Cross Examiner

How ironic that you (unintentionally?) juxtapose these two assertions together. Please read this closely and apply points 1-3 to the claims above. If the meaning of the points elude, I'll clarify.

Regards,
BGic

jbernier

I see no irony in craigart14's statement. "Data" and "analysis" are not "ultimate authorities." The term "authority" implies something (or someone) which prescribes that which is normative; neither data nor analysis do this. An "ultimate authority", properly speaking, is something to which one defers; analysis, properly speaking, is something which one does. An "ultimate authority", properly speaking, is prescriptive; "data", properly speaking, is descriptive. There is a qualitative different between "authority", "data" and "analysis" thus I see no irony.

Cross Examiner

He presupposes that his epistemology leads him to 'facts'.

jbernier

Not exactly. His presupposition appears to be that facts are independent of epistemology. This is a valid point. For instance, the Biblical texts exist independently of what we think about them. No matter what epistemology we utilize we still must come face to face with the reality of those texts. The task is not to make them conform to our presuppositions or presuppositions conform to the texts. This is a properly hermeneutical task in which we constantly ask ourselves "Are we thinking about the texts the way that the individuals who produced and first received the texts would think about the text or are we forcing presuppositions which are foreign to the text upon the text?"

RobertLW

I presuppose the God of the Bible and inerrancy logically follows that presuppostion. The errantist does exactly the same thing. They presuppose the Bible to be a work of man and errancy logically follows that presupposition. The mechanics of our approach is the same; it is our starting point that is different. This is what I have been trying to say. Our presuppositions dictate how we treat the evidence. My presuppositions also solve the problem of knowledge. If I start with God, I get knowledge and God. If I start with knowledge I get neither. I choose knowledge. You may want to choose knowledge but you cannot justify your knowledge and as a result it cannot be said you possess any true or real knowledge.





No, what it proves is that all of us are circular not wrong. You assume that that means we are all wrong. If you read back in our posts you will see that we are talking about whose "circle", if you will, is justified. A circle is only wrong if the starting point cannot justify itself and the only way for it to be so is for it to be self-authenticating. The Christian God is the only starting point that is self authenticating and thus the only justified "circle" is to start with Him. The honest atheist would admit that his knowledge is arbitrary (like Jbenier's) because he cannot ground it. You can either choose to deal with circularity and justify your epistemological basis for knowledge or remain arbitrary and exist in nihilism.






How could you complain if I actually used logic like that? (Which I do not) Are you saying that if I used logic like that I would be wrong? If so then you are admitting that logic is a universal, and according to the atheist (which I assume you are) no such universal can exist. Tell me, how can you justify challenging my logic when to you (I assume) logic is just electrical impulses passing through my brain? Maybe my electrical impulses are working better than yours? Or maybe in the deep Amazon logic works differently? No, you thoroughly expect everyone in this forum to use the universal "laws" of logic when making arguments. That expectation betrays your innate sense of universals, which can only be explained by the fact that the Christian God exists (see our past posts), and if the Christian God exists the Bible is inerrant.






God is eternal. God possesses knowledge. Therefore God's knowledge is eternal. Knowledge cannot exist apart from God because knowledge is grounded in Him.

Robert

RobertLW

Red herring? Bunny trail? I am asking you for your beliefs to try and determine why you believe the Bible to be errant. I do not see the irrelevance.





Nice try. Your entire worldview is self-admittedly arbitrary. Therefore everything you say and do is self-admittedly arbitrary. Of course you would argue Protestantism has fundamentally misread Paul, you wish to twist Christianity to suit self-serving purposes. You said it yourself, "St. Paul got it wrong". This argument betrays your intent to bend Christianity to your will. By your very own words, you (and you alone) determine what Paul got right and what Paul got wrong and you do so arbitrarily. By making such an argument, you betray your true feeling that you are autonomous and you will not submit to the sovereign authority of God. You do not ground your beliefs, worldview or epistemological basis in the Word of God, you try to ground them in worldly ideas. By grounding them in worldly ideas, it can be shown you exist in nihilism. You can call yourself a Christian just the same as I can call myself a Ford and go and sit in the garage.





