what I was trying to say, though better put and more direct to the point.
They need to tell us why they believe in books and hands.