Continuing the discussion with a Puritan-Reformed blogger:
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
>PR, I am bemused by your apparent confusion concerning my statements. My comments are just a few inches away on your computer screen; please do go over it yourself. Amongst other things I wrote, ““Are we able to understand the logical forms of such linguistic expressions of propositional truths in all its entirety?”
And all of this does not show that you have understood my point at all. You are attempting to argue from Man's experience, I am stating that we must argue from the TRUTH of God's sovereign control over language development as an axiom before we tackle any other problems.
>Here, the issue is “language” per se and expression of that language in its logical form. My contention is that, it is difficult for language simpliciter to be precisely symbolized into its logical form in some instances. How is God’s providence in the “development” of language pertinent to the issue within this context?
You did not listen. I have asked:
If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to express God's truth univocally?
You start with the human experience, and are trying to argue backwards to God and Truth, but that is the wrong anthropocentric way to go about it. Try tackling the problem from God's perspective.
>And how do you propose that we “process logically” the non-logical forms of language
I mentioned: "language cannot be sufficiently symbolized using logical forms", NOT "language cannot be symbolized using logical forms". Just because something is hard or even seemingly impossible to symbolize does not mean that it is not possible to do so. Unless you want to show otherwise?
>If not 100% certainty, how much do you suppose we require?
Certain doctrines of Scripture ie Eschatology wrt the Millinium are not derived deductively from Scripture, but according to a paradigm which is itself inductively derived from Scripture. I was thinking of such doctrines when I was saying that 100% certainty is not possible, NOT the basic doctrines of Scripture which we can be 100% certain of.
>>And is the opposite of 100% epistemic certainty equals 0% epistemic certainty?”
>
> I’m seeing a straw man here. ...
That was a pre-emption of the Emerging Church epistemology, or at least one of their options.
>Allow me to answer your question with this question, “Would you regard yourself as having knowledge of a particular doctrine/truth if you have any less than 100% epistemic certainty?” If yes, what degree of certainty would you admit?
Yes. The degree of certainty, which applies only to doctrines derived from a larger paradigm of Scripture and not basic doctrine, is dependent on how much explanatory power the doctrine has in light of all of Scripture.
>Who or what exactly determines the level of certainty to be held for any one doctrine? If you are Clarkian, you should be defending the “primacy of the intellect.” So as rationalists, shouldn’t we use reason? Or perhaps you have something from the Word of God – any thoughts?
Since when did the primacy of the intellect means ONLY the use of the intellect? Clarkans are not rationalists, and that accusation is a straw man. At least for me, the Holy Spirit does play the most vital role in making me able to discern truly rationally.
>I am asking this, NOT from a philosophical point of view, but from a biblical perspective. The hint is in the preceding comment
Which "biblical perspective"? So far, you haven't appealed at all to Scripture! We have been playing on the philosophical playground all the while. If and when we go to Scripture, all your skepticism will be shown to be similar to patterns of unbelief. Think about it: Since where in Scripture was there any of such skepticism but a trust in such basic things as the ability of language to communicate truth? I seem to recall one person in Scripture questioning the usage of language, and hissing "Has God said?" (cf Gen. 3:1).
5/10/08 00:19
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
>Question: Is God sovereign over His own inspired Word? If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the preservation/textual criticism of His very own Words of Scripture in the apographs/eclectic texts such that what we have in our hands is the very inerrant, inspired Words of the autographs unequivocally?”
And where in Scripture is that "promise" stated? God has promised to preserve His Word, but He did not state how He would do so, or that He would do so by preserving a "perfect manuscript". So therefore, your question is a false analogy.
5/10/08 00:22
Antithesis said...
Dear PR:
1) PuritanReformed wrote, “Question: Is God sovereign over language? If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to express God's truth univocally?”
And where in Scripture is that "promise" stated?
>Ditto; where in Scripture is that “promise” stated?
2) God has promised to preserve His Word, but He did not state how He would do so, or that He would do so by preserving a "perfect manuscript".
>Ditto; Did God state how he would superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to (perfectly) express God's truth univocally?” Does God need to state HOW he would do it?
3) So therefore, your question is a false analogy.
>In informal logic, this is not a false analogy. This is a reductio ad absurdum using the SAME line of reasoning you furnished. Think about it. “Is God sovereign over … ? If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the development of … ?” etc etc
If God is sovereign and cares enough to superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to express God's truth univocally and perfectly (and therefore the logical forms of the language of Scripture as symbolized in formal logic), wouldn’t God HAVE TO preserve the SCRIPTURE itself perfectly (otherwise what is there to express univocally and perfectly?)?
