tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post112078063429728335..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: "Biblical" rationalism is incoherentRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1124129644611278802005-08-15T14:14:00.000-04:002005-08-15T14:14:00.000-04:00I have to wonder about a man (if he is one) who hi...I have to wonder about a man (if he is one) who hides behind an alias and is afraid to put his name to his work, including the many “deep philosophic critiques” he posts on the web. Aside from his near total ignorance of the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark, many of his comments, including the one above, reveal more of an aversion to the truths of Scripture and the Westminister Confession than anything relevant to Scripturalism. Consider the “other propositions” Scum would have us inquire as presumably additional sources of truth and knowledge completely apart from Scripture. The WCF 1.2 states that the Scriptures were “given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.” I would have thought faith and life pretty much covered everything, but maybe Scum has some additional application? Disbelief and death perhaps? As homework he should be forced to look up all the references from where this doctrine is drawn then explain to the Christian what other sources of knowledge he should consult apart from Scripture for “guidance.” Additionally, God through Isaiah commands us; “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” To the careful reader, Isaiah is of course chastising those who would make similar claims as this particular version of pond scum. <BR/><BR/>OTOH I can see Scum’s appeal when I consider 2Tim 4:3. Van Tilians and like minded dialecticians need all the reassurance they can get. <BR/><BR/>Sean GeretySean Geretyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01483041680109436046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1120840865035116832005-07-08T12:41:00.000-04:002005-07-08T12:41:00.000-04:00Cheung's scripturalism reminds me of a quote from ...Cheung's scripturalism reminds me of a quote from Pascal, in Pensees 582. <BR/><BR/>"We make an idol of truth itself; for truth apart from charity is not God, but His image and idol, which we must neither love nor worship; and still less must we love or worship its opposite, namely, falsehood."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Even Calvin notes this recondite concept of our knowledge of God and of ourselves.<BR/><BR/>"Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone." (Institutes I:1)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Would it be to eastern to say we can know God in ourselves, only if we learn to know know ourselves in God ?Mark Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05068033811335325648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1120840527247681612005-07-08T12:35:00.000-04:002005-07-08T12:35:00.000-04:00Indeed, as far as Cheung is concerned, Playboy mag...Indeed, as far as Cheung is concerned, Playboy magazine could supply the incidental occasion for the transmission of Biblical propositions.<BR/><BR/>For that matter, would it not be more economical, on Cheung's view, to eliminate the Bible altogether? What's the material difference between occasionalism and direct, private revelation?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com