Of course I did. I will stand behind what I say. I said that in light of their worldview in comparison to my worldview. This is a statement of my findings. I will say it again and again until someone can argue with me and show me that this is not the case. When I compare worldviews, I find the atheist to exist in nihilism and they deny God in order to retain autonomy. The atheist must also borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of the non-material universals they use every day. (i.e. morality and logic) Don't agree? Show me where I am wrong. Don't accuse me of "ad hominen" on a grand scale and meanwhile say "Protestantism has fundamentally misread Paul and this has resulted in a sort of masturbatory, anti-semitic triumphalism." See the difference? The former is a statement of findings when comparing worldviews and the latter is an arbitrary opinion.





Ok, so I will say it this way. Any epistemological basis for knowledge is circular. If an epistemological basis for knowledge is not circular then it is arbitrary. Think what I said is not correct? Provide one example otherwise. I have demonstrated that my epistemology self-authenticating. Therefore my epistemology is correct and I am not left with having to acknowledge a degree of uncertainty.





So let's use a little less "sloppy' term. I will go with epistemological basis for knowledge.





I have found certainty in my cultural studies and theology. I have done so because my epistemological basis for knowledge is justified. Think I am wrong? Do not give me your arbitrary opinion, give me a sound argument by which I can compare.




So I will be a little less sloppy and stick with epistemological basis for knowledge.





Agreed. (Exception is the word "too")





You cannot base your evaluation of the Word of God in worldly ideas. This is your error. The text never claims "this text in inerrant" but it speaks to the nature of God. If you ignore the nature of God and base your evaluation of the text on what man is, you cannot say that you are more honest to God. In order for neo-orthodoxy to be valid, one must first change the Biblical definition of inspiration. In order for your comments above to make any sense you must first disregard the nature of God. The sense of inerrancy is not derived from Greek or Jewish thought but is grounded in the very nature of God. I do not base my evaluation of the Word of God in what the writers thought as they wrote (through the eyes of imperfect men), I base my evaluation in the nature of God Himself. God is perfect. Therefore his inspiration and revelation would be perfect. My perspective is not thoroughly modern and is not foreign to the thought of the people who produced the scriptures. They record the nature of God and also thought of God as perfect. This is where inerrancy is, and should be, grounded. See what I am saying here? You cannot be "more honest to God" if you disregard God's nature.





You said you have no justification for knowledge. You refuse to justify your epistemological basis for knowledge because you fear circularity and you have admitted it is arbitrary. For you to say, "I do indeed" (have justification for knowledge) and then say "I cannot claim complete certainty about my position" is self-contradictory. The surprising thing is you contradict yourself during the same thought process and do not recognize it. I am not speaking of "levels" of justification; I am speaking of justification, period. There are no "levels" of justification, either your epistemological basis for knowledge is justified or it is not. Do you really think it is proper for you to say, "My epistemological basis for knowledge is arbitrary, yet justified." You might as well say, "My epistemological basis for knowledge is kinda, sorta, somewhat justified." I find this to be absurd. It is because we are talking about intangibles it is important that our epistemological basis for knowledge should be justified. Mine is self-authenticating (self-justifying) and therefore certain.





This is not a fundamental problem with inerrancy, if it is, then it is a fundamental problem with errancy. Why? Because either you presuppose God inspired the authors or you presuppose they were simply writing as men. To say, "I will read this text presupposing maybe, maybe not" is both dishonest and absurd. Either you presuppose that a perfect God inspired the writers, or you do not. Your problems exist whether you presuppose perfect inspiration or do not presuppose perfect inspiration. This is why it is key to justify your presuppositions. The question for you is, "do I ground my interpretation of this text in God, or do I ground my interpretation of this text in the world".