Don’t like the word “perfect?”
If you claim that language is not developed/superintended by God providentially to express truths perfectly, then it is a tacit admission that truths cannot be expressed in language perfectly. (which is self-defeating).
And by the way, unless the statements/words are themselves preserved perfectly, how would these “human languages [that] are able to express God's truth univocally” be able to express these truths perfectly? If the truths/words contained in the original statements/Scripture were not perfectly preserved, how would you propose that these truths be expressed perfectly together with their logical forms?
Unless you contend that, although the words of Scripture are imperfectly preserved, the languages are superintended by God to express the truths of these (lost and imperfect) words of Scripture univocally and imperfectly?
yours truly,
Antithesis
5/10/08 22:48
Antithesis said...
Dear PR,
1) And all of this does not show that you have understood my point at all.
>I disagree respectfully. I would counter that you have not understood my point at all.
2) You are attempting to argue from Man's experience, I am stating that we must argue from the TRUTH of God's sovereign control over language development as an axiom before we tackle any other problems.
>Ditto; what about the TRUTH of God's sovereign control over the preservation of His Word as an axiom? Thus far, I am simply showing how inconsistent your “claim” of God’s “sovereignty” is. Apparently, you claim that God cares enough/sovereign enough to superintend the [perfect] development of language to express truths perfectly and univocally, but is not sovereign enough to preserve the VERY TRUTHS/WORDS of Scripture perfectly. Now isn’t that inconsistency at best?
Unless, of course, you agree that language cannot express truths/propositions perfectly (albeit univocally?).
3) You start with the human experience, and are trying to argue backwards to God and Truth, but that is the wrong anthropocentric way to go about it. Try tackling the problem from God's perspective.
>Ditto; isn’t that what you do with textual criticism and the very words of the Bible? Prove me wrong.
4) I mentioned: "language cannot be sufficiently symbolized using logical forms", NOT "language cannot be symbolized using logical forms".
>Did I say that you said, "language cannot be symbolized using logical forms"? Read again, please.
5) Just because something is hard or even seemingly impossible to symbolize does not mean that it is not possible to do so. Unless you want to show otherwise?
>Why don’t you show me how language can be perfectly symbolized into its logical forms? As far as I’m concern, all linguists and logicians agree with my observation. It’s you who disagree. Therefore, the onus of proof is on you.
In the same vein, just because textual criticism isn’t perfect, it doesn’t mean “it is not possible” for God’s Word to be preserved perfectly. Like your own reasoning thus far?
6) Certain doctrines of Scripture ie Eschatology wrt the Millinium are not derived deductively from Scripture, but according to a paradigm which is itself inductively derived from Scripture. I was thinking of such doctrines when I was saying that 100% certainty is not possible, NOT the basic doctrines of Scripture which we can be 100% certain of.
>My question is, “How much epistemic certainty is it required for knowledge?” And I asked, “If not 100% certainty, how much do you suppose we require?”
I never asked whether a particular amount of certainty is “possible” or “impossible.”
Any thoughts?
7) That was a pre-emption of the Emerging Church epistemology, or at least one of their options.
Dear PR, my original discussion wasn’t with you. I was having some fun with our newfound friend Joel. Anyway, I’m no Emergent “friend.”
8) I asked, “Allow me to answer your question with this question, “Would you regard yourself as having knowledge of a particular doctrine/truth if you have any less than 100% epistemic certainty?” If yes, what degree of certainty would you admit?”
You answered, “Yes. The degree of certainty, which applies only to doctrines derived from a larger paradigm of Scripture and not basic doctrine, is dependent on how much explanatory power the doctrine has in light of all of Scripture.”
>I agree with your observation here.
9) I ASKED, “Who or what exactly determines the level of certainty to be held for any one doctrine? If you are Clarkian, you should be defending the “primacy of the intellect.” So as rationalists, shouldn’t we use reason? Or perhaps you have something from the Word of God – any thoughts?”
You wrote, “Since when did the primacy of the intellect means ONLY the use of the intellect?”
>DID I SAY “ONLY”???
9b) Clarkians are not rationalists, and that accusation is a straw man.
>Anyone acquainted with Clarkian thought would know that he IS a [biblical] rationalist, which is actually a compliment (unless – as Clark would say – you are an irrationalist?).
http://www.ontruth.com/apologetics.html
I quote Carrigan, “Gordon H. Clark … is a revelational rationalist.”
But again, you must have known this. ☺
9c) At least for me, the Holy Spirit does play the most vital role in making me able to discern truly rationally.