You stated that if one attempts to justify an epistemological basis for knowledge then one is circular, if one does not justify an epistemological basis for knowledge then one is arbitrary. If this is not an accurate description of what you believe, please clarify. What is your epistemological basis for knowledge and how is it justified?





It would seem that you are saying that we cannot know anything outside of inductive reasoning. How do you justify inductive reasoning apart from God? Would this not be contrary to Christian thought? If God is perfect, would not the revelation of God be also perfect? It would seem as though you are willing to divorce God from His perfection. How is this justified? If it is true that God's revelation is given in an "intersubjective" manner and was dialogical, would it not also be true that such revelation would be reflective of God's nature and as such be perfect? So yes, they were part and parcel of the revelatory process but the process itself was perfect and without flaw.

Yes we take the history of scripture seriously. However, one must recognize that much of what scripture speaks about is morals. The moral standards in scripture are universals and therefore not subject to historical conditioning.

Also, by your comment, "Biblical writers were not possessed by the spirit of God and just become automatic writer a la New Age mediums" it would appear as though you are not familiar with the doctrine of inspiration.

Furthermore, your statement "Since all ideas and viewpoints are the products of particular histories we can never know anything apart from the histories in which we are located;" makes history your transcendental argument. Would you like me to start reducing this to absurdity now or later?





If one cannot be honestly certain about one's "first principle", how can one be honestly certain about anything at all?





My full point was that all reformed Christians agree on the canon. The line is fuzzy for the rest of the Christians because they disregard the Word of God in favor of caprice. I do not favor caprice. This is why I separate myself from arbitrary forms of Christianity.





God's word does provide for us the guidelines for determining the canonical books. Only if one disregards Gods Word does the line get fuzzy.





There is a consensus among reformed Christians.





There is strong evidence that the HB canon was fixed in the centuries prior to the birth of Christ. You cannot say "nothing was canonical in the first century" with the degree of certainty you exhibit. Neither Christ nor the Apostles ever quoted from any book of the apocrypha. It may (and that is a generous may) have been a part of the "books" but the evidence is much stronger that they were never considered canonical.





I was simply stating a little more clearly what you inferred. I didn't actually say you said it.





Which means I am correct if one were to follow the definition of deuterocanonical. It was also deuterocanonical in the Vulgate.

Robert

RobertLW

Thank you for your explanation. Makes a little more sense that way. What made you change your mind?

Robert

RobertLW

No, the former is a set of instructions and the latter is clarification on those instructions





I don't see two different creation stories. The first is an historical overview and the second are the details of the first.




No, I am suggesting the Bibles we have today contain scribal errors.





Yes, that is what I am suggesting





The nature of God.





What basis do you have for concluding that the reason you use, in concluding what is or what is not fact and the analysis thereof, is reliable?

"The "reasonable" argument for the existence of "reason" IS a circular argument, a demonstrable flaw in thinking. To claim that the "reasonable" version of "reason", which no one has ever seen, is "reasonable" is to base one's conclusion on unobtainable, non-verifiable data. It's wishful thinking masquerading as empirical thinking"

I will also offer you this, a better example of flawed thinking is capriciousness.

Robert

RobertLW

Strangely enough, I agree with most of the words you use here. (There is an oddity for you.) No, we do not think about those who would receive the text, WE receive the text. Yes, we should think about what the writers thought, but I am thinking that I mean this in a different way than you do. I think you mean, and please correct me if I am wrong, that we need to look at the flawed observation through the eyes of ignorant men. I mean we need to look at what they meant as they wrote it. You are correct in that we do not want to force a presupposition on a text but I do not think that I mean the same thing as you. We all have presuppositions, there is no way to get around that. The point is to get to what the text actually means and not what it means to individuals. The ONLY way to do that is to ground your knowledge in God and not the world.

Robert

Cross Examiner

I wish I had more time to write but I'll simply second this and stay out of Robert's way for a bit.

Regards,
BGic