>There’s a name for this: it’s called the “logic of faith,” or “faith (as enlightened by the Holy Ghost)” plus “reason.” And I agree!
10) I wrote, “I am asking this, NOT from a philosophical point of view, but from a biblical perspective. The hint is in the preceding comment.”
Which "biblical perspective"?
>The Fall?
So far, you haven't appealed at all to Scripture!
>I thought you’d have known this!
We have been playing on the philosophical playground all the while.
>Really?
If and when we go to Scripture, all your skepticism will be shown to be similar to patterns of unbelief.
>Really? If Man is tainted by the Fall, is the intellect likewise tainted by the Fall? Primacy of the intellect?
11) Think about it: Since where in Scripture was there any of such skepticism but a trust in such basic things as the ability of language to communicate truth? I seem to recall one person in Scripture questioning the usage of language, and hissing "Has God said?" (cf Gen. 3:1).
>Think about it: Since where in Scripture was there any of such skepticism but a trust in such basic things as God’s ability to preserve truth/His word perfectly? I seem to recall one person in Scripture questioning the usage of language, and hissing "Has God said?" (cf Gen. 3:1).
My concluding word: I don’t disagree with Clark on many things. But if you would insist on “trusting” in God’s sovereignty, and advised that we shouldn’t “start with the human experience, and … [try] to argue backwards to God and Truth,” why is your faith in Man’s textual criticism (human’s ability) greater than your faith in God’s ability to providentially preserve His Word perfectly for the Church? Isn’t that inconsistency at best?
Your belief in God’s providence in guiding the development of language is obviously based upon the nature of God (where in Scripture does it say explicitly that God will guide the development of language such that logical forms can be perfectly symbolized, or that language can express truths perfectly).
I don’t disagree with this. In fact, if you are truly exercising your faith in God as one who has magnified his Word above all His name, do you think he wouldn’t preserve perfectly something – i.e. His Word - which He has magnified ABOVE ALL HIS NAME? (Ps 138:2). And you had the faith that he would guide the development of language to express truths of Scripture univocally and presumably, perfectly (or imperfectly? – which is then a tacit admission that truths cannot be expressed in language perfectly).
NKJV:
I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.
ESV is even stronger:
“I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above ALL things your name and your word. (Ps 138:2)
yours truly,
Antithesis
5/10/08 22:49
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
>PR, I am bemused by your apparent confusion concerning my statements. My comments are just a few inches away on your computer screen; please do go over it yourself. Amongst other things I wrote, ““Are we able to understand the logical forms of such linguistic expressions of propositional truths in all its entirety?”
And all of this does not show that you have understood my point at all. You are attempting to argue from Man's experience, I am stating that we must argue from the TRUTH of God's sovereign control over language development as an axiom before we tackle any other problems.
>Here, the issue is “language” per se and expression of that language in its logical form. My contention is that, it is difficult for language simpliciter to be precisely symbolized into its logical form in some instances. How is God’s providence in the “development” of language pertinent to the issue within this context?
You did not listen. I have asked:
If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to express God's truth univocally?
You start with the human experience, and are trying to argue backwards to God and Truth, but that is the wrong anthropocentric way to go about it. Try tackling the problem from God's perspective.
>And how do you propose that we “process logically” the non-logical forms of language
I mentioned: "language cannot be sufficiently symbolized using logical forms", NOT "language cannot be symbolized using logical forms". Just because something is hard or even seemingly impossible to symbolize does not mean that it is not possible to do so. Unless you want to show otherwise?
>If not 100% certainty, how much do you suppose we require?
Certain doctrines of Scripture ie Eschatology wrt the Millinium are not derived deductively from Scripture, but according to a paradigm which is itself inductively derived from Scripture. I was thinking of such doctrines when I was saying that 100% certainty is not possible, NOT the basic doctrines of Scripture which we can be 100% certain of.
>>And is the opposite of 100% epistemic certainty equals 0% epistemic certainty?”
>
> I’m seeing a straw man here. ...
That was a pre-emption of the Emerging Church epistemology, or at least one of their options.
>Allow me to answer your question with this question, “Would you regard yourself as having knowledge of a particular doctrine/truth if you have any less than 100% epistemic certainty?” If yes, what degree of certainty would you admit?
Yes. The degree of certainty, which applies only to doctrines derived from a larger paradigm of Scripture and not basic doctrine, is dependent on how much explanatory power the doctrine has in light of all of Scripture.
>Who or what exactly determines the level of certainty to be held for any one doctrine? If you are Clarkian, you should be defending the “primacy of the intellect.” So as rationalists, shouldn’t we use reason? Or perhaps you have something from the Word of God – any thoughts?
Since when did the primacy of the intellect means ONLY the use of the intellect? Clarkans are not rationalists, and that accusation is a straw man. At least for me, the Holy Spirit does play the most vital role in making me able to discern truly rationally.
>I am asking this, NOT from a philosophical point of view, but from a biblical perspective. The hint is in the preceding comment
Which "biblical perspective"? So far, you haven't appealed at all to Scripture! We have been playing on the philosophical playground all the while. If and when we go to Scripture, all your skepticism will be shown to be similar to patterns of unbelief. Think about it: Since where in Scripture was there any of such skepticism but a trust in such basic things as the ability of language to communicate truth? I seem to recall one person in Scripture questioning the usage of language, and hissing "Has God said?" (cf Gen. 3:1).
5/10/08 00:19
PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:
>Question: Is God sovereign over His own inspired Word? If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the preservation/textual criticism of His very own Words of Scripture in the apographs/eclectic texts such that what we have in our hands is the very inerrant, inspired Words of the autographs unequivocally?”
And where in Scripture is that "promise" stated? God has promised to preserve His Word, but He did not state how He would do so, or that He would do so by preserving a "perfect manuscript". So therefore, your question is a false analogy.
5/10/08 00:22
Antithesis said...
Dear PR:
1) PuritanReformed wrote, “Question: Is God sovereign over language? If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to express God's truth univocally?”
And where in Scripture is that "promise" stated?
>Ditto; where in Scripture is that “promise” stated?
2) God has promised to preserve His Word, but He did not state how He would do so, or that He would do so by preserving a "perfect manuscript".
>Ditto; Did God state how he would superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to (perfectly) express God's truth univocally?” Does God need to state HOW he would do it?
3) So therefore, your question is a false analogy.
>In informal logic, this is not a false analogy. This is a reductio ad absurdum using the SAME line of reasoning you furnished. Think about it. “Is God sovereign over … ? If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the development of … ?” etc etc
If God is sovereign and cares enough to superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to express God's truth univocally and perfectly (and therefore the logical forms of the language of Scripture as symbolized in formal logic), wouldn’t God HAVE TO preserve the SCRIPTURE itself perfectly (otherwise what is there to express univocally and perfectly?)?
Don’t like the word “perfect?”
If you claim that language is not developed/superintended by God providentially to express truths perfectly, then it is a tacit admission that truths cannot be expressed in language perfectly. (which is self-defeating).
And by the way, unless the statements/words are themselves preserved perfectly, how would these “human languages [that] are able to express God's truth univocally” be able to express these truths perfectly? If the truths/words contained in the original statements/Scripture were not perfectly preserved, how would you propose that these truths be expressed perfectly together with their logical forms?
Unless you contend that, although the words of Scripture are imperfectly preserved, the languages are superintended by God to express the truths of these (lost and imperfect) words of Scripture univocally and imperfectly?
yours truly,
Antithesis
5/10/08 22:48
Antithesis said...
Dear PR,
1) And all of this does not show that you have understood my point at all.
>I disagree respectfully. I would counter that you have not understood my point at all.
2) You are attempting to argue from Man's experience, I am stating that we must argue from the TRUTH of God's sovereign control over language development as an axiom before we tackle any other problems.
>Ditto; what about the TRUTH of God's sovereign control over the preservation of His Word as an axiom? Thus far, I am simply showing how inconsistent your “claim” of God’s “sovereignty” is. Apparently, you claim that God cares enough/sovereign enough to superintend the [perfect] development of language to express truths perfectly and univocally, but is not sovereign enough to preserve the VERY TRUTHS/WORDS of Scripture perfectly. Now isn’t that inconsistency at best?
Unless, of course, you agree that language cannot express truths/propositions perfectly (albeit univocally?).
3) You start with the human experience, and are trying to argue backwards to God and Truth, but that is the wrong anthropocentric way to go about it. Try tackling the problem from God's perspective.
>Ditto; isn’t that what you do with textual criticism and the very words of the Bible? Prove me wrong.
4) I mentioned: "language cannot be sufficiently symbolized using logical forms", NOT "language cannot be symbolized using logical forms".
>Did I say that you said, "language cannot be symbolized using logical forms"? Read again, please.
5) Just because something is hard or even seemingly impossible to symbolize does not mean that it is not possible to do so. Unless you want to show otherwise?
>Why don’t you show me how language can be perfectly symbolized into its logical forms? As far as I’m concern, all linguists and logicians agree with my observation. It’s you who disagree. Therefore, the onus of proof is on you.
In the same vein, just because textual criticism isn’t perfect, it doesn’t mean “it is not possible” for God’s Word to be preserved perfectly. Like your own reasoning thus far?
6) Certain doctrines of Scripture ie Eschatology wrt the Millinium are not derived deductively from Scripture, but according to a paradigm which is itself inductively derived from Scripture. I was thinking of such doctrines when I was saying that 100% certainty is not possible, NOT the basic doctrines of Scripture which we can be 100% certain of.
>My question is, “How much epistemic certainty is it required for knowledge?” And I asked, “If not 100% certainty, how much do you suppose we require?”
I never asked whether a particular amount of certainty is “possible” or “impossible.”
Any thoughts?
7) That was a pre-emption of the Emerging Church epistemology, or at least one of their options.
Dear PR, my original discussion wasn’t with you. I was having some fun with our newfound friend Joel. Anyway, I’m no Emergent “friend.”
8) I asked, “Allow me to answer your question with this question, “Would you regard yourself as having knowledge of a particular doctrine/truth if you have any less than 100% epistemic certainty?” If yes, what degree of certainty would you admit?”
You answered, “Yes. The degree of certainty, which applies only to doctrines derived from a larger paradigm of Scripture and not basic doctrine, is dependent on how much explanatory power the doctrine has in light of all of Scripture.”
>I agree with your observation here.
9) I ASKED, “Who or what exactly determines the level of certainty to be held for any one doctrine? If you are Clarkian, you should be defending the “primacy of the intellect.” So as rationalists, shouldn’t we use reason? Or perhaps you have something from the Word of God – any thoughts?”
You wrote, “Since when did the primacy of the intellect means ONLY the use of the intellect?”
>DID I SAY “ONLY”???
9b) Clarkians are not rationalists, and that accusation is a straw man.
>Anyone acquainted with Clarkian thought would know that he IS a [biblical] rationalist, which is actually a compliment (unless – as Clark would say – you are an irrationalist?).
http://www.ontruth.com/apologetics.html
I quote Carrigan, “Gordon H. Clark … is a revelational rationalist.”
But again, you must have known this. ☺
9c) At least for me, the Holy Spirit does play the most vital role in making me able to discern truly rationally.
>There’s a name for this: it’s called the “logic of faith,” or “faith (as enlightened by the Holy Ghost)” plus “reason.” And I agree!
10) I wrote, “I am asking this, NOT from a philosophical point of view, but from a biblical perspective. The hint is in the preceding comment.”
Which "biblical perspective"?
>The Fall?
So far, you haven't appealed at all to Scripture!
>I thought you’d have known this!
We have been playing on the philosophical playground all the while.
>Really?
If and when we go to Scripture, all your skepticism will be shown to be similar to patterns of unbelief.
>Really? If Man is tainted by the Fall, is the intellect likewise tainted by the Fall? Primacy of the intellect?
11) Think about it: Since where in Scripture was there any of such skepticism but a trust in such basic things as the ability of language to communicate truth? I seem to recall one person in Scripture questioning the usage of language, and hissing "Has God said?" (cf Gen. 3:1).
>Think about it: Since where in Scripture was there any of such skepticism but a trust in such basic things as God’s ability to preserve truth/His word perfectly? I seem to recall one person in Scripture questioning the usage of language, and hissing "Has God said?" (cf Gen. 3:1).
My concluding word: I don’t disagree with Clark on many things. But if you would insist on “trusting” in God’s sovereignty, and advised that we shouldn’t “start with the human experience, and … [try] to argue backwards to God and Truth,” why is your faith in Man’s textual criticism (human’s ability) greater than your faith in God’s ability to providentially preserve His Word perfectly for the Church? Isn’t that inconsistency at best?
Your belief in God’s providence in guiding the development of language is obviously based upon the nature of God (where in Scripture does it say explicitly that God will guide the development of language such that logical forms can be perfectly symbolized, or that language can express truths perfectly).
I don’t disagree with this. In fact, if you are truly exercising your faith in God as one who has magnified his Word above all His name, do you think he wouldn’t preserve perfectly something – i.e. His Word - which He has magnified ABOVE ALL HIS NAME? (Ps 138:2). And you had the faith that he would guide the development of language to express truths of Scripture univocally and presumably, perfectly (or imperfectly? – which is then a tacit admission that truths cannot be expressed in language perfectly).
NKJV:
I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.
ESV is even stronger:
“I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above ALL things your name and your word. (Ps 138:2)
yours truly,
Antithesis
5/10/08 22:49
No comments:
Post a Comment